Project Reality Forums

I still find that a scope is best because it gives a lot more accuracy over everything over 15m away from you. If you're in a CQB situation and you're not the guy shooting then you're probably dead anyway. If you're expecting someone then the scope is just as good as the irons because a doorway is a doorway, 4x zoomed or not. I.e. basically in CQB either you're surprising them and can fire from the hip, or they know you're coming and basically you play the stalemate 'patience game', seeing who gives up first and walks into the others' field of fire through a doorway/down stairs. And if you have guys grenading then you just hip fire anyway, no point scoping when you can run and gun after it's gone off.

Whatever works is what you should choose, nothing wrong with ironsights. But I personally find the scope more versatile, especially in non-urban places. But still choose it on Jabal/Kokan Skirmish and get a respectable KD.

Like I said, one thing the scope allows you to do is kill people instantly if your deviation is settled. No argument, there's a larger target on the screen - what was a body sized target is now a head sized target. If you could hit them with ironsights you can now headshot them with a scope - Great for a SL to take out the enemy AR before your squad attacks.

The thing about scopes in CQB isn't about visuals imo, as you can make it work for you...its that you move more slowly than a irons user.

I've been trying to find a way to increase teh scoped-in speed while crouched, but it just won't happen!

Reflex-/iron-sights are better close range yes.
However, nailing a headshot (e.g nme sticking head up behind a wall)
beyond a 100 m will become easier with a scope. Unless maybe if you are sitting on a 42" screen. Most don't.

I almost never get to use a scope, play as medic close to 100% of the time.
This has made me very comfortable with unscoped and I handle them just as good or better then most.
That said:
The few times I do play something else I do take ACOG (or similar) and I feel like a freaking marksman every time hehe. Only map I wouldn't take it is on djunglemaps or similar. Even on Ramiel/Muttrah I'd go for ACOG.
The advantages of having zoom certainly outweighs the disvantages in almost any area.
Learn to pointshoot at close distances. The goal is to take on the nme on your terms, that includes using proper distancing.

Those saying that reflex are better allaround are plain wrong. It's really not an opinion IMO hehe.
If you are playing it safe, i.e that is striving for thar 0 in deathrate, you will stay away from cqb if you can. 90% (loose figure) of battles fought in PR do not warrant use of reflex/iron. Ranges fought benefit ACOG users.

But, it's not an all or nothing question. You got a 6 man (or bigger nowadays) squad, have some ACOG's and some without. So that when you need to get in close you have your pointmen-irons clearing rooms or similar.
My first pick not having ACOG is LMG actually. He doesn't get tunnelvision as easy and does better what he is supposed to do, supress the nme. Leave the killshot for the rifleman-ACOG

Mellanbror wrote:My first pick not having ACOG is LMG actually. He doesn't get tunnelvision as easy and does better what he is supposed to do, supress the nme. Leave the killshot for the rifleman-ACOG

Why would a severely underpowered type of weapon do the killing if LMG's excel at it? LMG's with their LAZORZ!!!!11!! accuracy and minimal recoil are the kings of small arms, especially the 5.56x45mm LMG's.

Souls Of Mischief wrote:Why would a severely underpowered type of weapon do the killing if LMG's excel at it? LMG's with their LAZORZ!!!!11!! accuracy and minimal recoil are the kings of small arms, especially the 5.56x45mm LMG's.

Well friend, the answer to that is in my previous text aswell as in your own.
You were handed a protip, take it in or don't =)

LMG's not only do a better job at suppresing he enemy, but also at killing them. Leave the killshot for scoped rifleman? Pff, the LMG will turn enemies in Swiss cheese when their deviation has settled down. Unscoped AR is only good if you plan to get into a lot of CQB situations. Taking LMG's without optics hinders the squads ability to inflict casualties to the other team. LMG's are automatic sniper rifles in PR. Although, there are some maps on which having a SAW with iron sights will wreck chaos. Like in Korengal Valley. Whether or nt have a scope onthe LMG depends on the way you intend to use it.

