Sniper Rifle

[TheN00b]

I recently had this really cool idea for the sniper rifle. How 'bout the devs add a secondary fire that makes it into an emplacement? The sniper, at the touch of the secondary fire button, would be turned into an ACE-like device that could only set down on level areas. From there, it would transform into a tripod. This tripod would have a 90* firing arc, and would take 5 seconds to remove from the ground (To prevent it from being overpowered: in 5 seconds, against any weapon opening up on you at close range, you're dead). Because it is stabilized, it would have a negligible (if any) cone-of-fire. *Braces for flames* What do you guys think of this?

[Jagd]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[Biohazzard56]

/agreed with jagd

[TheN00b]

I'm not saying that the Sniper is bad, nor too good, I just think that tripods would be really cool.

[bryan25]

This is wy your name is THEN00B. :D

[DDSHADE]

not bad idea, but jagd has a point, the BD still pwns how it is

i think that if they were to have a tripod thing it would be a deployable tripod that may hold any type of weapon for rapid,stable, and reduced COF, and of cource a bigger clip but that is a big job, and i dunno meh, i like PS as is!

[Searo]

Hmmm...idea.

Tripod-The size of 1 ammo box, can be carried in the inventory. When carried, weapons that are considered "large" (as long as the rifle slot, MCG, Lancer, Lasher, BD, etc...) can be set up on the tripod.

Another mode is added to the weapon, when clicked, the shooter enters a prone position with the gun on the tripod. This takes 5-7 seconds to set up. When you're prone, you can't move. This makes you sniper/nearly every gun/nearly every vehicle bait.

All this increases is RoF by 1.5x and CoF.

Requires the Sharpshooter certification, for 2 CP.

[Flammey]

My question is, why doesn't SOE add in a second sniper rifle, much like AMerica's Army has two versions. A people sniper and a vehicle sniper. A nice Anti Tank sniper rifle would be nice.

[Rbstr]

Anti tank Sniper rifle? come on you can't kill a tank with a bullet. I like my sniper as it is, i'm a dedicated sniper, i could see some kind of empire specificness for new ones if they make them.
Say a railgun for the NC that does godly damage, and has Uber range but can missfire (railguns can weld together during fireing) and only does single shot, wiht a charge time afterwards before they can fire again.

The TR can have a sniper with a 20 shot clip that can be fired with little recoil and therfore hit lots quikly

And the VS could have a Sniper that basicaly fires a Plasma nade, at high speeds, with a 3 shot clip

[delta]

I recently had this really cool idea for the sniper rifle. How 'bout the devs add a secondary fire that makes it into an emplacement? The sniper, at the touch of the secondary fire button, would be turned into an ACE-like device that could only set down on level areas. From there, it would transform into a tripod. This tripod would have a 90* firing arc, and would take 5 seconds to remove from the ground (To prevent it from being overpowered: in 5 seconds, against any weapon opening up on you at close range, you're dead). Because it is stabilized, it would have a negligible (if any) cone-of-fire. *Braces for flames* What do you guys think of this?

It's a good idea but I wouldn't want it implemented mainly because the sniper rifle is already utilized exactly how you are describing it, just without the tripod. You have to crouch to hit anything and you're not going to be moving around (ie every 5 seconds) so the secondary fire mode wouldn't really differ at all from the primary besides the fact that it will greatly increase the times you are killed by a Sniper :p

[sutserikeru]

what i want to know is why does it take so long for the BDs CoF to decrease to pin-point acc.? all the other weapons CoFs tighen in less than a second... what make the BD so special?

[Rayder]

It's a 2 or less hit kill for infantry - excluding the MAX - at any range.

[sutserikeru]

It's a 2 or less hit kill for infantry - excluding the MAX - at any range.
yeah, 2 hits for softies, 16 for MAXs, working on vehicles now...

[1024]

Im going with Jagd on this one.

[Flammey]

Anti tank Sniper rifle? come on you can't kill a tank with a bullet.

You've obviously never seen modern day anti-tank weapons. There IS a sniper rifle that can hurt tanks badly. It's in the game America's Army. If it's not anti-tank, it sure is anti-something, cause, Damn, that thing blows shit up good. Also has a wicked ass kickback.

[1024]

Think about how much skill that would take. Nill to none.

