Project Reality Forums

Well, I was talking with some guys while we were waiting in Tunnels on Koselsk for another fail Russian attack.

The m249 Para should be modified, to represent the differences btween the m249 para and the proper m249 SAW (forgive any incorrect names and stuff)

This suggestion comes from a Weapon Vs Weapon realism view rather than a gameplay view.

the para has a shorter barrel and lacks the heat sink correct?

Therefore it should overheat far more quickly ingame, its odd to have 50cals with such fast overheats, but the bullet hose without a heat sink is actually HARD to overheat. in gameplay terms this promotes hosing instead of controlled fire.

The shorter barrel also means it should be less accurate.

Hopefully though, the normal m249 model version can be brought in, with valid gameplay differences.

These being, the longer barrel and heat sink producing a LMG much like we have now, whereas the Para should be nerfed a bit to represent these RL differences.

BUT! the Para does have an extendable stock correct? with means that its deployment (i.e the time from when you select the weapon, to it being ready to fire) should be slightly quicker. This is not unprecedented as the M4 has the same difference with teh M16.

Anyway, those were our thoughts on TG tonight, ty.

Which unit (Army/Marines) uses which version?
Btw why isnt there a cover over the barrel in PR?

The M249 is often fielded with the short, "Para" barrel, by all branches of the US armed forces. It seems to be becoming the norm for line units (infantry and other combat arms) when deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the improved collapsible stock (the FN manufactured collapsible stock is type-classified by the US, but is being phased out). The "heat sink" you are referring to is the heat shield; it's there to protect the weapon operator's hands, not slow the overheating of the barrel. It fits over both the short and standard barrels.

Priby wrote:Btw why isnt there a cover over the barrel in PR?

The British Army and Royal Marines Minimi variants (both standard and Para) do not have the heat shield, since they were not made according to the US contract for the M249, which specified a heat shield.

FN Herstal produced Minimi for the European and British Commonwealth market do not have them.





Its subsidiary, FN Manufacturing, US, produces the M249, which does have them.





Standard FN Minimi were fielded by the US in the late 1980s and early 1990s until the M249 was fully deployed. You can spot them in older photos because they have a fixed, skeleton stock. The newer FN Herstal standard-length Minimi all have the M249 pattern stock.

Priby wrote:Which unit (Army/Marines) uses which version?
Btw why isnt there a cover over the barrel in PR?

the m249 para lacks teh cover to save weight afaik, which is the weapon currently ingame

I'm not gonna find the quote for you, but a DEV did say that it would be relatively easy to put the m249 ingame, it just isn't a priority atm.

But seeing the differences between the 2 weapons, it would be prudent to make chances to teh para version because of those differences.


AND PLEASE CAN AN ADMIN DELETE ALL POSTS NOT REGARDING THE OP TOPIC BECAUSE I COULDN@T CARE LESS ABOUT THE ARGUEMENT CURRENTLY ENSUING SINCE IT IS ABOUT AN ASPECT OF GAMEPLAY THAT CANNOT BE CONTROLLED

edit - ty for clearing that up Eddie