Mellanbror wrote:Well friend, the answer to that is in my previous text aswell as in your own.
You were handed a protip, take it in or don't =)

Protip? Hah, hardly. You can keep these kinds of protips to yourself. LMG's excel not only at suppresing(as you said), but also at turning enemies into Swiss cheese. Using them for suppresion and leaving "the killshot for riflemn-ACOG" is rather foolish.

Best thing about the AR is that it can kill (i.e. 'Wound') someone from any distance on the map in one burst. Takes a lot of co-ordination to get riflemen to do that, and hate to say it but most can't hit the target anyway in PR.

When your AR has killed a bad guy in the open that's when riflemen come in, they can surpress all of his mates who are trying to flank/revive him. The AR continues to actually kill them. If the rifleman wants to kill them he'll need a scope and the rare ability to headshot.

The AR does the killing, everyone else generally has to try and look busy, even though usually they aren't hitting anything. A case against unscoped AR is the Insurgency game-mode.. The PKM is a great weapon for covering doorways/road crossings, but just as useless as the AK-47's against enemies with a scope. And that's coming from me, a pixel shooter guy that enjoys Insurgency and has a 1920x1200 res screen. And a constant bored look.

I noticed a lot of players who prefer "acog" actually have poor KDRs when I have played with them. Sorry all these whimsical tales of deciding when/where the enemy will pop up is complete baloney, they mean nothing when a guy with a full auto 7.62 weapon pops up beside you while you're scoped in looking for that 300 meter head shot. Any good player will not allow you to hit/see him until HE is able to effectively drop you, thus nullifying any of these "I TELL THE ENEMY WHEN/WHERE WE WILL FIGHT" nonsense.

Keep taking your useless acogs in Muttrah and Fallujah, I will gladly take the free kills while you're trying to find a spot to camp and have a 300m killzone.

PS - I have made and witnessed plenty of 300m+ kills with very few followup shots using reflex/similar, I do however agree the m16 ironsights is fairly useless at ranges past 200m. If you need scopes after years of playing you're doing it wrong.

Murphy wrote:..

Sorry all these whimsical tales of deciding when/where the enemy will pop up is complete baloney, they mean nothing when a guy with a full auto 7.62 weapon pops up beside you while you're scoped in looking for that 300 meter head shot. Any good player will not allow you to hit/see him until HE is able to effectively drop you, thus nullifying any of these "I TELL THE ENEMY WHEN/WHERE WE WILL FIGHT" nonsense.

There is a massive contradiction there. Can you spot it? [My bold].

Also, if somebody 'pops up' besides you and full auto sprays you, how does a reflex sight help? Do you somehow use it to go back in time and then ambush him instead?

Not sure why you presume that people that use scopes are bad players and do it to snipe at 300m. As I mentioned, most people simply can't shoot. The thing they aim with in that case is generally immaterial. Whilst it is a personal choice, many of us use a scope and play very well. Others use a reflex sight and do very well.

Murphy wrote:PS - I have made and witnessed plenty of 300m+ kills with very few followup shots using reflex/similar, I do however agree the m16 ironsights is fairly useless at ranges past 200m. If you need scopes after years of playing you're doing it wrong.

I've killed lots of people whilst using a scope when they were using irons/reflex sights - Does that mean that reflex sights are worse than scopes..?


You must be one hell of a nemisis on Insurgency maps as Taliban/Hamas/Insurgent. I think that these maps prove the advantages a zoom sight gives you. Usually the Insurgents are shot before they can properly see what's shooting them.

Mikemonster wrote:Also, if somebody 'pops up' besides you and full auto sprays you, how does a reflex sight help? Do you somehow use it to go back in time and then ambush him instead?

It helps by giving you the advantage of one quick burst kill, not half/complete mag spray. Those few seconds matter A LOT. Everyone saying hip firing is equally good to a scoped in reflex/iron sight is, I'm sorry, a compete imbecile.