"Man i have to take so much aim to hit that tank."

[sutserikeru]

Think about how much skill that would take. Nill to none.

"Man i have to take so much aim to hit that tank."
then have it so the slightest move and the CoF goes so big that it cannot be seen when 8x zoom, and have the CoF time to pin point be so long that it would take a fucking miracle to hit the damn thing

[Flammey]

With every single shot you would have to re-aim due to the kick-back. Simple.

[sutserikeru]

what about reload time? they could use that to re-aim, thus having little to no effect on the acc.

[Flammey]

How would that be any different from sniping now? I use reload time to find new targets.

[WolfA4]

You've obviously never seen modern day anti-tank weapons. There IS a sniper rifle that can hurt tanks badly. It's in the game America's Army. If it's not anti-tank, it sure is anti-something, cause, Damn, that thing blows shit up good. Also has a wicked ass kickback.

the M82 and its varients (thats the rifle you are talking about) is a .50 calibur anti-material sniper rifle. it never was meant to take out tanks. it can take out lightly armored vehicles like trucks, humvees and some armored troop carriers, it is also used to take out unexploded bombs weapons caches and people from extreme range (the world record is held by a canadian sniper from over 2 km away from his target in afghanistan) the bullet of an M82 (armor piercing raufoss round or regular ball) wouldnt hurt a modern day tank.

in WWII there were 12-14mm anti-tank sniper rifles they were basically a modified tank cannon made for a person to shoot, you may have seen it in the tremors 2 movie.

[WolfA4]

the M82 and its varients (thats the rifle you are talking about) is a .50 calibur anti-material sniper rifle. it never was meant to take out tanks. it can take out lightly armored vehicles like trucks, humvees and some armored troop carriers, it is also used to take out unexploded bombs weapons caches and people from extreme range (the world record is held by a canadian sniper from over 2 km away from his target in afghanistan) the bullet of an M82 (armor piercing ralfus round or regular ball) wouldnt hurt a modern day tank.

in WWII there were 12-14mm anti-tank sniper rifles they were basically a modified tank cannon made for a person to shoot, you may have seen it in the tremors 2 movie.

heres a nice shot of an M82A1

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/barrett_m82a1.jpg

[Veteran]

anti-materiel

[Doppler]

By the accordance of the geneva convention it is illegal to shoot a 50 cal sniper rifle at people. Only light vehciles and up, however fun fact, a person on a bicycle is considered a light vehicle ;)

[Doppler]

Oh yea and if it aint broke dont mess with it in reguards to sniper rifles.

[Ed the MAD]

i think they should add some more sniper rifles, and a prone position(that means lying on your belly to better stabilise your position).


perhaps a less powerful, magazine fed scout rifle? much like the M-14(M-1A).

also, some sniper armour would be good, too. like, a less-than-visible ghillie suit type deal.

[Flammey]

Yeah, but how is the normal sniper rifle any different from my propsed Anti vehicle sniper rilfe? A great many snipers use the SR on MAXs, vehicles, turrets and deployables as it is. I see no problem with a .50 cal sniper rifle. Or a sniper rifle that is strickly armor piercing.

But whatever. It's only a thought, not a great big change.

[WolfA4]

By the accordance of the geneva convention it is illegal to shoot a 50 cal sniper rifle at people. Only light vehciles and up, however fun fact, a person on a bicycle is considered a light vehicle ;)

that is incorrect, that is a misconception born on the internet.

[Doppler]

I commend you wolf, for pointing out something to me with research I must retract my statement, however, this misconception is so persuasive that it makes its way into the military itself. I myself picked it up from an EOD guy after he had to shoot something of mine due to a miscommunication (long story)

[Ed the MAD]

Yeah, but how is the normal sniper rifle any different from my propsed Anti vehicle sniper rilfe? A great many snipers use the SR on MAXs, vehicles, turrets and deployables as it is. I see no problem with a .50 cal sniper rifle. Or a sniper rifle that is strickly armor piercing.

