Jump to content
Lightly_Salted

M110 - Awfully weak

Recommended Posts

I agree with this topic. M110 should be about same damage as SVD. 762x51 is a very powerful round and should be a 1 shot kill to chest since no armor system has been added to the game

 

Seriously, some people should stop complaining about how 1 shot kills would ruin gameplay. You want balanced weapons ? go play battlefield because one the main features apart from teamwork is realism .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maze2 said:

You want balanced weapons ? go play battlefield

That made my day! xD Balanced weapons yeah.... BF is first just a casual shooter of coolness and cinematics, Balnce and Fair is far far away from what BF now become....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bahrein said:

No basicly thay are not the same.Becouse you wrote the wrong fps specs 830 m/s (2,723 ft/s) (SVD) Now those are the specs for the real SVD the SSSR one not to be mistaken with other modernized versions that Russian army has today or shorter version.

No, you wrote the wrong FPS specs, because you just looked at a single number on the SVD wikipedia page instead of taking into account which loads will achieve which muzzle velocities. Regardless of barrel length, a weapon will achieve different muzzle velocities depending on the ammo used.

 

The kind of surplus 7.62x54mm ammo a typical insurgent has access to ranges in bullet weight from 147 to 181 grain. An SVD might get 2700 FPS out of lighter loads in the 140-160gr range (so will an M110!) but the 170-180gr loads will be around 2600 fps. A more discerning insurgent sniper would probably go for the heavier bullet weights, as they tend to retain a more stable path over distance.

 

Likewise, the most common load issued for M110 is the 175gr M118LR or Mk316 match rounds traveling at 2600 fps, but depending on the situation, it may also be used with the M993 127gr AP round or the Mk319 130gr OTM round... both of which exceed 2900 fps. The Mk319 also regularly fragments extremely early during its path through flesh, causing massive damage untouched by any milspec 7.62x54mm load.

 

Ultimately, a few extra inches of barrel length means nothing in terms of lethality next to ammunition. It's technically possible that a discerning insurgent sniper could somehow source quality match ammo which performs comparably to M110 loads, but it's not as likely considering that US snipers and DM's have a direct pipeline to purpose-built ammunition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could also make the argument that the Insurgent ammo is so old and low quality that it fragments extremely early. Though it'd be a strung out argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2018 at 1:19 AM, Peerun said:

You could also make the argument that the Insurgent ammo is so old and low quality that it fragments extremely early. Though it'd be a strung out argument.

I am sure thats not that true buddy.

There are not that much bullets in wear houses that old as much as thay are used this days.Mortar shells,tank shells and granades maybe but bullets not that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2018 at 7:19 PM, Peerun said:

You could also make the argument that the Insurgent ammo is so old and low quality that it fragments extremely early. Though it'd be a strung out argument.

That's not how it works. Bullet fragmentation in flesh is a direct result of its original construction; not age.

 

For example, loads like Mk318 and Mk319 are made with a reverse-drawn jacket process which is good for making accurate, consistent bullets... but as a side effect leaves an open tip that causes mushrooming and fragmenting in dense mediums.

 

Another example is the standard M80 7.62 ball round, which is made with either a copper or steel jacket. The steel jacket is more brittle than the copper and has been shown to fragment at velocities over 2800 fps. You will not get the copper version to perform like the steel version simply by leaving it in a box for a while.

 

The old Russian 7N1 sniper load is another example of a surplus round that has been known to tumble and fragment, because of the core's "steel in front, lead in back" composition. This leads to a weight distribution even more lopsided than usual for a spitzer bullet, which causes it to yaw in dense mediums - at which point the differing metals tend separate under the stress.

 

These effects were all found through scientific testing which included the comparison of various old milsurp rounds. Ballistics experts who've conducted these tests have been quite emphatic that old soviet ball rounds like M43 and Type L, which weren't constructed in a way conducive to fragmentation, DON'T exhibit fragmentary effects.

Edited by Gnalvl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/14/2018 at 5:43 AM, Lightly_Salted said:

 

Gotta remember that the 7.62x39mm actually has less energy than a 5.56 NATO round, and only just slightly more energy than the 5.45. The 5.45 is also a lot lighter than the 5.56, and the 7.62x39mm is miles away from the 7.62 NATO in terms of velocity, weight, and the energy the round carries. This is likely why it takes 3 rounds to drop a target in-game using the AKs, because generally, their ballistics are much worse than the standard 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds.

