Balance issues (AK, M16, M14)

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

What you spew is the actual myth; I have sources, you have nothing.

You're welcome to remain irrelevant by never having any evidence to support your theory.


The bullet having enough energy to kill someone semi (yes, it's not a magical manstopper like fanboys make them out to be, do some research on m80 first) reliably out to 600yds do not contradict the rifle's subpar accuracy in general.

These days everyone figured out how finnicky M14s are, so M14 sits in armory even with modern stock...etc.

Let me have your sources then, just don't send me this crap: http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/th...he-m14-legend/

But I bet that's your single source right?

Fact is the M14 had basically all of its issues with the stock corrected very early on, and there are plenty a testimony to its accuracy during both the vietnam war as well as in Iraq & Afghanistan. I've fired several std. service M14's and I don't remember one that went above 2 MOA at 200 yards, which is pretty much the average of most WW2 bolt actions, no most went well below at around 1.5 MOA. Heck there's a reason the military decided to convert it into a sniping weapon! In other words, don't believe everything you read in random internet articles.

So no, so far I've only seen fantasy from your end, incl. the odd request for a std. AK47 that shoots as accurately as the std. M16. Sorry but to those of us who operate firearms on a daily basis that's just so ridiculous it begs laughter.

Furthermore that you honestly believe a 7.62 NATO will only "semi reliably" kill someone at 600 yards makes we wonder why I am even bothering right now...

 

[ComradeHX]

Would you stop already derailing this thread with your nonsense!

Thread wasn't derailed; it's only nonsense for you because you know nothing and cannot understand anything.

Let me have your sources then, just don't send me this crap: http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/th...he-m14-legend/

But I bet that's your single source right?

Fact is the M14 had basically all of its issues with the stock corrected very early on, and there are plenty a testimony to its accuracy during both the vietnam war as well as in Iraq & Afghanistan. I've fired several std. service M14's and I don't remember one that went above 2 MOA at 200 yards, which is pretty much the average of most WW2 bolt actions. Heck there's a reason the military decided to convert it into a sniping weapon! In other words, don't believe everything you read in random internet articles.

So no, so far I've only seen fantasy from your end, incl. the odd request for a std. AK47 that shoots as accurately as the std. M16. Sorry but to those of us who operate firearms on a daily basis that's just so ridiculous it begs laughter.

Furthermore that you honestly believe a 7.62 NATO will only "semi kill" someone at 600 yards makes we wonder why I am even bothering right now...

You fell for it.

1. if you ever read(I know you haven't), you would know that article contains multiple sources on M14's "effectiveness" as a combat weapon.
Meanwhile you still have nothing. See anyone can make up moa numbers and then claim "I don't remember the details" later.
The fact that you simply call that link crap and refuses to address even one of its points means your mental gymnastics is in full spin and that you won't even acknowledge any factual information if it hits you in the face.

Right back at you; don't believe everything you read in random internet articles/forumposts(especially certain M14 circlejerk forums).
(But you would have to read it first)

2. The reason US Military considered it is because they already had M14 platform(could possibly be cheaper to work on M14...which turned out not so true) and now basically ditched it because it's just not a good system compared to AR-style system(CSASS).

3. I never said AK should shoot as accurately as M16(nor did I say it shouldn't), just M14 need to be nerfed in accuracy; all I posted was the fact that AK is not nearly as inaccurate as myth would lead you to believe.
https://youtu.be/ULWb-83QW_c?t=2m39s
See a cheap American made AK with stamped receiver can do sub-MOA with **** ammo too.
(I know you won't watch the video, so it's 1.957moa)

4. furthermore, the fact that you actually think 7.62x51 is magical manstopper(because what I posted was simply that it's not magical) makes me wonder just how far gone you are into the M14 fanboyism. Not really, I already know; too far.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf
Read the part about M80, terminal ballistics is not on your side.

Actually I know you won't read so basically:
there are two types of M80, copper and steel jacketed. Steel jacketed ones appear to do very significant wound(large both temporary and permanent wound channels) but only reliably when above 2800fps.