But whatever. It's only a thought, not a great big change.


there are no "anti-Vehicular" sniper rifles. only Anti-Material rifles. the big bore guns like the M82 and others are not considered sniper rifles by many snipers. mainly due to their tendency of being louder than fuck, and that although they are quite powerful and have an amazing distance, they are too big to use in every situation. they only use them when they plan on encountering lightly armoured targets like trucks, APCs, and the like, or they feel like engaging targets from extreme distance. otherwise, they use more managable rifles like the bolt action treats you see them with most often.

to answer your queston, a sniper rifle has several features that other rifles don't. high accuracy, low detectability, and very respectable penetration. also, you see alot of bolt action sniper rifles, with heavy, free floating barrels, five round, non-detachable magazines, and some sort of flash supressor(optional). these features are ideal. the lack of self-loading reduces recoil, and in turn, vibration(which would reduce accuracy). the free floating barrel also helps to reduce vibration, and being heavy would reduse muzzle jump. an anti material rifle is gennerally of a larger calibur, and is just downright unweildly when you want to crawl into position undetected. however, it is not unheard of to use an Anti- Material rifle on individual soldiers. but the range is considerably longer than with a Sniper Rifle. in the end, it all comes down to calibur, and the intended target.

remember, just because it has a scope and bipod, does not mean it's a sniper rifle.


oh, one final thought. isn't the Bolt Driver a .50 cal? and isn't it supposed to utilise magnetic ecceleration, which would make it hypersonic? have you ever seen what happens when a .22 cal lexan slug traveling at hypersonic speeds impacts a 12cm plate of hardend steel? it makes a hole the size of a .50 calibur bullet. remember, Force=MassxAccelleration

[Flammey]

Yeah, but how is the normal sniper rifle any different from my propsed Anti vehicle sniper rilfe? A great many snipers use the SR on MAXs, vehicles, turrets and deployables as it is. I see no problem with a .50 cal sniper rifle. Or a sniper rifle that is strickly armor piercing.

But whatever. It's only a thought, not a great big change.

[Otherick]

well the Vanu in a way already have a anti-armour sniper called the Lancer all u need is the zoom inplant and wallah

[Ed the MAD]

an anti material rifle is gennerally of a larger calibur, and is just downright unweildly when you want to crawl into position undetected. however, it is not unheard of to use an Anti- Material rifle on individual soldiers. but the range is considerably longer than with a Sniper Rifle. in the end, it all comes down to calibur, and the intended target.

[Flammey]

You still haven't answered the real question I asked.

What is wrong with bringing in a sniper rifle that uses only armor piercing rounds?

[Ed the MAD]

nothing at all. infact, all sniper rifles should have AP rounds. better ballistics.

[Veteran]

100 damage per hit for an AP bolt would be perfect. Eight shots to kill a MAX is fairer and more importantly, more fun.

Also, don't forget that historically, sniper vs. sniper combat has often come down to whose weapon can pierce the enemy's shield.

Many a sniper has rotted behind the metal plates he propped up for cover, and many have bounced shots off of their enemy's cover only to be located and terminated.

[Ed the MAD]

what are you talking about? eight shots. how about one through the face sheild? it can't be more than 3cm thick. one kinetic round could go through it like a needle through cloth.

[Doppler]

Well yes but they've said theyre not going to implement hitboxes, so so much for that. Besides, first i'd like to see people being able to get shot in open cockpit vehicles.

[Veteran]

Location-based damage is an invitation to aimbot writers. You can blame exploitation for a lot of the hobbles placed on the Bolt Driver.

If you know an exploiter who thinks he's hot shit, look at him for what he is: the guy who gimped the sniper rifle for everyone.

[Ed the MAD]

"aimbot"?

[Jagd]

Surely you, Ed the Mad, are an avid Counter-Strike player.

[Ed the MAD]

no. i never really cared for it.

[Mognoc]

I'm not part of any discussion, but an aimbot is a program which automatically aims your weapon at a soldier/object classified as an enemy. IE: a soldier with a, for example, repeater could shoot a person with the accuracy of a bolt driver, given the aimbot programmer factors in the CoF and whatnot. The hobble that most of them face is tanks--with the arc of the shot, it becomes a pain to make an aimbot that factors in the arc trajectory.

All of this is just my idea of it, I'm not aimbot writer and/or someone who knows a ton about them.