 

The 5.45 and 7.62x39 actually have quite comparable energy characteristics, generally the lighter rounds (In this case, the 5.45, but also the 5.56 as mentioned earlier), are designed to tumble when they come into contact with the target. They can penetrate quite a fair amount, but they lose their speed much, much faster, which is why the wound channel (In my guess, anyway) expands closer to the point of entry than the point of exit. Whereas the 7.62x39 does similar damage, the channel extends towards the exit and penetrates further through when entering as it carries it's energy further due to its weight. 

 

I would suppose the same would be said for 5.56 and 7.62 NATO, but the 7.62 NATO carries such a huge amount of energy compared to the rest that I would say chances are it does more significant damage in terms of stopping an enemy dead in its tracks rather than simply wounding them. Something which I do not think is represented properly in-game.

 

EDIT: I want to comment on the round the SVD uses, but I don't know a huge amount about it. I'll have to do some research. I know it's rimfire, which is surprising. I didn't think rimfire rounds were still used apart from small calibres like .22

 

Wrong, 7.62x39  has more energy

KE = (mv^2)/2

  • 7.62 x39FMJ (122gr)
    • 7.9g = 0.0079kg = m
    • 730.3 m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 2106 J
  • 5.56x45 FMJ
    • 4g = 0.004kg = m
    • 860m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 1889 J
  • 5.45x39 FMJ
    • 3.43g = 0.00343kg = m
    • 880m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 1328 J
  • 7.62x54 (Soviet) FMJ
    • 11.7g = (0.0117kg) = m
    • 786m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 3614 J
  • 7.62x51 (NATO) FMJ
    • 10g = 0.001kg = m
    • 833m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 3304 J

 

 

 

 

lets deconstruct your weird post

 

lie #1

7.62x39mm actually has less energy than a 5.56 NATO round, and only just slightly more energy than the 5.45.

 

lie #2

The 5.45 is also a lot lighter than the 5.56

 

lie #3

The 5.45 and 7.62x39 actually have quite comparable energy characteristics

----

 

things weird with this game

 

  • artifical damage fall offs 
    • AK47 damage fall off (larger bullets retains energy better) and better ballistic coefficient
    • just tie damage to velocity or energy fall off
  • artificial recoil scales
    • 5.45 gives higher recoil than the 5.56, even though:
    • a smaller bullet
    • traveling slower
    •  at a lower rate of fire
Edited by Randall172

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Randall172 said:
  • artificial recoil scales
    • 5.45 gives higher recoil than the 5.56, even though:
    • a smaller bullet
    • traveling slower
    •  at a lower rate of fire

 

Great post man, agree with you on everything here. One tiny nitpick: burgers might argue that lower AR recoil is due to inline stock.

I've shot quite a bit of 5.56 and 5.45 and IMO that argument doesn't hold water, 5.45 recoil is much lighter.
But to the people who don't shoot both calibers, the idea that straight AR stocks might mitigate recoil to the point where 5.56 is easier to control than 5.45 AK might seem plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2018 at 12:21 PM, Gnalvl said:
Jesus there's a lot of misinformation in this thread, so let's get some things straight:
 
1) Modern body armor (NIJ III and IV, SAPI and ESAPI) will stop everything including 7.62x51mm and 7.62x54mm rounds. Don't even try to say that it'll crack your ribs anyway, because modern armor is tested to absorb blunt trauma. There is literally footage on youtube of real soldiers being hit in the armor multiple times from 7.62x54 PKM fire and continuing to fight (i.e: 1, 2, 3.
 
2) There are two types of rifle plates; steel and ceramic. The steel will absorb dozens of FMJ rounds before letting anything through, but modern AP like M995 will go straight through. Ceramic armor is more effective against AP rounds, rated to stop multiple 7.62x51 AP, but doesn't stand up to repeated hits of FMJ as well as the steel. That being said, don't believe the rumors that ceramic plates "shatter" after a few random hits; unless the bullets all hit within the same 1-2" circle it's going to take at least a dozen rounds to get through.
 
3) Against body armor, ammunition type makes a big difference in lethality. Obviously AP rounds are best at getting through the armor, but loads which fragment at extremely shallow depth in flesh can be effective in turning limb shots into immediately incapacitating wounds.
 
