Project Reality Forums

Now that the M82A1 has been removed, I suggest the M82A3(the same thing as the M82A1M) because it cannot be used as a sniper rifle. In .6 we had the problem of people using this gun for picking off enemies, which isnt the intended use of the weapon. So, I suggest the A3 because it is iron sights. Its could be used for the Light AT kit for the US Army. The A3 has been developed for the US army, and once they are finished we could use this kit for its original intention. We could make 1+2 magazines, with 10 rounds each. And could disable (not destroy)a small insurgent vehicle with 2 or 3 shots. In .6 we has to use a whole clip to take out a bomb car whic hwasnt realistic; but you had a scope so you could take it out at a long distance and reload and kill 10 people. So, to sum this all up: The M82A3 (without scope) could be used for Light AT purpose for the US Army would require realistic loadout, and would inflict realistic damage.
reference: Modern Firearms - Barrett "Light Fifty" M82A1 M82A2 M82A3 Sniper Rifle


M82A3 rifle, also known as M82A1M, latest version developed for US Army. Note the long Picatinny rail on the top of the receiver.


The iron-sight for reference, not: there is no magnification, but elevation references

Caliber: .50 BMG (12.7 x 99mm)
Operation: Short Recoil, Semi-Automatic
Overall Length: 1448 mm
Barrel Length: 737 mm
Feed Device: 10 Round Detachable Box Magazine
Sights: 10X Telescopic
Weight: 12.9 kg empty
Muzzle Velocity: 854 m/s (M33 Ball)
Max Effective Range: 1800 meters
Expected accuracy: 1.5 - 2.0 MOA or better

This is still Project Reality. The US Army would rather use AT4s than M82A3s as an AT kit.

I would still like to see this weapon used, as it is used quite frequently, and there is still heavy AT and mounted anti-tank systems (TOW)
DEV's feel free to give me your input about this and also a suggested ammo count and kit loadout.

Ryan3215 wrote:In .6 we had the problem of people using this gun for picking off enemies, which isnt the intended use of the weapon.

Yes, but it is also used this way IRL (in example, counter-sniper missions).

Can we have a railgun?

There is one thing that beats the Barrett...


Takes down elephants.
kthnx

Why use a semi-auto .50 caliber rifle when you can use a .50 automatic machine gun ?

Nitneuc wrote:Why use a semi-auto .50 caliber rifle when you can use a .50 automatic machine gun ?

Precision/accuracy (?)

because you cant carry a M2 .50 cal. machine gun through a city or through the mountains. Plus you can set up and move out really easy wihtout the use of a large vehicle. Also in PR the .50 cal machine gun isnt up to scratch. It takes like 20 .50 rounds to take out a car but in reality it takes only a couple. I would like to see this weapon for many reasons. 1 of which is realism, since you cant always get ahold of a rocket launcher you can use a .50 rifle, also it can take out infantry at close range.

I absolutely do not agree with you, using this instead of the AT-4 as L-AT does not seem very realistic. Yes it is an antimaterialrifle but I highly doubt that it is used more than the AT-4 and I also doubt that it got the same penetration capabilities as the AT-4.

Whats the deal with people and .50 cal rifles anyway.... doesn't go a week without someone asking for it....

the only way i could see the .50 being used is in an EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) type role. Is it even possible to destroy C4/SLAMS/IEDs with a rifle or is it hardcoded? Or as a replacement for the HAT kits on insurgency type maps.

i just wronte down my thoughts and posted them. so my bad if it doesnt make any sense.
just my $ 0.02

Regardless of the suggested use, M82s have been brought up many times before.