[Queensidecastle]

well the Vanu in a way already have a anti-armour sniper called the Lancer all u need is the zoom inplant and wallah
The Lancer is not acurate to its recticle over long distances. It would be like trying to snipe with a Gauss

[Ed the MAD]

I'm not part of any discussion, but an aimbot is a program which automatically aims your weapon at a soldier/object classified as an enemy. IE: a soldier with a, for example, repeater could shoot a person with the accuracy of a bolt driver, given the aimbot programmer factors in the CoF and whatnot. The hobble that most of them face is tanks--with the arc of the shot, it becomes a pain to make an aimbot that factors in the arc trajectory.

All of this is just my idea of it, I'm not aimbot writer and/or someone who knows a ton about them.


I HAVE BEEN ENLIGHTENED!


anycrap, here are a few examples of Anti-material rifles which are far better than the M82.

Croatia's RT-20 (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm)
South Africa's Mechem NTW-20 (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn55-e.htm)
Yugoslavia's M-93 Black Arrow (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn59-e.htm)
Russia's OSV-96 (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn60-e.htm)

also, i know what you're about to say, and before you say it, A)an Anti-Material Rifle could be loosly classified as a sniper rifle, because it requires the same skills to operate, and 2)the guy who made the site is apparently from either eastern europe, or someplace that doesn't have english as it's primary language.

[Jagd]

You forgot, "woop-dee-doo go make a BF1942 mod."

[sutserikeru]

"aimbot"?
auto-aim bots. go play Counter Strike on PC and then you'll know.

[Flammey]

Or play Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. They had a cheat that was worse than an aimbot. It would trigger your weapon when your reticule, or crosshairs, would intersect any enemy. Meaning, that player would hardly ever miss. It was called "Paladin"
And by the way, an Aim bot is a cheat that increases accuracy. It is by no means perfect. Especially if your target is moving. Aim bots are only good when your target is stationary. Paladin was 100 times more effective than Aimbot. It fired right at the moment your crosshair hit the enemy avatar. Unless you moved back the way you came right away, you would be shot.

But I firmly believe all cheaters should have their computers smashed to shit. "You want to pay 2000 dollars for a computer, 30 bucks for this game, and you want to cheat so that people will THINK your a good player? Where as we paid for the same amount as you did, yet we worked our asses off trying to become an actual good player, and you want us to respect you and THINK your a good player? Ha, nice try." *Smashes your computer all over the cement.*

[Destroyeron]

You've obviously never seen modern day anti-tank weapons. There IS a sniper rifle that can hurt tanks badly. It's in the game America's Army. If it's not anti-tank, it sure is anti-something, cause, Damn, that thing blows shit up good. Also has a wicked ass kickback.

Baretta .50 CAL :D maybe I'm wrong, but thats a sniper...and its big.

[Scorpion7666]

i think we should be able to prone, thet would solve the "being seen" problem (for people who have ground detail all the way up, but for me i would be cheating cuz my comp cant take it that high)

[Destroyeron]

Personally, I like the Tripod Idea, but yah know, the PS engine forgot the prone position. :D If anything, I think you should be able to crouch, set up a gun with a tripod and act like a machine gun. If you've ever played COD (Call of Duty) go play multiplayer, man one of those machine guns, and yeah, it should be like that. There in MOHAA too. God those things rock...

(Killed 20 people in a row when the team charged and I opened up on their asses)

[WolfA4]

I HAVE BEEN ENLIGHTENED!


anycrap, here are a few examples of Anti-material rifles which are far better than the M82.

Croatia's RT-20 (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm)
South Africa's Mechem NTW-20 (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn55-e.htm)
Yugoslavia's M-93 Black Arrow (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn59-e.htm)
Russia's OSV-96 (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn60-e.htm)

also, i know what you're about to say, and before you say it, A)an Anti-Material Rifle could be loosly classified as a sniper rifle, because it requires the same skills to operate, and 2)the guy who made the site is apparently from either eastern europe, or someplace that doesn't have english as it's primary language.

could you explain how those rifles are better then the barret M82? a larger round doesnt mean its better btw.

[Veteran]

It's anti-materiel, kinda like anti-personnel, not anti-material, even though it is used against materials. That's English for you.

[Ed the MAD]

Baretta .50 CAL :D maybe I'm wrong, but thats a sniper...and its big.


nah, not beretta, Barrett arms M82A1 "Light Fifty." the only other man-portable weapon that's bigger than that would be the 105mm(120?) Recoilless rifle used by the Army Rangers. it's like a bazooka, ecept it fires a giant bullet instead of a rocket.