Mikemonster wrote:Not sure why you presume that people that use scopes are bad players and do it to snipe at 300m. As I mentioned, most people simply can't shoot. The thing they aim with in that case is generally immaterial. Whilst it is a personal choice, many of us use a scope and play very well. Others use a reflex sight and do very well.

When you master both, than you can start arguing but saying magnification is better because you can't hit shit is not an option.

Mikemonster wrote:I've killed lots of people whilst using a scope when they were using irons/reflex sights - Does that mean that reflex sights are worse than scopes..?

That means those using them were bad.

Mikemonster wrote:You must be one hell of a nemisis on Insurgency maps as Taliban/Hamas/Insurgent. I think that these maps prove the advantages a zoom sight gives you. Usually the Insurgents are shot before they can properly see what's shooting them.

You are doing it wrong.

That said about 60% of the PR playerbase doesn't know how the game works and 80% of the 40% that knows how it works, is bad at it.

If you reread the bold statements you may grasp that he will not allow you to see his advance, this is not some whimsical statement it is true of every intelligent players approach towards the enemy position(s). You cannot control the enemy movement (as your statements imply) instead control your own and profit from analysis of the terrain, which you can do 100% of the time (although you can't always predict the safest route as is the nature of combat).

Getting as close to the enemy as you can using cover to mask your advance is a very basic concept that even relatively new players should adopt as standard practice. Sadly many (even experienced) players are focused on shooting instead of not being shot, ACOG amplifies this by giving you a false sense of superiority. Your field of view is much more narrow compared to IS/Reflex, even with the 3d scopes you still drop your FOV by a nice chunk. In a round about way this equates to slower turning speed as you can see (and assess) less of the situation at any given moment, and while it is indeed nice to have your focus centered on the enemy a smart opponent will not present to much of a target for very long.

the deviation is better suited to close range on the RDS/Eotech Holo sight weapons. The ACOG/Susat etc weapons take longer for the deviation to be spot on when scoped in thats pretty much it,

Protip? Hah, hardly. You can keep these kinds of protips to yourself. LMG's excel not only at suppresing(as you said), but also at turning enemies into Swiss cheese. Using them for suppresion and leaving "the killshot for riflemn-ACOG" is rather foolish.

That made me chuckle =)
But thank you for putting a face to my ingame victims; the ones who just refuse to learn

Originally Posted by Mikemonster
Also, if somebody 'pops up' besides you and full auto sprays you, how does a reflex sight help? Do you somehow use it to go back in time and then ambush him instead?

Originally Posted by Brainlaag
It helps by giving you the advantage of one quick burst kill, not half/complete mag spray. Those few seconds matter A LOT. Everyone saying hip firing is equally good to a scoped in reflex/iron sight is, I'm sorry, a compete imbecile.

This would really be a matter of how close he pops up, right? If it's real close it woulden't matter what scope/sight you are using. You will not have the time to sight in proper. You turn and pointshoot for best result. At such close range, if you really need to aim in, you are just not gonna be fast enough. That is the way of the inexperienced.

However, if you push the "popup behind" further away, sighting in is warranted. And in the further away part; if you are experienced you might aswell have an ACOG. Principle here is the same as with point, getting the zoom to land where you want it at once. Really no timeloss. But then again, if you are in an enviroment where an nme can just pop up behind you, sometimes the better bet would be to just sprint for cover as there is probably lots of it.

Basically, if all your opponents are engaged within 50 m or so. Keep using those reflexes.
And before posting back, ponder this: I use ironsights mostly. Have for a great many years now, you thinking I promote ACOG's because I can't shoot straight otherwize or don't know the game, well...you are wrong, and assumptions built on another false assumption never put you closer to the reality of the matter.

Originally Posted by Murphy
I noticed a lot of players who prefer "acog" actually have poor KDRs when I have played with them. Sorry all these whimsical tales of deciding when/where the enemy will pop up is complete baloney, they mean nothing when a guy with a full auto 7.62 weapon pops up beside you while you're scoped in looking for that 300 meter head shot. Any good player will not allow you to hit/see him until HE is able to effectively drop you, thus nullifying any of these "I TELL THE ENEMY WHEN/WHERE WE WILL FIGHT" nonsense.

