Project Reality Forums

chrisweb89 wrote:The jumping of the 3 round burst is what makes the M-4 and M-16 seem so crappy.

mind=blown

i never even thought about that, i can pull my mouse down magdumping on an mg3, and its easier to keep a decent sight picture than a burst m16.


i could never put my finger on why that gun was such garbage...

ZZEZ wrote:but its hampering the game when your side have aimpoints and the other side is decked out in x4 scopes and is picking you from a distance in a conventional map.

If so, you should balance the maps or give another advantage to the faction without scopes, but it's a lot more easier to make factions that almost mirror each other. Don't choose the easiest way please, choose the most interesting.

chrisweb89 wrote:I know, I'm replying to why some people think the Tar is better than the M-4/16(burst). Its because, for me the burst ruins your control. The M4a1, M16A1, C7A2, C8A(version number?), and Tar-21 are all pure rape weapons for me.

47. 'Nuf said.

Me vs you, you lose with anything. You just like the 47 because you only need 2 hits.

Of course I like the 47 for the two hit kill. 5.56mm is for nubs who can't handle real recoil (although the 47 does do way more damage than its measly 7.62x39mm round should).

Also I've been working on my PR ninjutsu melee skills so I'm totally Batman to your expendable extra. Just sayin'

And then everyone returned to the topic and everyone was happy...


...mongol...

Guys from US dont know what IDF's loadout is? Funny coz you know US tax payers spend more money on Israeli defences than Israel itself.

Back to the topic- 4. I dont think limiting ACOG would be a good idea because a lot of players do use it. Limiting acog in SQ would be useless thing to do because every squad only have one or two players with rifleman kit.

I don't care how unrealistic it is xD

It is just such a nice gun to shoot!

I support this as I believe realism = balanced and having to use your outdated weapon from a conventional faction like Insurgents, Hamas, Taliban, Militia effectively can be an advantage, like the AK is known to be a bit less accurate due to it's larger caliber 7.62x39mm rounds vs 5.56x45mm NATO rounds, but delivers more punch, can be deadly and really outtake the M-16 in a situation where close-quarter is needed like ambushes and where the enemy is less than 90m away from you. It all boils down at how well you can use your gun in those given situation, and what the gun is designed for.

If you don't like Iron Sights, then you can chose the medic/rifleman/automatic rifleman kit, right-click on the Weapon Crate to choose a reflex sight on the IMI Negev/IMI Tavor TAR-21 instead since the rail on that weapon's design, when looking through it, would not be designed for long scopes like ACOG while the AR-15/M-16/M4 classes have a bigger butt stock, allowing you to see through the scope without the recoil smacking into your eye socket. This is what OP is saying.

Hotrod525 wrote:Lol, reminds me when i had put an KAC M5 Rails on my C7A2 and my Squadron Sergeant Major walk by, atleast twice before he realise that i had "modify" my weapon, so he gently told me to remove it =) was such a nice moment.



Thats not the way Canadian Army seen the thing either you know, modifying a service weapon is almost consider like war-crime here xD

I'm going to presume like mad squirrel put it earlier that if you're in a warzone most people don't give a shit what you put on your gun

Would be nice seeing the negev with an iron sight, it being quite OP

Arab wrote:a bit less accurate due to it's larger caliber 7.62x39mm rounds vs 5.56x45mm NATO rounds

Maybe it just depends on the gun? Cause the Finnish RK95 sure can put those rounds down range pretty damn accurately. :d

Rounds, and the exit velocity sure are a factor, but as Lagi said, its mostly in the gun design how a bullet will fly... By that logic, 50.cal snipers should go everywhere but the target.

Dam thats offtop but i would like to see 50cal in pr

Youll have to wait for the norwegian forces then.

back to the topic now, not only the negev is a bit out-dated, but what about red boots for the Israeli faction in beirut? Micro-tars and removing those stupid unrealistic x4 scopes from the regular tars? never seen them in my service...not even once..

Why exactly Beirut? IIRC, only Paratroopers wear Red Boots. What makes you think those are Paratroopers on Beirut? Also, Red Boots... really? I'd rather have the DEVs focusing on something more important.

never seen them in my service...not even once..

which part of the service were you in? The IDF seems quite a spectrum of equipment loadouts per unit, especially when it comes to reservist/regular

Rudd wrote:which part of the service were you in? The IDF seems quite a spectrum of equipment loadouts per unit, especially when it comes to reservist/regular

northern command Golani brigade.

Had a shortened m16 "mekutsrar" with a trijicon red dot sight.

but i have seen alot of negev gunners and non of them had scopes...only the SF "Egoz" anti guerrilla guys had night/thermal scopes..

also scratch the micro tar..it wont work because the micro version does not have full auto capability..only single fire.

Souls Of Mischief wrote:Why exactly Beirut? IIRC, only Paratroopers wear Red Boots. What makes you think those are Paratroopers on Beirut? Also, Red Boots... really? I'd rather have the DEVs focusing on something more important.

Most of the infantry who were fighting in Lebanon was the Nahal brigade..which wears red boots..so it'll be kinda cooler to have them i think..but if its not that important u can just leave it the way it is..does not really matters..IDF still kicks ***

sorry for double post =[