It's anti-materiel, kinda like anti-personnel, not anti-material, even though it is used against materials. That's English for you.


yeah, so i misspelled it. pick pick pick.

could you explain how those rifles are better then the barret M82? a larger round doesnt mean its better btw.

yes it does. bigger bullet, more propellant, higher velocity, better pennetration.

here's a little ballistics calculator to play with.
http://www.airguns.net/calculators.html

let's feed it some values.

.30-06 bullet(the bullet used in the M1 Garand, among others)
168 grains in weight
traveling at 2700 feet per second
has 2720 foot pounds of energy

now, let's try the .50 BMG
709 grains
2850 feet per second
12790 foot pounds of energy

over 10 times the kinetic energy...with only 4 times the projectile weight.

now let's try the 20x110mm Hispano cartridge.
2006 grains
2886 fps
37122 foot pounds of energy


of course, then there's this site, where it does all the work for you.
Ballistics Info (http://www.volny.cz/buchtik/Revo/Ballistic_Info_komplet.htm)

Force=MassxAccelleration.

[WolfA4]

the muzzle velocity is so similar you cant count it as a bonus. lets not forget that the 20mm sniper rifles you showed are also larger and heavier also have greater recoil too. only thing that is a real plus about it is the bullet size. im willing to bet the accuracy of th M82 is greater then of any of those rifles you showed.

[Doppler]

Personally, I like the Tripod Idea, but yah know, the PS engine forgot the prone position.

Ok for those that are not aware, the devs intentionaly left prone out of the game because it slows the battle down considerably, and turns this into sniperside. Plus the way bases are constructed, it gives something to open field snipers, that defensive snipers cant really use.

[Ed the MAD]

the muzzle velocity is so similar you cant count it as a bonus. lets not forget that the 20mm sniper rifles you showed are also larger and heavier also have greater recoil too. only thing that is a real plus about it is the bullet size. im willing to bet the accuracy of th M82 is greater then of any of those rifles you showed.


i take it you did not read the pages supplied. the RT-20 has reduced recoil due to a large pipe that directs exess gas backwards. perhaps you should actually read the information i supplied.

[WolfA4]

i take it you did not read the pages supplied. the RT-20 has reduced recoil due to a large pipe that directs exess gas backwards. perhaps you should actually read the information i supplied.

the cannon on the M1 abrams has reduced recoil due to its barrel design, do you think you could survive firing it if it were a rifle? the M82 has reduced recoil as well, but it has so much recoil its still a hell of alot of kick even after its been reduced. do you seriously think a 20mm cannon will fire like an M16? be realistic man, didnt you notice they didnt compare the recoil of the rifle to something else? yes it has reduced recoil they reduced it enough so that it doesnt break your collar bone upon firing it just slightly dislocates it instead.

[Ed the MAD]

the cannon on the M1 abrams has reduced recoil due to its barrel design, do you think you could survive firing it if it were a rifle? the M82 has reduced recoil as well, but it has so much recoil its still a hell of alot of kick even after its been reduced. do you seriously think a 20mm cannon will fire like an M16? be realistic man, didnt you notice they didnt compare the recoil of the rifle to something else? yes it has reduced recoil they reduced it enough so that it doesnt break your collar bone upon firing it just slightly dislocates it instead.

1.) no. the gun of the M1A2 is a vehicle weapon. it's desighned to be mounted either on a vehicle, or some sort of gun carrage.
2) i've fired the Barett .50, it has the same recoil as a 12 ga. shotgun. i never said it would fire like an M16. the M16 is a pellet gun compared to the M14, naturally an Anti-Materiel rifle fireing an anti materiel round would have greater recoil than an assault rifle useing an intermediate round. but the recoil wouldn't be unmanagable.
3) i never said that an RT-20 would fire like an M-16. where did i say that, because if i did, i'd like to retract that particular statement because it's counter to my point that the two weapons are different, and i must have been stoned to say it.
4) any large bore weapon could bust your collar if held wrong. wther it be a .30 cal or a .50. every big bore shooter knows not to hold the weapon against your collar bone.