My K/D is excellent thank you. Don't matter what sight I use for that. Getting a good rutine down is what keeps you from not dying. Not the gun in hand.

You do not get to pick your battles always no. But the aim should always be to do so.

Reading many posts I get the feeling that you do not teamwork much. If you are aiming for that 300 m headshot, what are your squadmates doing? Not having your back? Then no doubt, you guys soloing into Ramiel city are better of like OP wrote with reflex. I have made the assumtion that we are talking squadbased action.

Going back to OP. What is better?, it is my opinion that the overall ranges fought in PR warrants ACOG. That is not to say that reflex/iron don't work. They work very well for me. But always (almost) I want ACOG's in my squad. Last words, mix it up in squad. They all have their uses

After learning how fire properly with IS/Reflex rifles I admit that they have are superior to scopes.

Since the advent of the AR kit becoming absolutely god-like, I've also found that suppression is actually best left to the rifles in the squad, with the kill-shots coming from the AR.

dtacs wrote:After learning how fire properly with IS/Reflex rifles I admit that they have are superior to scopes.

Since the advent of the AR kit becoming absolutely god-like, I've also found that suppression is actually best left to the rifles in the squad, with the kill-shots coming from the AR.

No doubt the more common result of it, AR getting the kills. Point is that an AR (1player) can supress multiple nmes easy if he is fast at aquiring targets. It helps without scope for this purpose.

I will give an example: You have a squad assaulting a building. Nme in windows have spotted your approach. The AR can very fast supress a a good few windows keeping nme heads down. This buys your other SM's the seconds needed for a true shot when/if they pop up again. More men covering a window each.

Turn it around, you have your SM's supressing windows, not gaining their accuracy, thus leaving it to AR to switch targets more accuraly. It is less effective to have more men doing a job (supressing) then needed, and one man doing more work (accurate killing) than needed.

I have found it to give the squad, as a whole, a better survival and killratio doing it this way. And yes, my way will not grant the AR as many kills as possible but the squad as a whole will do better in kills.
Problem here is that everyone usually wants the kill, and they know that for that, you have to take your time and aim.
Essentially, if you are the one supressing, you will (most likely) give that kill to your friend.
Thus the saying; "leaving the kills". This tactic only works for a teamoriented squad thats not in it for the personal kills but that focuses on squads best performance.

On another note.
With the AR being how it is there is no trouble pixelshooting without scope and hitting targets.
It is a massive and accurate volume of fire in comparison to the rifleman.
These things are not set in stone though, playing out in Kashan desert I would advocate using ACOG.

omfg12333 wrote:So you don't find the fact that you either gotta hipfire or look through an extremely large and magnified aperture in CQC annoying? You don't know that there's this thing called an "opinion" and that yours isn't better than anyone else's?

No, neither of those annoy me. Hipfiring is easy at the range I need it (1-4m), and the magnified aperture doesn't affect me because I have a good spacial memory. I scan along the room's walls, snap back to whatever entrances I need to watch, and move with my back along the wall based on memory of the room layout. It's not particularly difficult.
I thought the "ACOG STRONG" comment would be enough to make it obvious that the parts about irons users being a bunch of pussyfooted, liverspotted scallywags were a joke, but I guess not. I was mocking some of the people on the other side of the argument, doing the same (but for real).

Brainlaag wrote:I'll challenge you every day.

Back to the point, it's not hard to kill someone at distance but to keep him from getting revived. Besides we were not talking about long range engagements as most FFs don't go over 300m in PR. In these scenarios you are fairly better equipped with a reflex/ iron sight. One AR, or marksman is enough to keep them heads down while you move in to finish them off for good.