Except it is already below 2800fps at 26yd. when fired out of 22in. barrel: http://how-i-did-it.org/762vs308/chamber.html
At 600yd. it would have lost over half of its muzzle energy, and it was already below 2800fps at 26yd...

Thus 600yd. shots with your typical M14 on M80 ball ammo are either made by someone else at same time but closer to target, or very lucky shot(or many shots). Or maybe you have some magical gun that delivers higher muzzle velocity than M16 with 7.62x51.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

I fell for it? No comrade, you fell for that article and that's the problem...

As expected it was your only source, one that cherry picks small parts of a test conducted with 1950's built M14's before the wooden stock (the bane of consistent accuracy for surplus rifles) and early production issues were corrected.... Wow, how representative.

That the M14 isn't the most accurate sniper rifle out there however everyone knows, it's the same story with pretty much all semi auto rifles, they need real babying if they wanna compete with purpose built bolt actions. The same complaints are heard in every military to this day, thus if you want the highest possible in service accuracy you go with a bolt action.

As for the AK's accuracy, 3.5 MOA is what I'd expect out of a well kept Russian or Chinese made piece using military grade ammunition. Hence I'd like to see the accuracy of the ingame AK's increased to this.

However the biggest problem right now ingame balance wise is still the unrealistically obstructive peep sights on mainly the US weapons, it's the single thing that is keeping the M16 noticably less effective than the AK47 ingame right now despite being both vastly more accurate and producing much less recoil.

 

[ComradeHX]

I fell for it? No comrade, you fell for that article and that's the problem...

As expected it was your only source, one that cherry picks small parts of a test conducted with 1950's built M14's before the wooden stock (the bane of consistent accuracy for surplus rifles) and early production issues were corrected.... Wow, how representative.

Yes, you fell for it.

That wasn't the only thing the article cited.

Though people who have many believed the Military and the end users long for the return of this big heavy beast, this is not really all that true. this is best illustrated during the time period in the late 80s to the late 90s of the USMC's DMR program when so many tried to bring it back as the DM rifle or the Sniper teams spotters weapon.

Around, during or a little before this time, the Army Rifle team commander decided since the Army's standard issue service rifle was the M16, than that is what the Army service rifle team needed to be, and should be using. The AMTU armorers put their heads together, took some tips from civilian highpower shooter who had already woken up and got by the absurd notion that service rifle meant "wood and steel" , and soon after the Army was beating the USMC rifle teams at Camp Perry by a long shot. Not long long after, the Marines found themselves going to the M16 for service rifle to keep up. Few people, who want to stay competitive have looked back. Especially after the development of the 77 and 80 grain HPBT match bullets.

But, the DMR program is where the trouble of the M14 as a precision combat rifle really became clear.

T o quote Lt Colonel Chandler owner of Iron Brigade Armory and former Officer in Charge of many USMC marksmanship and sniping programs.

"Remember that the US Army struggled for more than twenty years to transform the M14 into a sniper type weapon. The Army finally abandoned all attempts to salvage the M14 rifle. Continued use of the M14 as anything other than a drill rifle is better described as DISASTER. ( emphasis Chandler's). The M14 is old, and has never been more than a modified M1 Garand. "œ
...

Not that you would know, since you don't read.

"noticeably less effective" that's hilarious, we can all see your blatant bias there.
If peep sights are so obstructive then you could have retracted stock on the ones that have the feature.

So I guess you will just bail on the 7.62x51 stuff, eh?

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Bail? LMAO

Kiddo the 7.62 M80 round has the same kinetic energy at 600 yards as a .44 Magnum, thus if you doubt it's killing capacity at that range all I can say is: Get real son!

Btw the only one with "blatant bias" here is you, and it came off real strong from the very first post "Comrade".

 

[ComradeHX]

Bail? LMAO

Kiddo the 7.62 M80 round has the same kinetic energy at 600 yards as a .44 Magnum, thus if you doubt it's killing capacity at that range all I can say is: Get real son!

Btw the only one with "blatant bias" here is you, and it came off real strong from the very first post "Comrade".

Get real son!