4) Incapacitation is not a simple function of caliber or energy. To say that "tumbling" is important is a half truth. A bullet which yaws in flesh is generally more effective than one which travels straight through the target, but the large cavities caused by tumbling are only temporary stretch cavity which are unlikely to cause any permanent damage. The most devastating bullets are those which yaw and then fragment, shredding the stretched tissue into a large permanent cavity which destroys organs and causes massive bleeding.
 
Also important is the depth at which such terminal effects are produced. Depending on the bullet type and its velocity upon hitting the target, it can start to yaw or fragment sooner or later in its path through the body. Depending on the person's size and the body part being hit, the yawing and fragmentation may not start will after the bullet has exited the body - rending it useless.
 
For example, the standard 7.62x39mm FMJ bullet has an extremely late yaw which almost never affects anyone. 7.62x51mm and 7.62x54mm have a medium-late yaw which won't affect limb shots at all, but slightly improve the damage of chest and stomach shots as long as the victim isn't too thin. 5.45x39 FMJ yaws extremely early, and while the temporary cavity doesn't mean much, its permanent cavity is widened enough to cause equal tissue damage to a 7.62 that didn't yaw at all (you're getting a 7.62x39 wound channel with a fraction of the recoil).
 
There are a lot of misconceptions surrounded bullet fragmentation, because it started as a "happy accident" of the 5.56 NATO round's weak construction. It would have contradicted the Hague convention (NOT the Geneva) to intentionally design a fragmenting bullet, and the fragmenting affects weren't widely known until a few decades after its adoption. Some NATO countries like Great Britain redesigned their 5.56 to comply with the Hague convention and avoid fragmentation, while the US has ignored this concern (they never signed Hague anyway) and have continued to adopt new bullet designs which fragment.
 
Early 5.56 FMJ fragmentation performs extremely inconsistently. Original Vietnam-era M193 was estimated to only tumble and fragment 75% of the time at most. M855 was even more inconsistent, requiring higher velocities to fragment at all, and failing to fragment more often even within those ideal velocities. Even in the best cases, common 5.56 FMJ fragments at a medium depth which is effective in torso shots, but has no added effects in limb shots.
 
Outside of 5.56mm, there are few military loads which fragment. The Soviet Union had a 7.62x54 match round for snipers which fragmented pretty well some of the time, but I doubt Russia is still using the exact same load. West Germany's standard 7.62x51 FMJ during the Cold War era fragmented very well in torso shots, but they got rid of it to comply with the Hague. The US's 7.62x51 HPBT sniper round (M118LR) can fragment, but the depth at which it does so varies greatly and frequently the bullet exits before any fragmentation occurs.
 
Most recently the US has adopted two "barrier blind" loads for special forces (5.56 mk316 and 7.62 mk318) which fragment extremely early and are devastating in almost any hit to the body. Prior to the full adoption of M855A1, mk262 was being issued to regular troops as a temporary solution to the M855's problems, and it was rumored the USMC would permanently adopt Mk262 as their standard round over M855A1.
 
5) Per the above, it's entirely plausible that M110 users could be issued Mk318 rounds which fragment even in limb shots - causing 1 shot drops, or M993 AP rounds which pierce NIJ III-equivalent rifle plates. However, IRL this is normally a situational thing, with the standard round for M110 being M118LR (which for the most part is like highly accurate FMJ).
 
This still leaves Insurgent and Russian marksmen at a disadvantage. It's possible (but not guaranteed) that the modern Russian military has equivalent loads, as there's not much info out there. It's also possible that certain upscale ISIS marksmen would know how to find commercial fragmenting loads, but your average Taliban guy with surplus stuff isn't going to be up there. It gets pretty hypothetical.

You also realize squad doesn't implement any of the things you said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2018 at 4:15 PM, Gopblin said:

 

Great post man, agree with you on everything here. One tiny nitpick: burgers might argue that lower AR recoil is due to inline stock.

I've shot quite a bit of 5.56 and 5.45 and IMO that argument doesn't hold water, 5.45 recoil is much lighter.
But to the people who don't shoot both calibers, the idea that straight AR stocks might mitigate recoil to the point where 5.56 is easier to control than 5.45 AK might seem plausible.

did some research and they have a measurement for that, its called 

 

Free Recoil (Translational Energy) - Free recoil is a vernacular term or jargon for recoil energy of a firearm not supported from behind.