I'd win.
But if I can hit a man-sized target at 300m in 2 shots, how can't I hit his buddy in another 2, or him when he is revived, killing him immediately? I've not had many issues with getting a man down and keeping him down when I'm otherwise unoccupied. I know how to actually shoot, which is the difference.
Regardless, that was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to the inability of an irons to conduct long-range combat, therefore thinking it doesn't exist because most of them are also the ones trying to run up to you.

Murphy wrote:I noticed a lot of players who prefer "acog" actually have poor KDRs when I have played with them. Sorry all these whimsical tales of deciding when/where the enemy will pop up is complete baloney, they mean nothing when a guy with a full auto 7.62 weapon pops up beside you while you're scoped in looking for that 300 meter head shot. Any good player will not allow you to hit/see him until HE is able to effectively drop you, thus nullifying any of these "I TELL THE ENEMY WHEN/WHERE WE WILL FIGHT" nonsense.

I noticed a lot of ironsight players have poor KDRs and usually choose medic because they can't fight. This information is completely legitimate and not biased or based on false information to make my argument seem more correct without actually providing backing information.

Most people in PR just suck in general at fighting. Most have a major fault in one area, either being a poor shot, not watching flanks, not being in proper cover from the enemy, not adapting quickly enough to change in enemy tactics...

Keep taking your useless acogs in Muttrah and Fallujah, I will gladly take the free kills while you're trying to find a spot to camp and have a 300m killzone.

And I'll be ahead of you on the stairs, doing your job for you.

PS - I have made and witnessed plenty of 300m+ kills with very few followup shots using reflex/similar, I do however agree the m16 ironsights is fairly useless at ranges past 200m. If you need scopes after years of playing you're doing it wrong.

Who said anything about needing a scope?

Brainlaag wrote:It helps by giving you the advantage of one quick burst kill, not half/complete mag spray. Those few seconds matter A LOT. Everyone saying hip firing is equally good to a scoped in reflex/iron sight is, I'm sorry, a compete imbecile.

Hipfiring is only useful in a range of 1-4m. At that range, it is equally as effective if not more effective than sighting in on an iron-sighted weapon. I say this because sighting in will make it harder for you to keep track of the target if it runs right past you. In which case being unsighted keeps your eyes on the target longer, making it more effective.

Any range past that needs sights of some kind, making that argument nil.

When you master both, than you can start arguing but saying magnification is better because you can't hit shit is not an option.

When you master both, then you can start arguing but saying ironsights is better because you're crippled by a lack of understanding how to clear a room is not an option.

Spoiler: Most of the comments in this post are overly sarcastic and are more meant to mock silly comments made by posters trying to assert their correctness via strawman arguments and ad hominems than actually arguing the topic. Don't take it all seriously.

Celestial1 wrote:No, neither of those annoy me. Hipfiring is easy at the range I need it (1-4m), and the magnified aperture doesn't affect me because I have a good spacial memory. I scan along the room's walls, snap back to whatever entrances I need to watch, and move with my back along the wall based on memory of the room layout. It's not particularly difficult.
I thought the "ACOG STRONG" comment would be enough to make it obvious that the parts about irons users being a bunch of pussyfooted, liverspotted scallywags were a joke, but I guess not. I was mocking some of the people on the other side of the argument, doing the same (but for real).



I'd win.
But if I can hit a man-sized target at 300m in 2 shots, how can't I hit his buddy in another 2, or him when he is revived, killing him immediately? I've not had many issues with getting a man down and keeping him down when I'm otherwise unoccupied. I know how to actually shoot, which is the difference.
Regardless, that was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to the inability of an irons to conduct long-range combat, therefore thinking it doesn't exist because most of them are also the ones trying to run up to you.



I noticed a lot of ironsight players have poor KDRs and usually choose medic because they can't fight. This information is completely legitimate and not biased or based on false information to make my argument seem more correct without actually providing backing information.

Most people in PR just suck in general at fighting. Most have a major fault in one area, either being a poor shot, not watching flanks, not being in proper cover from the enemy, not adapting quickly enough to change in enemy tactics...


