M16 advice

Post by **bosco_** » 2007-05-07 16:07

Pah! Razer ftw!

BlackwaterEddie · Post by **BlackwaterEddie** » 2007-05-07 16:18

Jay wrote:Heh, thats exactly what I do, except I got a black G7 . It works wonders when I'm sniping, (sensitivity down) and when I'm in the tank turret (sensitivity up). I've gotten so used to changing my mouse sensitivity depending on the situation, I don't even notice myself doing it anymore.

I suggest everyone who has a couple of bucks to spare do this. Get a G5 or G7!

To be effective in a GAME i do not feel the need to get a super duper new mouse with uber l337 spack-ops skillz settings, just practice with the weapons and adjust them when necessary.

Hardtman · Post by **Hardtman** » 2007-05-07 16:26

SethLive! wrote:uh...guys, 7.62x51 is more accurate and more long ranged than 5.56x45. G3s are much more accurate and long ranged than m16s. Why do you think most snipers use 7.62 NATO amoo? ak47s (which fire 7.62x39) are less accurate than m16s only because of inferior quality controll at the factories (its why they are so cheap).

Just a general question,correct me at any point if i'm wrong:

7.62x51mm has about 28% more volume than 5.56x45,right?
Assuming that they are more or less of the same shape and the same material(e.g. lead)this would mean that 7.62 has 28% mass than 5.56.

Now i'm getting to the thing i'm really not sure about.
28% more mass would mean that you need 28% more power the rech the same speed by reaching the end of the barrel(assuming that tehy are about the same length) which equals the same range.
(All objects fall to the ground with the same speed,so two objects of different mass but equal speed will hit the ground after the same distance,yes?).

Taking all this points into account a Ak-47 would have to stand 28% more force of the mini-explosion launching the bullet than the M16 just to reach the same speed

Maybe it just does it,but it seems a bit much to me?.

Secondly:
I always thought if you use the formula F=m*v with F being a fixed value given by the stability of the gun,decreasing of the mass m of the projectile would increase the Speed v and therefore the range,while increasing m and with this decreasing m would enhance the stopping power?

P.S.: please excuse grammar and spelling mistakes,I'm not a native english speaker

$kelet0r · Post by **$kelet0r** » 2007-05-07 16:34

FYI an AK round is not 7.62x51mm NATO or 7.62x54mm Soviet Long
The Ak47 is chambered for 7.62x39mm compared to an M16 5.56x45mm

DirtyHarry88 · Post by **DirtyHarry88** » 2007-05-07 16:42

Right since you're no use I'm gonna have to get some uber l337 haxorz.

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2007-05-07 17:46

SethLive! wrote:uh...guys, 7.62x51 is more accurate and more long ranged than 5.56x45. G3s are much more accurate and long ranged than m16s. Why do you think most snipers use 7.62 NATO amoo? ak47s (which fire 7.62x39) are less accurate than m16s only because of inferior quality controll at the factories (its why they are so cheap).

Heh glad you cleared that up...its funny how guys come off like they know the realistic solution without any research. I used to reload my own casings and a 7.62 is going to have much more range and accuracy due to the higher grain used to propell it. Plus the larger the round, the less environmental devation being that it has a greater amount of enertia.

CAS_117 · Post by **CAS_117** » 2007-05-07 23:04

SethLive! wrote:uh...guys, 7.62x51 is more accurate and more long ranged than 5.56x45. G3s are much more accurate and long ranged than m16s. Why do you think most snipers use 7.62 NATO amoo? ak47s (which fire 7.62x39) are less accurate than m16s only because of inferior quality controll at the factories (its why they are so cheap).

The m-16 has 600 feet per second more muzzle velocity than the G3. That changes accuracy exponentially. And frankly I don't care too much about the accuracy, which is outclassed by the M-16 btw. It's, recoil->>> R.E.C.O.I.L (for the illiterate). THAT is what changes the amount of lead you can put on target. The M-16 is designed not to climb when recoiling. THAT IS WHY WE AREN'T IN IRAQ WITH THE M-14 (save for the heavily modified DM model, which is a pretty lousy assault rifle). Even on burst, even on full auto, the recoil isn't even a fraction of PR, which btw has the force going in the completely wrong direction (up instead of back). The barrel would stay level unless the user lifted it during trigger pull.

Look at the G3s massive recoil (which is what the M-16 has in PR)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX2ovq7GQ3k
And
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBDVmJN35T8
Maybe he should turn up his mouse sensitivity?

Heres the M-16s "recoil" (which is what the M-16 should be and what the G3 currently is).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV--ifs_n58

Oh and heres an M-4 ON FULL AUTO just in case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZt76de-CNs

The AK-47 has earned its famous inaccuracy from the way it was designed. The Ak-47 is loose, making it easy to clean and maintain. But the downside is that it shakes all over the place when fired. Its wobbly, its heavy, and it fires a massive round. All these factors are reversed when it comes to the M-16.

Am I starting to make sense?

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2007-05-07 23:20

I just wish they would model the guns correctly, I could careless about content. I just want a gun that shoots like its RL counter part...whoever did the research before with the gun recoils needs an assistant. The climing recoil is also weak sauce...it doesn't feel like a real weapon.

Indeed, well said caboose...now that I think of it, my old 6mm was more accurate than the damn 300 wetherby. It lost a lot of killing power with range though, definitely needed something bigger for an elk. Accuracy of the weapon definitely depends on the gun, its the ulitmate definer of things. An AK47 isn't that inaccurate, esp with an upgraded site, but like you said its recoil is just stupid.