 

the equation for it is:  (velocity of gun) = (((mass of projectile) * velocity of projectile)) + ((mass of powder-charge )* (velocity of powder charge))/(mass of the gun))

 

you take the velocity of the gun and plug it into this equation: (1/2) * (mass of gun) * (velocity of gun)^2

 

M16 has 6.44J of free recoil

ak74 has 3.4J of free recoil

AK47 has 7.19J of free recoil

M14 has 20J of free recoil

Glock17 has 7.7J of free recoil

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 9/3/2018 at 9:27 AM, Randall172 said:

 

Wrong, 7.62x39  has more energy

KE = (mv^2)/2

  • 7.62 x39FMJ (122gr)
    • 7.9g = 0.0079kg = m
    • 730.3 m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 2106 J
  • 5.56x45 FMJ
    • 4g = 0.004kg = m
    • 860m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 1889 J
  • 5.45x39 FMJ
    • 3.43g = 0.00343kg = m
    • 880m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 1328 J
  • 7.62x54 (Soviet) FMJ
    • 11.7g = (0.0117kg) = m
    • 786m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 3614 J
  • 7.62x51 (NATO) FMJ
    • 10g = 0.001kg = m
    • 833m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 3304 J

 

 

So between  762 soviet and nato the difference is about 300 J but those vs other rounds have a difference  of more than 1000J . How is not a 1 shot kill for both 762 nato x51 and  soviet x54 ?

Edited by maze2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, maze2 said:

So? Between  762 soviet and nato the difference is about 300 J but those vs other rounds habve a difference  of more than 1000J . How is not a 1 shot kill for both 762 nato x51 and  soviet x54 ?

not sure how they decide damage value, but it isn't based on math.

Edited by Randall172

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/03/2018 at 2:27 PM, Randall172 said:

 

Wrong, 7.62x39  has more energy

KE = (mv^2)/2

  • 7.62 x39FMJ (122gr)
    • 7.9g = 0.0079kg = m
    • 730.3 m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 2106 J
  • 5.56x45 FMJ
    • 4g = 0.004kg = m
    • 860m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 1889 J
  • 5.45x39 FMJ
    • 3.43g = 0.00343kg = m
    • 880m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 1328 J
  • 7.62x54 (Soviet) FMJ
    • 11.7g = (0.0117kg) = m
    • 786m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 3614 J
  • 7.62x51 (NATO) FMJ
    • 10g = 0.001kg = m
    • 833m/s = v
    • (mv^2)/2 = 3304 J

 

 

 

 

lets deconstruct your weird post

 

lie #1

7.62x39mm actually has less energy than a 5.56 NATO round, and only just slightly more energy than the 5.45.

 

lie #2

The 5.45 is also a lot lighter than the 5.56

 

lie #3

The 5.45 and 7.62x39 actually have quite comparable energy characteristics

----

 

things weird with this game

 

  • artifical damage fall offs 
    • AK47 damage fall off (larger bullets retains energy better) and better ballistic coefficient
    • just tie damage to velocity or energy fall off
  • artificial recoil scales
    • 5.45 gives higher recoil than the 5.56, even though:
    • a smaller bullet
    • traveling slower
    •  at a lower rate of fire

 

Alright Randall calm down mate I wasn't lying to fool people into believing me lmao, it's a discussion, not an argument.

 

I agree on the energy sense, I was probably reading off the wrong numbers as I didn't take the time to calculate it myself. Didn't think it was really worth the effort when I can trust the sources I was getting my information from. 

 

So no, I wasn't really lying, was I? The energy relation between 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 was wrong as I was reading off ft-lbf rather than Joules. The 5.45 being lighter than 5.56? That's true, by only 9 grains, yeah, but it quite obviously makes a difference. 

 

I agree with your other points, but please don't make it out as if I am purposefully lying to everyone on this thread. I try to do as much research as possible, but I'm gonna mix something up somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont you just live it alone already let the SVD be better than US weapon at leas some weapon is better even for a little bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Bahrein said:

Why dont you just live it alone already let the SVD be better than US weapon at leas some weapon is better even for a little bit. 

 

SVD is actually far worse than M110, it has much weaker scope with worse grid (the most important feature of a Marksman rifle) and half the mag size.

