Will bolt actions be perfectly accurate like RO:OST?

[Crni-Wuk]

real issue might be the reaction. I am not a experienced shooter. But I guess that "snapshoots" on distance where someone leans around a courner to shoot and get back in cover with less then 2 seconds always feels a bit cheesy. But it seems with a weapon colision this might be a gameplay from the past. Same when standing up behind cover while aiming down the sight. I doubt one can keep the same accuracy and shoot with what I would call in-human speed. Rifles are accurate and if you hvae enough time to aim you should expect a hit most of the time. But fast or hectically movements should always throw off the aim. Particularly when standing up or leaning around some courner.

 

[VariousNames]

It was provided for you once in the threads but since apparently the original reference to that gives invalid forum link, let's spell it out again:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Combat:_The_Psychology_and_Physiology_of_Deadly_Conflict_in_War_and_in_Peace[/URL]

Respectfully, particularly with regards to the authority of the author on the subject matter,

That particular chart certainly wasn't derived from research the author himself conducted. If you actually own the book, which I consider unlikely, you should be able to find me the author's reference for that particular study. That reference is what I'm requesting.

 

[theco]

Your way off the mark in a couple of ways. First off, the rifles in RO1 were not perfectly accurate. They had a realistic deviation based off of real world data, and first hand experience by me personally shooting most of the weapons. As other people have mentioned, your probably don't quite have a proper perception of the in-game distances. Picking someone off at 300 meters is darn near a miracle shot in RO1. If you look at the RO1 Steam stats you will see only 0.8% of RO1 players ever even got a kill over 200 meters with a rifle! That is the "Excellent Marksman Bronze" achievement: http://steamcommunity.com/stats/RedOrchestra/achievements/[url]http://steamcommunity.com/stats/RedOrchestra/achievements/[/URL]

Secondly, the mosin nagant 91/30 is a sub MOA rifle at 100 yards. I really good shooter can put 5 bullet holes touching each other at 100 yards. I'm not that good, but I can put 5 bullets within a couple of inches at that range. My Kar98 can do similar groupings. Both rifles are WWII vintage, and 70 years old. Heck I can get a 6 inch grouping at that range with my AK47, and its not nearly as accurate as the mosin or the kar.

The new game features similar accuracy in the weapon to the first game, although it is refined a bit from further hands on experience with these weapons. Also the other factors such as breathing, sway, recoil, etc work way differently in RO2. So longer range shots are now realistically easier than the first game was.

Thank-you for the response! Like I said before, I really think that the FOV think was throwing me off. Unfortunately I am stuck in Europe with nothing but a netbook for the next few months, so I cannot really test anything. I think the statistic that only 0.8% of players made kills at 200m speaks for itself though. It just felt like in RO:OST that I could put a really tiny target in my sights and get a kill. I am almost certain this is the FOV now.

I'm not sure the mosin being a sub-moa weapon though. I've shot a couple, and talked to other people that own them, and I've never heard of one being nearly that accurate. Even Finish mosins are by most accounts not capable of sub-moa with surplus ammo. Maybe you could pick out my next mosin? I would gladly pay a premium for such a rifle!

But like I said before, sub-moa accuracy is unnecessary for the ranges most combat takes place at (sub 300m). I think the slight zoom when sighting a rifle in RO:HoS will help increase the realism of perception a lot. I greatly look forward to purchasing HoS!

 

[VariousNames]

I was like 700 hours in before I made my first 200 meter kill with a bolt action, and it was on a custom map....and I had to put some effort into it

Most maps where you consider the engagements "long range," e.g. Basovka, actually take place at less than 200 meters in Ost because by my eye the draw distance is actually much shorter than that.

The only stock maps that I know of that really draw out that far are tank maps, in which it's understandably difficult to get a bolt action kill (few exposed infantry, constant MG/HE barrages).

In inf maps like Basovka, Danzig, Krasnyi....forget about it.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Your way off the mark in a couple of ways. First off, the rifles in RO1 were not perfectly accurate. They had a realistic deviation based off of real world data, and first hand experience by me personally shooting most of the weapons. As other people have mentioned, your probably don't quite have a proper perception of the in-game distances. Picking someone off at 300 meters is darn near a miracle shot in RO1. If you look at the RO1 Steam stats you will see only 0.8% of RO1 players ever even got a kill over 200 meters with a rifle! That is the "Excellent Marksman Bronze" achievement: [URL]http://steamcommunity.com/stats/RedOrchestra/achievements/[/URL]

Secondly, the mosin nagant 91/30 is a sub MOA rifle at 100 yards. I really good shooter can put 5 bullet holes touching each other at 100 yards. I'm not that good, but I can put 5 bullets within a couple of inches at that range. My Kar98 can do similar groupings. Both rifles are WWII vintage, and 70 years old. Heck I can get a 6 inch grouping at that range with my AK47, and its not nearly as accurate as the mosin or the kar.