.44 magnum(standard ball ammo) is also a hole puncher(you also googled one of the weakest load of .44), or did you think you can hit anywhere on someone and drop them dead with .44 magnum? Then I will have to conclude that you're just trying to compensate for poor marksmanship with bigger bullet.
Fyi, a round being allowed for hunting in certain state laws do not mean much.

(let me guess, next you're going to say .45 is vastly superior to 9mm)

Design of bullet matters, and M80 ball is not designed to do maximum flesh damage.

My blatant bias? Like what, like how I can admit M14 is god gun if you aren't a **** player? At least I'm not blaming the sights when I miss. (even when there can be freeaim when ADS so you can easily move the sight out of the way when not firing)
In conclusion, you are the one with blatant bias and you have failed to argue at every front.

Get real son!

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

I challenge you to find many people who will agree with you that the M14 is a "god gun" ingame hahaha xD Heck you'd do good if you found some who even think it's worth using at its present state ingame xD

The rest of the BS you write I'm just going to ignore, I don't want to argue with a child.

 

[Jagdwyre]

My blatant bias? Like what, like how I can admit M14 is god gun if you aren't a **** player? At least I'm not blaming the sights when I miss. (even when there is a bit of freeaim when ADS)
In conclusion, you are the one with blatant bias and you have failed to argue at every front.

Get real son!

I hope you realize that the M16 quite literally does just about equal the damage in close range that the M14 does. In fact because of how damage is calculated in the game it's even possible to require three hits on someone with an M14 to kill them.

Under 100 meters in the game your M14 is essentially just an M16 with absurd recoil with no full auto capability. The only tangible benefits you get from the M14 are 2 more rounds of magazine capacity, better barrier penetration, and a little better damage at longer distances(distances which you barely fight at in this game frankly). Not nearly enough to make it overall just as good as the M16, let alone a "god gun."

Maybe if you'd stop having a hard on about citing random internet sources about ballistics and the M14 and actually focused on what is actually happening in the game, you would have figured this out by now.

 

[ComradeHX]

I challenge you to find many people who will agree with you that the M14 is a "god gun" ingame hahaha xD Heck you'd do good if you found some who even think it's worth using at its present state ingame xD

The rest of the BS you write I'm just going to ignore, I don't want to argue with a child.

Of course you're going to ignore everything that destroys your narrative.
You indeed do not want to be arguing with yourself.

I hope you realize that the M16 quite literally does just about equal the damage in close range that the M14 does. In fact because of how damage is calculated in the game it's even possible to require three hits on someone with an M14 to kill them.

Under 100 meters in the game your M14 is essentially just an M16 with absurd recoil with no full auto capability. The only tangible benefits you get from the M14 are 2 more rounds of magazine capacity, better barrier penetration, and a little better damage at longer distances(distances which you barely fight at in this game frankly). Not nearly enough to make it overall just as good as the M16, let alone a "god gun."

Maybe if you'd stop having a hard on about citing random internet sources about ballistics and the M14 and actually focused on what is actually happening in the game, you would have figured this out by now.

By that "logic" everything does just about equal damage because even pistols can one shot to torso at close range. Maybe everyone should just get a SMG/pistol instead of lugging around automatic rifles. /s

Barrier penetration and damage at distance is what makes M14.
Unlike Mosin, M14 can be used to spam through relatively thick cover. (like certain sandbags)
There are also plenty of maps(despite how little map there is) with long sight lines down a street or something where M14 can work a lot better (especially when enemy mg is posted up somewhere with thin enough wall as cover, like Hue City).
In those cases M16 either need to aim for headshot or use multiple shots, where as M14 can still just click once(maybe twice through cover).

As for recoil, M14 recoil is far from absurd.(partly due to not being fullauto) At distances where you actually want to spam semi-auto, recoil is plenty low enough for that.

Maybe if you did a little less spray and pray then you would have figured that out by now.

 

[Gladius]

I wonder if that dude is for real or just trolling.

 

[ComradeHX]

Don't need to troll someone for him to be mentally distressed enough(from PTSD on thread about Stoner 63A damage in KF2) to try to sneak in a post by not quoting me, hoping I don't notice.