The Ameriboos just always want that faction's guns to be even more OP.
Note that most posters don't ask "why don't we decrease SVD damage", cuz everyone knows SVD sucks anyway. It's always "why don't we increase M110 dmg", "why don't Americans have body armor", "why can't we have Marines where every soldier would have bipoded scoped LMG", etc. Thankfully at least the Insurgents don't constantly whine for 20 IEDs per person because "realism".

Edited by Gopblin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Gopblin said:

 

SVD is actually far worse than M110, it has much weaker scope with worse grid (the most important feature of a Marksman rifle) and half the mag size.

The Ameriboos just always want that faction's guns to be even more OP.
Note that most posters don't ask "why don't we decrease SVD damage", cuz everyone knows SVD sucks anyway. It's always "why don't we increase M110 dmg", "why don't Americans have body armor", "why can't we have Marines where every soldier would have bipoded scoped LMG", etc. Thankfully at least the Insurgents don't constantly whine for 20 IEDs per person because "realism".

Well, not everyone here is American mate.

 

I'm pretty sure I did suggest bring the SVD damage down a little bit AND bump the M110 up slightly, as well as just purely buffing the M110. The Devs can easily clean the scope of the SVD up to provide a better sight picture.

 

The reason I was opting for a more "buff the M110" approach is mainly just because it's a marksmen rifle, made to hit hard and hit far. I wanted it to do that. It could hit far, just not very hard... pre-v10 (we don't know the damage stats for v10) I believe on one of the previous comments it was stated that after one shot from the M110 it takes a person 15 seconds (Maybe more?) to bleed out, giving them a huge amount of time to sprint off to cover and bandage. While getting hit with by the SVD only gives you 3 seconds. That is a huge difference and leads the SVD to be much more lethal in-game. 

Edited by Lightly_Salted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lightly_Salted said:

Well, not everyone here is American mate.

 

I'm pretty sure I did suggest bring the SVD damage down a little bit AND bump the M110 up slightly, as well as just purely buffing the M110. The Devs can easily clean the scope of the SVD up to provide a better sight picture.

 

The reason I was opting for a more "buff the M110" approach is mainly just because it's a marksmen rifle, made to hit hard and hit far. I wanted it to do that. It could hit far, just not very hard... pre-v10 (we don't know the damage stats for v10) I believe on one of the previous comments it was stated that after one shot from the M110 it takes a person 15 seconds (Maybe more?) to bleed out, giving them a huge amount of time to sprint off to cover and bandage. While getting hit with by the SVD only gives you 3 seconds. That is a huge difference and leads the SVD to be much more lethal in-game. 

Both marksman rifles to chest should be a 1 shot kill. The energy that energy that their rounds posses is pretty much more 1000 joules more than assault rifles rounds( aks and m4s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, maze2 said:

Both marksman rifles to chest should be a 1 shot kill. The energy that energy that their rounds posses is pretty much more 1000 joules more than assault rifles rounds( aks and m4s).

 

The more I hear this suggestion the more problems I see with it. One shot kills for marksman rifles would just encourage the lone-wolves who take the 'sniper' class and bugger off into the hills while never communicating. The current weapon damage model is better because a marksman coordinating with their squad and supporting them is far more effective than a lone-wolf since targets have a chance to bandage and survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Stom said:

 

The more I hear this suggestion the more problems I see with it. One shot kills for marksman rifles would just encourage the lone-wolves who take the 'sniper' class and bugger off into the hills while never communicating. The current weapon damage model is better because a marksman coordinating with their squad and supporting them is far more effective than a lone-wolf since targets have a chance to bandage and survive.

Bro u just gotta kick the guy out of the squad simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, maze2 said:

Bro u just gotta kick the guy out of the squad simple as that.

 

You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that the tactic would be encouraged because it would become effective. Right now you kick someone out of your squad for lone-wolfing with a marksman kit because they're wasting a valuable squad and support slot. With one hit kill marksman rifles a lone-wolf could do enough ticket damage to the enemy team to justify the tactic, and that goes against the teamwork Squad strives for.

Edited by Stom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 2:52 PM, Gopblin said:

 

worse grid

You'll need to elaborate for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 10:52 PM, Gopblin said:

 

SVD is actually far worse than M110, it has much weaker scope with worse grid (the most important feature of a Marksman rifle) and half the mag size.