The new game features similar accuracy in the weapon to the first game, although it is refined a bit from further hands on experience with these weapons. Also the other factors such as breathing, sway, recoil, etc work way differently in RO2. So longer range shots are now realistically easier than the first game was.

I couldn't agree more Ramm, my K98k will do sub MOA groupings all day long as-well, and that whilst shooting modern duplicates of the ammunition used back in WW2 (schweres Spitzgeschoss in this case)

People also need to remember that the consistency of the propellant charges is one of the most important determining factors for accuracy, and the powder in 70 year old ammunition is bound have suffered from storage conditions over such a long period. Powder having been stored for so long will suffer from crystalization, leading to inconsistent burn rates between rounds, considerably decreasing accuracy.

Just to give an indicator of how accurate these rifles are:

Chest sized target (18x18 inch), 3 shots out of 4 hit the mark at 822 meters (900 yards):
YouTube - WWII German 98K rifle at 900 yards

[/URL]

 

[DiedTrying]

okay, that video was awesome.

 

[Floyd]

He does the same thing with a mosin nagant except instead of using a 15x scope he uses a stock scope and an 18 in target. With both he glass beds the stock and handloads rounds specific to the task he is accomplishing. On one he does a little relieving around the receiver. (I wonder if he removes the barrel band? Can't really tell in the video.)

The drop on the mosin handload he uses is 32 ft at 1000yds. He only manages to hit the target 3 of 5 times though. Bling is giving me crap and I can't find the video

One thing never mentioned is that rifles (with thin barrels) also tend to fire differently when cold vs hot. In competition its not uncommon to fire off a round to heat the barrel up (and then 'cooling' between shots). And likewise, in combat, its not uncommon to get a barrel hot enough to greatly affect its accuracy. Each and every weapon and mount will respond differently. Not that it matters at 250 yd ranges shooting at a torso in the heat of battle. In the case of the combat rifle, accuracy is probabably the least of its problems.

 

[VariousNames]

He does the same thing with a mosin nagant except instead of using a 15x scope he uses a stock scope and an 18 in target. With both he glass beds the stock and handloads rounds specific to the task he is accomplishing. On one he does a little relieving around the receiver. (I wonder if he removes the barrel band? Can't really tell in the video.)

The drop on the mosin handload he uses is 32 ft at 1000yds. He only manages to hit the target 3 of 5 times though. Bling is giving me crap and I can't find the video

One thing never mentioned is that rifles (with thin barrels) also tend to fire differently when cold vs hot. In competition its not uncommon to fire off a round to heat the barrel up (and then 'cooling' between shots). And likewise, in combat, its not uncommon to get a barrel hot enough to greatly affect its accuracy. Each and every weapon and mount will respond differently. Not that it matters at 250 yd ranges shooting at a torso in the heat of battle. In the case of the combat rifle, accuracy is probabably the least of its problems.

YouTube - 1,000 yards 1942 91/30 Russian Mosin-Nagant (P/U) sniper rifle

Just complementing your lovely post with the video you asked for.

 

[BoeLynx]

Those marksmen are god among men. No question about it.

 

[DarkFlame7]

YouTube - 1,000 yards 1942 91/30 Russian Mosin-Nagant (P/U) sniper rifle

Just complementing your lovely post with the video you asked for.

I'd watched that before. It's amazing such old guns are so accurate.

 

[VariousNames]

Those marksmen are god among men. No question about it.

The guy in the video with the Mosin Nagant at 1000 yards is actually using his middle finger to shoot...

he responded in the Youtube comments that he has nerve damage in his pointer finger,

now that's skill, 3/5 on an 18" target with a surplus WWII vintage rifle at 1000 yards....without the use of your pointer finger. And 4/5 at 900 yards.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

He does the same thing with a mosin nagant except instead of using a 15x scope he uses a stock scope and an 18 in target. With both he glass beds the stock and handloads rounds specific to the task he is accomplishing. On one he does a little relieving around the receiver. (I wonder if he removes the barrel band? Can't really tell in the video.)

The barrel bands are left on.

One thing never mentioned is that rifles (with thin barrels) also tend to fire differently when cold vs hot. In competition its not uncommon to fire off a round to heat the barrel up (and then 'cooling' between shots). And likewise, in combat, its not uncommon to get a barrel hot enough to greatly affect its accuracy. Each and every weapon and mount will respond differently. Not that it matters at 250 yd ranges shooting at a torso in the heat of battle. In the case of the combat rifle, accuracy is probabably the least of its problems.