And I'll be ahead of you on the stairs, doing your job for you.



Who said anything about needing a scope?



Hipfiring is only useful in a range of 1-4m. At that range, it is equally as effective if not more effective than sighting in on an iron-sighted weapon. I say this because sighting in will make it harder for you to keep track of the target if it runs right past you. In which case being unsighted keeps your eyes on the target longer, making it more effective.

Any range past that needs sights of some kind, making that argument nil.



When you master both, then you can start arguing but saying ironsights is better because you're crippled by a lack of understanding how to clear a room is not an option.

Spoiler: Most of the comments in this post are overly sarcastic and are more meant to mock silly comments made by posters trying to assert their correctness via strawman arguments and ad hominems than actually arguing the topic. Don't take it all seriously.

Your lack of logic is disturbing. Teasing people to force down your arguments isn't helping your cause. After years I can say that mainly Ironsight mixed up with some scoped weapons are fairly better than many scopes with few iron sights.

Mellanbror wrote:..
On another note.
With the AR being how it is there is no trouble pixelshooting without scope and hitting targets.
It is a massive and accurate volume of fire in comparison to the rifleman.
These things are not set in stone though, playing out in Kashan desert I would advocate using ACOG.

Not really. I had a civvy kit and was spotting for a PKM - His ironsights meant I had to tell him where to shoot, and even then when the shots landed they were more than a man sized target apart. Can't remember the range, but it was borderline futile to bother.

I'm really not that bothered if people prefer ACOG or scopes.. Although I am wary of a lot of bias towards everyone's personal views. We learn as we play, and we all have different experience to each other. At the end of the day, as I mentioned, I use the zoom sights and do very well (in my not so humble opinion). I'm aware that others use the reflex sights and do just as well.

I still stand by my reasoning previously given, in that it makes sense to me. Ultimately though if i'm exposing myself to more than the one target i'm shooting at I feel i've made a mistake (and am very vulnerable). For me it doesn't bother me that I can't see around me very well - Between six guys you generally manage to cover stuff anyway. I unscope to view the area around me, and if I get suprised or 'jumped' my immediate reaction is almost always to find some better cover [from that angle]. Then out-think/outmanouvre them.

Anyone who's fairly good will probably adapt to get the best out of the tool they are given/have chosen. I'm sure if you forced me to play reflex sights every time I was Blufor i'd get as good as you guys are now. And vice versa.

Brainlaag wrote:Your lack of logic is disturbing. Teasing people to force down your arguments isn't helping your cause. After years I can say that mainly Ironsight mixed up with some scoped weapons are fairly better than many scopes with few iron sights.

Somebody has trouble distinguishing low-contrast colors. I only tease others when they use logical fallacies to further their arguments.

I never said anything about team composition. We were talking about individuals for much of the discussion. A team composed of 6 of me will take all ACOGs, because ironsights don't affect our performance in short-distances engagements. A team composed of 6 of you will take all ironsights, because lack of magnification doesn't affect your performance in most of your engagements.


Let me say this loud and clear since people are having trouble understanding what I'm getting at: Which sights you have on your weapon is irrelevant. You may have a personal preference towards one, but that doesn't make that one better for anyone else. Your effectiveness may deteriorate if you choose the opposite end of the spectrum, but that doesn't make that one bad either. I for one prefer scopes as it makes me more efficient at longer ranges, and have found a way to cope with the perceived problems it presents in close-quarters. That doesn't mean I think ironsights are useless, or that you're an idiot for using them. And I certainly don't think you should start using scopes if you prefer irons.

It's not the fancy plastic or metal clunker on top of the gun, it's the person behind it.

Brainlaag wrote:.. After years I can say that mainly Ironsight mixed up with some scoped weapons are fairly better than many scopes with few iron sights.

Already agreed with you there. Interesting when you think about the makeup of irons vs scopes in the Squad, and how many can use the weapon properly.. If that doesn't sound too Walter Mitty.

Be interesting to see the demographics [?] of who kills in PR.