Sniper Rifle - Page 5

Ed the MAD · 2003-12-07, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by WolfA4

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.

Originally Posted by WolfA4

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.

Originally Posted by WolfA4

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.

Originally Posted by WolfA4

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 · 2003-12-07, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Ed the MAD

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 · 2003-12-07, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by WolfA4

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.

Originally Posted by WolfA4

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.

Originally Posted by WolfA4

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 · 2003-12-07, 04:14 PM

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 · 2003-12-07, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2003-12-08, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by Ed the MAD

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 · 2003-12-08, 09:08 AM

...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 · 2003-12-08, 10:51 AM

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 · 2003-12-10, 01:15 PM

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 · 2003-12-10, 04:29 PM