The Ameriboos just always want that faction's guns to be even more OP.
Note that most posters don't ask "why don't we decrease SVD damage", cuz everyone knows SVD sucks anyway. It's always "why don't we increase M110 dmg", "why don't Americans have body armor", "why can't we have Marines where every soldier would have bipoded scoped LMG", etc. Thankfully at least the Insurgents don't constantly whine for 20 IEDs per person because "realism".

Noobs that say SVD sucks dont know s..t at all.

Thay need to go do some research you already have a lot of constructive info on here posed by a lot of guys.

And the most important thing you need to is go see how many decades ago SVD started production (original first version like the one i am holding) and how many years ago the m110 started production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2018 at 4:47 AM, Lightly_Salted said:

Well, not everyone here is American mate.

 

I'm pretty sure I did suggest bring the SVD damage down a little bit AND bump the M110 up slightly, as well as just purely buffing the M110. The Devs can easily clean the scope of the SVD up to provide a better sight picture.

 

The reason I was opting for a more "buff the M110" approach is mainly just because it's a marksmen rifle, made to hit hard and hit far. I wanted it to do that. It could hit far, just not very hard... pre-v10 (we don't know the damage stats for v10) I believe on one of the previous comments it was stated that after one shot from the M110 it takes a person 15 seconds (Maybe more?) to bleed out, giving them a huge amount of time to sprint off to cover and bandage. While getting hit with by the SVD only gives you 3 seconds. That is a huge difference and leads the SVD to be much more lethal in-game. 

 

1. It's not about "cleaning the scope". SVD scope has less magnification. Have you ever used it?

2. The "huge difference" is only on a chest hit, which are a minority of hits. And the difference is only in bleed-out time, meaning that the person can still bandage in both cases just fine. And it's not 3 seconds, I believe it's 6 (or more?)

11 hours ago, Rybec said:

You'll need to elaborate for me.

 

M110 scope is higher magnification, clean, and a simple crosshair grid.

 

SVD scope is lower mag, dirty, and has a lot of extra shit + thick chevron obscuring view. I like the Russian grid IRL, but it just doesn't translate well to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Gopblin said:

 

1. It's not about "cleaning the scope". SVD scope has less magnification. Have you ever used it?

2. The "huge difference" is only on a chest hit, which are a minority of hits. And the difference is only in bleed-out time, meaning that the person can still bandage in both cases just fine. And it's not 3 seconds, I believe it's 6 (or more?)

 

M110 scope is higher magnification, clean, and a simple crosshair grid.

 

SVD scope is lower mag, dirty, and has a lot of extra shit + thick chevron obscuring view. I like the Russian grid IRL, but it just doesn't translate well to the game.

 

Well, it is about cleaning up the scope, as you said it's "dirty, and has a lot of extra shit + thick chevron obscuring view". I agree the magnification is lower, but they can make the SVD so much nicer to use if they just moved the sight closer to the person (As it sits about a foot away from the guys face apparently) and clean the sight up which will provide a better sight picture and help with actually seeing things at range.

 

Yes, I have used the SVD. Many times. I like the fact that it does more damage because I'm more likely to drop the targets I'm shooting at. I always find myself a position at a range at which I can engage reliably and to support my squad mates or provide overwatch, and personally, I don't hate the PSO-1 but it can definitely use some love. On the M110, I only really like the model and the scope, but when it comes to lethality I feel like in most circumstances I'm better off with an M4, which is also a 2-shot kill and is easier to follow up shots with. And not to mention some kits also get an ACOG.

 

EDIT: Just to add, remember the SVD has been in service for what? 55 years? If IRL they had such a problem with the sight as we do in-game they would've changed it. I feel as if it isn't portrayed in-game properly and that's leading people to use it as a reason for balancing the whole gun and the M110 altogether.

Edited by Lightly_Salted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PSO-1 scope is a good scope for the SVD as you wrote it is in service for the SVD for decades now it has a lot of “stuff” on it so it helps a lot the marksmen using it there is nothing on the scope thats not needed the scope chevrons and everything is actually black but when using it in night time you switch the little swich thats below it and it turns the light in the scope that iluminates the black chevron and markings inside all red it is so cool if you use in in real life.

And trust me you have rubber around the scope where your eye needs to sit in so it goes all around it werry nicely so the scope is not a feet far from you or anything its nice and easy to use.

If anyone of you used it in real life you would love the weapon and scope and who used it will know what i am talking about.

Its just in games where its made poor and everything. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×