Indeed, and the K98k actually has a bit of an advantage in this area, featuring a thicker stepped barrel as compared to the Mosin's thinner straight barrel which even features very little tapering.

The advantages of the K98k's stepped barrel design are the following:

1.) Stepped barrels are very stiff, nearly as stiff as the heavy bull barrels of target rifles. And compared to similar sized tapered barrels, stepped barrels feature superior node harmonics to control barrel whip. In short, barrels were stepped so as to decrease vibration and increase accuracy. "Stepping" altered the barrel mass at the measured nodes of resonance and decreased vibratory motion as compared to simple tapered barrels.

2.) When a stepped barrel heats up due to firing, because of the steps, the barrel will not push out and stick to or distort the woodwork/stock.

Note: Barrel's sticking to the woodwork/stock is a primary culprit for causing inconsistent accuracy.

3.) Stepped barrels were easier to turn and gave less problems when heated by firing if the bore were not perfectly centered to the outside dia.

K98k's stepped barrel:



Mosin's straight barrel:



For this reason Mag30th, the author of the videos posted here, states that the K98k is the most accurate of his surplus rifles, it being much more consistent and less temperamental than his Mosin 91/30. And he hasn't even been playing around with FMJBT's for the K98k, so far he's only been shooting 200 gr Sierra Match King HPBT's, featuring a considerably lower Ballistic Coefficient (Avg: .505 G1) than the 198 gr wartime or commercial sS FMJBT (Avg: .590 G1). The higher Ballistic Coefficient of the FMJBT rounds will provide superior accuracy beyond 1,000 yards, due to the point at which the bullet transitions from supersonic to subsonic speed being greatly extended.

Note: The point at which a bullet transitions from supersonic to subsonic speed causes slight instability to the bullet, decreasing accuracy from that distance on.

 

[Floyd]

Ah, the old BC premise again, eh? <rhetorical> If, in practice, it is more accurate and more historical, then why doesn't he shoot it? And if he is not shooting past 1000yds and his velocity doesn't drop below 1200fps then sub or super sonic is moot, n'est pas? </rhetorical>

No argurment from me that for combat purposes with open sights (or even 6x scopes) that either of these weapons suffice. And quite sufficiently.

Note: Barrel's sticking to the woodwork/stock is a primary culprit for causing inconsistent accuracy.

(Perhaps semantically speaking, the more correct term might be 'most common' instead of 'primary') Thus my question about the barrel bands. I can't see any on the mosin video. I haven't looked really really close, but the mosin didn't even appear to have the top part of the forearm on it? Even free floated perhaps?

Of my rifles, my most favorite shooting rifle is a Winchester Model 70 30-06 Sprg. Its primary function is a hunting rifle so free floating the barrel wasn't really a practical consideration. It is such a fun gun to shoot that over the years I've played around with loads and bullets, glass bedding the stock, did some trigger work, etc. In working toward the ideal load it became apparent that the weapon always shot slightly high right with the first round (~.75in at 100yds), dead on for the second, and then began a slow climb from there for each succeeding shot. This particular rifle model has a screw about 5in down the forearm from the chamber that fastens the barrel to the stock. Take that screw out and after the first round, its golden. Same principle as 'sticking' to the wood. For a bolt action big game rifle, it wasn't that big of a deal. But for bragging rights at the range, it was paramount. Ironically, the bullet that punches out the X's for me is an 168gr Sierra hollow point boat tail.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Ah, the old BC premise again, eh? <rhetorical> If, in practice, it is more accurate and more historical, then why doesn't he shoot it? And if he is not shooting past 1000yds and his velocity doesn't drop below 1200fps then sub or super sonic is moot, n'est pas? </rhetorical>

The problem is requiring 8mm FMJBT in the states is a real pain in the rear, it's really expensive getting European FMJBT ammunition overseas, so HPBT's are the closest you're going to get in the states for a reasonable price. That's why he shoots Sierra HPBTs and not European FMJBTs.

(Perhaps semantically speaking, the more correct term might be 'most common' instead of 'primary')

That actually is a better way of putting it.

Thus my question about the barrel bands. I can't see any on the mosin video. I haven't looked really really close, but the mosin didn't even appear to have the top part of the forearm on it? Even free floated perhaps?

As far as I could see everything was in place on the Mosin, but you might be right. As for the K98k, every band is there, beside from the glass bedding it is in 100% original state.

As an interesting side note, upon acceptance as a sniper's rifle K98k's selected as such actually had their barrel's free floated by the company armorer, additionally triggers were reworked for a pull of 1.5 to 2.5 kg (3.3 to 5.5 lbs), depending on the preference of the shooter.