[WolfA4]

1.) no. the gun of the M1A2 is a vehicle weapon. it's desighned to be mounted either on a vehicle, or some sort of gun carrage.

you missed the point


2) i've fired the Barett .50, it has the same recoil as a 12 ga. shotgun. i never said it would fire like an M16. the M16 is a pellet gun compared to the M14, naturally an Anti-Materiel rifle fireing an anti materiel round would have greater recoil than an assault rifle useing an intermediate round. but the recoil wouldn't be unmanagable.

i know the recoil of the M82 it also has reduced recoil it still has kick its still alot even much less then say firing a M2 but still alot because its a big bullet basically.

3) i never said that an RT-20 would fire like an M-16. where did i say that, because if i did, i'd like to retract that particular statement because it's counter to my point that the two weapons are different, and i must have been stoned to say it.

the whole M16 thing was just an exageration it has reduced recoil yes but its still a HUGE bullet 20mm's thats friggen big and being so it requires more energy to propell it through the air thus producing more reactive forces as well. unless it was mounted to a stationary cannon with hard backing like the old WWII 20mm AA guns its going to have more kick then the M82. come on look at that thing and tell me you dont expect it to kick like a mule when fired its a 20 mm rifle round just imagine it.


4) any large bore weapon could bust your collar if held wrong. wther it be a .30 cal or a .50. every big bore shooter knows not to hold the weapon against your collar bone.

anyone ever tell you, that you take things to literally?

[Ed the MAD]

you missed the point

no, i didn't. the amunition used my the M1A2's main gun is larger and heavier than a full sized LMG. even with the reduced recoil it wold tear your arm off. i get your point you just seem to be stuck in a loop.

i know the recoil of the M82 it also has reduced recoil it still has kick its still alot even much less then say firing a M2 but still alot because its a big bullet basically.

i know that. we're on the same page here, just different paragraphs.

the whole M16 thing was just an exageration it has reduced recoil yes but its still a HUGE bullet 20mm's thats friggen big and being so it requires more energy to propell it through the air thus producing more reactive forces as well. unless it was mounted to a stationary cannon with hard backing like the old WWII 20mm AA guns its going to have more kick then the M82. come on look at that thing and tell me you dont expect it to kick like a mule when fired its a 20 mm rifle round just imagine it.

the old WW2 20mm AA guns didn't need reduced recoil. in addition i belive the cases were somewhat larger(i'm not sure, correct me if i'm wrong on this point). they were fixed artillery pices. i never said the RT-20 wouldn't kick like a mule. but the fact that it's in use today means that it is indeed managable by one man. otherwise the Croatian Army wouldn't have them.



anyone ever tell you, that you take things to literally?

yes, as a matter of fact. i'm a sticler for realism. and i like to see belivable weapons and ballistics in games. it just makes them more belivable, and therefor entertaining. remember, it may be Fiction, but it's Science Fiction. and what makes Science Fiction entertaining is that it uses Science to explain many things to make it belivable. you hardly ever see the makers use "Ninja Magic" to explain a Bug in Halo, do you? you never hear the guys who did half life say "the wizard did it," do you? no. because Wizards are not real, and Ninja's don't have Magic(at least to my knowledge). but Photons, Neutron, electrons, and quasars are real. chemical reactions, gravity, and all that shit...okay, my rant just lost all it's steam. you get my point, right?

[WolfA4]

no, i didn't. the amunition used my the M1A2's main gun is larger and heavier than a full sized LMG. even with the reduced recoil it wold tear your arm off. i get your point you just seem to be stuck in a loop.

now your just crazy 105-125mm tank rounds being heavier then a 12mm round thats just crazy, go away crazy person with your crazy thoughts. that was sarcasm. you really did miss the point. the barrel of an M1 i forget what that break is called 3/4 up the barrel reduces the recoil on the tank, by tank standards. i was trying to show you that even tho it has reduced recoil that its still a HUGE bullet being fired and is going to have HUGE recoil even tho its reduced, get what im trying to say?



i know that. we're on the same page here, just different paragraphs.


probably


the old WW2 20mm AA guns didn't need reduced recoil. in addition i belive the cases were somewhat larger(i'm not sure, correct me if i'm wrong on this point). they were fixed artillery pices. i never said the RT-20 wouldn't kick like a mule. but the fact that it's in use today means that it is indeed managable by one man. otherwise the Croatian Army wouldn't have them.