 

[Jagdwyre]

By that "logic" everything does just about equal damage because even pistols can one shot to torso at close range. Maybe everyone should just get a SMG/pistol instead of lugging around automatic rifles. /s

Barrier penetration and damage at distance is what makes M14.
Unlike Mosin, M14 can be used to spam through relatively thick cover. (like certain sandbags)
There are also plenty of maps(despite how little map there is) with long sight lines down a street or something where M14 can work a lot better (especially when enemy mg is posted up somewhere with thin enough wall as cover, like Hue City).
In those cases M16 either need to aim for headshot or use multiple shots, where as M14 can still just click once(maybe twice through cover).

As for recoil, M14 recoil is far from absurd.(partly due to not being fullauto) At distances where you actually want to spam semi-auto, recoil is plenty low enough for that.

Maybe if you did a little less spray and pray then you would have figured that out by now.

Pistols also have a less recoil. And given that you think "maybe everyone should just run around with an SMG" is worthy of sarcasm you haven't seen how easy it is to rack up bodies with the PPSH in this game, but I digress.

Unless these "long sight lines" have you engaging targets at 200 meters the M14 is absolutely no better than the M16. A semi-auto M16 is objectively better than the M14 in almost every single way. Barrier penetration is nice but that does not magically put it on par with the M16, nor, again, does it make it a "god gun."

Pretty sure this is a classic case of "but I can get kills with it just fine" being conflated with "because the gun is technically usable it is the best!"
Yes, the M14 can kill people in the game, someone who knows what they're doing can kill a ton of people with the M14. You can also kill a ton of the people with the 1911 if you know what you're doing. That doesn't make either of them the best guns in the game.

And I almost exclusively use semi-auto on all the rifles in the game, but whatever.

 

[Gladius]

Don't need to troll someone for him to be mentally distressed enough(from PTSD on thread about Stoner 63A damage in KF2) to try to sneak in a post by not quoting me, hoping I don't notice.

Your posts are always first class garbage, not only in the Stoner thread. You are begging for attention with nonsensical provocations and then every serious discussion ends. Go away! Please!

 

[ComradeHX]

Your posts are always first class garbage, not only in the Stoner thread. You are begging for attention with nonsensical provocations and then every serious discussion ends. Go away! Please!

It has been proven again and again that your posts are the garbage, that is why you bailed on Stoner 63A thread.

Every serious discussion ends when you began to try to derail the thread in attempt to hide your embarrassment until you get bullied out of thread by facts.

Pistols also have a less recoil. And given that you think "maybe everyone should just run around with an SMG" is worthy of sarcasm you haven't seen how easy it is to rack up bodies with the PPSH in this game, but I digress.

Unless these "long sight lines" have you engaging targets at 200 meters the M14 is absolutely no better than the M16. A semi-auto M16 is objectively better than the M14 in almost every single way. Barrier penetration is nice but that does not magically put it on par with the M16, nor, again, does it make it a "god gun."

Pretty sure this is a classic case of "but I can get kills with it just fine" being conflated with "because the gun is technically usable it is the best!"
Yes, the M14 can kill people in the game, someone who knows what they're doing can kill a ton of people with the M14. You can also kill a ton of the people with the 1911 if you know what you're doing. That doesn't make either of them the best guns in the game.

And I almost exclusively use semi-auto on all the rifles in the game, but whatever.

PPSH is a bit too good for close range(pistol rounds should really be nerfed to two-shot kill most of time in close range, to torso), but that is not relevant here as this is about three main rifles.

100m is enough to make a difference.

No, this is a case of "I can kill people much more reliably with M14 than M16 and have more rounds per magazine to do it with."

So you exclusively use semiauto yet complain about M14 recoil as "absurd"...right...

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

 

[IrishHitman79]

False myths and lies grinds my gears...

Keep reading that wiki page...The m14 holds the Record as being in service for the US the longest. Its run in Nam was short due to a political change, Everybody knows the m16 is regarded as probably one of the best Assault Rifle in town but its not without its issues, the AR-10 is far superior imo.