DirtyHarry88 · Post by **DirtyHarry88** » 2007-05-07 23:22

I like casboose's points.

Smitty4212 · Post by **Smitty4212** » 2007-05-08 01:49

Army Musician wrote:But to you know, the rounds from a NATO weapon (i.e. 5.56mm) are designed to wound, because if you wound one, it takes 3 or 4 people out of the battle, to patch him up etc.

That's not actually true, just a (very popular) myth.

Teek · Post by **Teek** » 2007-05-08 01:57

DirtyHarry88 wrote:I like casboose's points.

x2

tele-loe- · Post by **tele-loe-** » 2007-05-08 02:07

Wow, it doesn't seem like the M4 had no recoil. M16 is my favorite weapon, it's a beast on semi auto, can really do damage.

zeroburrito · Post by **zeroburrito** » 2007-05-08 02:55

m16 needs a fix thats for sure, worst recoil in the game by far.

CAS_117 · Post by **CAS_117** » 2007-05-08 04:54

I'm just glad my words didn't fall on deaf ears.

JKRMAUI · Post by **JKRMAUI** » 2007-05-08 05:39

The scopes make such a HUGE difference in ability to engage targets..... I mean its just not right. I was playing Chinese on....umm.....I forget what the maps called....errr....damn....any way we were shooting at Fishing Village from Government house <---yeah that map.. Our Squad litteraly PINNED AND PICKED OFF EVERY SINGLE MARINE LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A BLOODY BARREL. They were shooting back. Getting close...but non of them could place shots on us. We just put the little cross on their bodies and watched mist poof off their figures. It was just sad.

I've been told....when making a point of the US's handicap that the M4 equals things out since it has a scope, but the M4 doesn't hold a candle to the QBZ95 in ranged shooting......Plus the Chinese sights in general are much finer.

And I have to agree with what Caboose said. I've fired many weapons in my young life......The M16s recoil is to strong. I use my mouse to pull the sights back down.....but I only get so much Mouse pad space...I'm not saying that the M16 is like a damn laser gun.....but its a lot more "gentile" then the beast in PR. Just some minor fixes would set things on par....as I said...I have great faith in the PR team.

Speaking of sights. Me thinks That Possibly in a much later release, maybe we would make weapon selecting for Kits. I was just thinking. Maybe *for example a rifleman* could choose between an M16 with an Aim-point sight, Or an optic for longer range engagements. Just a thought, I've have to ask my trigger happy palls in the Service.

BlackwaterEddie · Post by **BlackwaterEddie** » 2007-05-08 06:45

I can see the US faction being one the strongest around if they get all these bloody optics, aimpoints for the M4, ACOGs for the M16s?

NaZar3TH · Post by **NaZar3TH** » 2007-05-08 06:45

i had to register jus to post on this topic.

seriously now, an m16 firin a .223 will have nowhere near the recoil of a 7.62x39(AK47 round), or the 7.62x51 (G3 round). The recoil on it will be negligable on single fire, and not much recoil on burst either. The guys using the guns arent 5 yr old girls, theyre supposed to be soldiers, why cant they handle a bloody .223? oh yeah btw, the Mk12 was the m16 w/ optic, but they removed for the m14/m25 w/e ya wanna call it.

Another bone to pick wit ya-

The AK101 fires THE SAME ROUND AS THE M16!!(5.56x45 or .223 rem) why does the m16 have more recoil, and less damage?
lets take a quote from Wikipedia:
"The AK-101 is an assault rifle of the Kalashnikov series. The AK-101 is designed for the world export market, using standard 5.56 x 45 mm NATO cartridges, which is the standard of all NATO armies."

want somemore? lets look at barrel length (which affects effective range + muzzle velocity)

Ak101-Barrel:415mm,16 "
910 m/s (max range around 450 m)
Gun weight loaded-3.4 kg

M16-Barrel:508 mm, 20"
975 m/s (max range around 550 m)
Gun weight loaded-3.9kg

again, same caliber, yet the AK101 is 0.5kg lighter, therefore having slightly more recoil due to lighter weight. The accuracy will be less due to shorter barrel, with damage being roughly the same as a M16.

now the G3, should have better accuracy than a m16, due to its heavier weight and cartridge. the .308 is accurate, no doubts there, however, recoil due to automatic fire with a G3 should be much greater than either M16 or Ak101, more along the lines of a ak47.

This is project reality, not vanilla BF2. Lets get these guns fixed dev team.

thanks for your time guys, love the mod

Post by **eggman** » 2007-05-08 06:50

um... yer out to lunch mate. The Ak101 and M16 fire the same projectile and, as a result, use an identical ballistics template for damage, energy dissipation, recoil etc. The Ak101 has slightly more deviation due to the shorter barrel.

This is from the game code, so you can put a little check mark beside the "let's get these guns fixed" demand.

NaZar3TH · Post by **NaZar3TH** » 2007-05-08 06:58

Thanks for clarifing further, ill keep quiet then.

NZ

Long Bow · Post by **Long Bow** » 2007-05-08 13:30

BlackwaterEddie wrote:To be effective in a GAME i do not feel the need to get a super duper new mouse with uber l337 spack-ops skillz settings, just practice with the weapons and adjust them when necessary.

No offence but the I picked up the G5 for under $40 Canadian. It is less money then some standard microsoft mice. It isn't wireless or anything it just has good quality components and adjustable dpi settings. If your into video games a $40 investment in you PC is nothing, most new games here cost a little more money then the G5. My old mouse was horrible and no amount of practice could over come its poor performance.