the designers probably didnt intend to reduce recoil that much but because they were fixed on air craft carriers those big ass struts took the recoil of the human firing them get where im going with this? i know you never said it wouldnt, but im trying to say is that altho it has reduced recoil it still has a hell of alot of it and im willing to bet way more then an M82. i know it has to be manangable by a human or it would never have been designed :P




yes, as a matter of fact. i'm a sticler for realism. and i like to see belivable weapons and ballistics in games. it just makes them more belivable, and therefor entertaining. remember, it may be Fiction, but it's Science Fiction. and what makes Science Fiction entertaining is that it uses Science to explain many things to make it belivable. you hardly ever see the makers use "Ninja Magic" to explain a Bug in Halo, do you? you never hear the guys who did half life say "the wizard did it," do you? no. because Wizards are not real, and Ninja's don't have Magic(at least to my knowledge). but Photons, Neutron, electrons, and quasars are real. chemical reactions, gravity, and all that shit...okay, my rant just lost all it's steam. you get my point, right?

yeah i noticed that... hell that paragraph along shows you are a stickler me saying "has anyone ever told you you take things to literally" wasnt really a question :P

[Ed the MAD]

now your just crazy 105-125mm tank rounds being heavier then a 12mm round thats just crazy, go away crazy person with your crazy thoughts. that was sarcasm. you really did miss the point. the barrel of an M1 i forget what that break is called 3/4 up the barrel reduces the recoil on the tank, by tank standards. i was trying to show you that even tho it has reduced recoil that its still a HUGE bullet being fired and is going to have HUGE recoil even tho its reduced, get what im trying to say?

no, i'm not talking about the amunition for the LMG. i'm talking about the actual LMG itself. have you ever seen an M60 up close? i have. i've also seen a dummy 125mm Tank round up close. i've tried to pick both up. i could lift the M60, just barely. however, the dummy round was somewhat heavier. in size, they are almost the same. the m60 is slightly longer.



the designers probably didnt intend to reduce recoil that much but because they were fixed on air craft carriers those big ass struts took the recoil of the human firing them get where im going with this? i know you never said it wouldnt, but im trying to say is that altho it has reduced recoil it still has a hell of alot of it and im willing to bet way more then an M82. i know it has to be manangable by a human or it would never have been designed :P


i'm not debating that. i'm just saying don't make a comparison that doesn't make sense. only i'm allowed to do that.




yeah i noticed that... hell that paragraph along shows you are a stickler me saying "has anyone ever told you you take things to literally" wasnt really a question :P

i know. i just like to reply to that. i do it all the time. when someone says "has anyone ever told you _____" or "ARE YOU _____!?" i will instinctively say "yes, very much so."



you know what? this debate is getting us nowhere. let's just clearly state the point's we're trying to make. which i seem to have forgotten...shit.

[WolfA4]

okie dokie my point the RT-20 or any of those rifles really a better rifle then the M82 only difference is the massive difference in bullet size.

[Ed the MAD]

okie dokie my point the RT-20 or any of those rifles really a better rifle then the M82 only difference is the massive difference in bullet size.

and my point is they are due to comparable reliability, and better pennitration due to larger bullet.

okay, now what was this thread about before we hijacked it?

[WolfA4]

and my point is they are due to comparable reliability, and better pennitration due to larger bullet.

okay, now what was this thread about before we hijacked it?

and mine was that they arent because of lower accuracy more recoil and larger rifle.

[Ed the MAD]

...they are indeed very accurate. a quality marksman could cut a phone line from a mile away with one of those.

now that we have both stated our points, the debate is now over.

the question still remains, what was this thread about before we hijacked it?

[WolfA4]

are you saying that those rifles are more accurate then the M82? the statement wasnt that they arent accurate at all but not as accurate as the M82.

[Ed the MAD]

ah, okay, i misenterpreted you. i would assume they are quite accurate, i mean, the Black arrow is a .50 cal. as well as the russian AMR i submitted. in anycase, i would assume they are of comparable accuracy. i'v never really fired them, but they would have to be quite accurate to be militarily viable. my point was they had superior pennetration. however on the subject of accuracy, i honestly can't say much aside from "accurate enough to hit the target."

[Jagd]

http://www.allprowrestling.com/fan_page/you_suck.jpg