Project Reality Forums

dtacs wrote:Why? The only difference between the two rifles is cosmetic: their stats are exactly the same.

Doesn't the M16 have like.. 100 meters more range than the M4?

The G3 ofcourse, it packs a big punch and thats just what us MEC lovers need .

But when the FAL makes it into PR i will happely betrayl the G3 just because of pure FAL sexyness.

There i said it.

Drunkenup wrote:Doesn't the M16 have like.. 100 meters more range than the M4?

No because the view distances and engaging ranges in PR are too small to have a distinguishing difference between the M16 and the M4...

grapple hook in the face is my weapon of choice.

goguapsy wrote:Oh yeah. You're right. After all, it's so easy to distinguish a civilian from an insurgent nowadays.

An insurgent is nothing but a civilian with a gun. Most of the militia here in the US (outside of the National Guard) are just average Joes who own rifles. If you want to fight an insurgency, civilians are going to have to get killed.

Cobhris wrote:If you want to fight an insurgency, civilians are going to have to get killed.

Ok I think you didn't intend to use the word "have", so I'll ignore it.

If you want to fight insurgents, civilians are going to be killed

Well, that's one of the biggest criticism of the current Iraqi War... If you can avoid killing civilians, do it. Your life, your buddy's life and a civilians life are worth the same thing.

I could arguably say, though, that it's fairer to kill a soldier (buddy) than a civilian (innocent). You are judging people by things you don't know. This is just like abortion. Well, kinda.

Know what I'm saying?

goguapsy wrote:Ok I think you didn't intend to use the word "have", so I'll ignore it.

No, I intended to. Winning a counterinsurgency war means that you're basically going to be shooting civilians (an insurgent is merely a civilian with a gun). Sooner or later, you're going to end up shooting a guy who wasn't planning on shooting back. You can't fight a counterinsurgency war without this happening unless you stop to check every single guy before you kill them, which will inevitably be used by the insurgents to kill hundreds or even thousands of your soldiers.

EDIT: And that is why I consider more lethal rounds better. There's no use in using a round that takes multiple hits to finish a guy (reported by actual soldiers) just because of the possibility that you might hit an unarmed person. I've read that the 6.8mm round offers a balance between the stopping power of the 7.62 and the low recoil of the 5.56. In my mind, that would be the best thing to use. Now my post is on topic.

Stay on topic or infraction points will be issued. Feel free to create a thread in the off-topic forums if you'd like to debate this in a calm and logical manner, but you two both know better than to start arguments unrelated to the thread.

Cobhris wrote:No, I intended to. Winning a counterinsurgency war means that you're basically going to be shooting civilians (an insurgent is merely a civilian with a gun). Sooner or later, you're going to end up shooting a guy who wasn't planning on shooting back. You can't fight a counterinsurgency war without this happening unless you stop to check every single guy before you kill them, which will inevitably be used by the insurgents to kill hundreds or even thousands of your soldiers.

A civilian with a gun is not a civilian for me, rather a "militia" guy, an insurgent.

[R-MOD]BloodBane611 wrote:Stay on topic or infraction points will be issued. Feel free to create a thread in the off-topic forums if you'd like to debate this in a calm and logical manner, but you two both know better than to start arguments unrelated to the thread.

Not sure if you are talking to me and Cobhris, but if so, we are not arguing! We are just in a friendly discussion about bullets... which is what this thread is about! We're talking about insurgency! (PR and IRL)

User has received infraction for continuing off-topic

gazzthompson wrote:lulwut? tell that to the BLUFOR that get raped by my g3. how did you come to this conclusion? also im pretty sure the TAR has same deviation as all other rifles.

Takes the same amount of bullets to kill no matter the gun sept sniper rifle's ofc.more power in PR does not result in more stoping power just more recoil.

The TAR may have the same deviation but the recoil is less and the sights are the best in the game by far (for me) hence more accurate.

Smartars

Trooper909 wrote:Takes the same amount of bullets to kill no matter the gun sept sniper rifle's ofc.more power in PR does not result in more stoping power just more recoil.

The TAR may have the same deviation but the recoil is less and the sights are the best in the game by far (for me) hence more accurate.

Smartars

I'm pretty sure the G3 kills with 3 shots on the legs, while the M16 takes some 5 or 6 hits on the leg...

Feel free to continue discussing bullets and how they work in PR. Don't feel free to continue discussing how insurgencies work in this thread after a MOD has told you to knock it off

Trooper909 wrote:Takes the same amount of bullets to kill no matter the gun sept sniper rifle's ofc.more power in PR does not result in more stoping power just more recoil.

Source ?

No one can deny a 5.56 as well as 7.62 can, and will drop someone with one good hit. So in the end it's more or less about recoil and settle time, short of that I do believe both rounds are equally effective.

Murphy wrote:No one can deny a 5.56 as well as 7.62 can, and will drop someone with one good hit. So in the end it's more or less about recoil and settle time, short of that I do believe both rounds are equally effective.

The G3 kills with 1 head shot? What about the M16 though? (M16 in-game = 7.62 right?)

goguapsy wrote:The G3 kills with 1 head shot? What about the M16 though? (M16 in-game = 7.62 right?)

What?

Murphy wrote:No one can deny a 5.56 as well as 7.62 can, and will drop someone with one good hit. So in the end it's more or less about recoil and settle time, short of that I do believe both rounds are equally effective.

they wont. pretty sure a 100% registered shot will not kill (unless head) with either rounds, its just the G3's second one will.


some one needs to post some gun stats ASAP to many unsourced opinions

I've never really noticed a difference, some of the rifles seem to hit harder than others, but it's difficult to tell, does anyone have any raw numbers for us?

Smaller rifle rounds for me, means more accuracy.

I haven't noticed too much difference from rifle to rifle. But they all shoot bullets, and that's what counts.

BlackwaterSaxon wrote:I've never really noticed a difference, some of the rifles seem to hit harder than others, but it's difficult to tell, does anyone have any raw numbers for us?

All rifles have same deviation IIRC

Phantom2 wrote:Smaller rifle rounds for me, means more accuracy.

all rifles have the same deviation.

Thread is in some serious need of a source.

source about accuracy:

[R-CON]nedlands1 wrote:All the assault rifles/battle rifles have the same deviation except for the AK-47, the AKS-47 and the AKS-74U which have a cone of fire with a diameter which is a third larger when looking down the sights.

Stopping power:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... _Xl9WyW6VA

Was for PR.75 so probably has changed a bit