Carlos Hathcock is a good source sniper in nam, they named the m25 sniper system after him, read up on his kills with the m14, plus the countless videos of m1a on utube shooting past 1000yards. Most of all the shooting comps, you will see lads with an m1a, cheap and accurate.

What it failed as a rifle/squad support role, Its accuracy and role as DMR holds it down as one of the best.

Recoil? I love that the m14 as being known for it, its no worse than any of the above mentioned.

Most Vietnam war vets will take the m14 over the m16, Surly you have seen full metal jacket? R.Lee Ermey really served in Nam he did a show in the m14 vs the m16 surprise surprise at the winner...

Back to the topic on had please.

 

[ComradeHX]

False myths and lies grinds my gears...

So you can't live with yourself?

Also, looks like you don't know what Myth means.

Keep reading that wiki page...The m14 holds the Record as being in service for the US the longest. Its run in Nam was short due to a political change, Everybody knows the m16 is regarded as probably one of the best Assault Rifle in town but its not without its issues, the AR-10 is far superior imo.

I haven't touched wikipedia, if you're desperately flipping through wikipedia to find something to confirm your opinion, you might as well go ahead and make changes to it.

Longest what? M16 had a lasered 705m/770yd one shot kill from A2 + M855 Baghdad 2004, though I doubt it.
(btw, you don't get to spoof M14's record with M21...etc.)

Political change? Is that your excuse for M14's short time as main rifle? It being used itself was due to a political change; British .280(the intermediate cartridge) was the preferred choice but Americans had to **** it all up.

M14 was a gigantic ****up that should never have left the drawing table.

Carlos Hathcock is a good source sniper in nam, they named the m25 sniper system after him, read up on his kills with the m14, plus the countless videos of m1a on utube shooting past 1000yards. Most of all the shooting comps, you will see lads with an m1a, cheap and accurate.

The man makes the shot, not the rifle. You're reading bits and pieces and filling in fantasy in-between the gaps.
For example, I don't recall anyone specifying the distance at which he took the shots.

Countless youtube videos of what M1A? What kind of upgrades? Properly bedded stock?
I know you can't tell me, because those videos generally do not specify anything (in attempt to uphold the myth of M14 accuracy).

As for shooting range(referring to rifle ranges), M1A is probably the rarest full caliber rifle I've never seen.
It's an overpriced piece of legend that has a niche, but not in shooting accuracy or practicality.
It's more expensive than 7.62 AR and has nothing to show for it.

What it failed as a rifle/squad support role, Its accuracy and role as DMR holds it down as one of the best.

There's a reason M21 had to have a lot more work done to it.
M14 is not M21.

Recoil? I love that the m14 as being known for it, its no worse than any of the above mentioned.

It's not worse, which is why that's too little recoil.

Most Vietnam war vets will take the m14 over the m16, Surly you have seen full metal jacket? R.Lee Ermey really served in Nam he did a show in the m14 vs the m16 surprise surprise at the winner...

Show me these "most" vietnam war vets.

R.Lee Ermey also did a comparison video between AK and M16 and used very obviously biased criteria he blabbered out based on result of each test to declare M16 a winner. That's for entertainment/American chest-thumping, not fact-finding.
If you're looking for someone to confirm your (bad) opinion, look no further; but if you're looking for the truth...he's just a TV celeb.

Back to the topic on had please.

This has everything to do with the topic at hand, regarding accuracy as a balancing parameter.

 

[Gladius]

Just stop feeding the troll, ffs.

 

[ComradeHX]

Still trying to sneak in an accusation of trolling, I see.

 

[IrishHitman79]

It's the longest rifle in use for the US, says enough imo.

No most are standard m1a with match grade ammo.

You have some kind of sad OCD for the m16, I give in.

The truth hurts, the facts are fact. M14 was a more Accurate and more powerful rifle. It does not mean it's better...And no im not a m14 nut, I just like battle rifles.. Id take an FN-FAL (slr) over the lot.

The developers of the game are trying to make it as real & authentic as possible, I think they did a great job.

So buff the AKs Accuracy a bit, remove a bar of accuracy or range from the m16 to balance it.

It's a pitty the longer barrel variant of the Ak was not added.