Taip3n

I like this weapon overall and it is one of my favourates in PR.

Having fired the old british SLR I tend to think of this gun as the automatic version.

I would agree cons are generally set around tweeking the recoil on auto, and say, 3 round snap shots, or indeed just taking quick shots or steady shots. This is directly related to the sights and lack of 'feel' of sighting and the aparent too long length of the weapon in order to do so.

On a note about length though: In corridors it does feel like walking around with a plank as opposed to a rifle. Saying that, house clearing with an SLR would have been more problematic than the, say, old sterling smg and for sure I know what length of weapon I'd prefer in that instance, going up steps and weilding it in corridors and round doors, into rooms.

I would say the problem with length is more to do with 'being at one' with the weapon in general. It just does not sit right in the 'shoulder' when bringing the weapon up and taking aim standing, kneeling, or prone.

I like its power, and this does reflect the 7.62 round. On auto I can see it would be a beast (the SLR only had semit-auto so I am trying to understand how an auto version would be like). However, I would think that someone would try to control a weapon with some strength and harmony, if they were used to it. As said, this gun can shoot anything but the target standing right by you, at times, and so it does feel that the deviation needs to be toned down slightly but of course still demonstrate the power of a 7.62.

As said, I feel this is the 'thinking mans' gun. But also some form of harmony needs to be developed. I fully appretiate if you wield a gun and look down the sights wrong or hold the weaopn wrong the bullets will stray. This happens to me on this weapon. I actually like that and perhaps all other weapons need to be more like this instead of firing a whole mag into a half metre box like the SA80. Put against the 5.56 wimpy recoil that can smash a whole mag into such an area, and the meaty 7.62 that will miss all rounds, there does seem to be an inbalance the devs have yet to work on. Saying that, as said, perhaps it is the others guns that need to be thought and some G3 faults applied like 'aiming and holding wrong' (I guess that is settle time and sighting in the G3) aswell as tweeking the G3 because even if I am prone and not moved, I can still miss by a barn mile. Unless I am doing something wrong like snapping my mouse but then again with an SA80 all you need to do is hit the dirt, sight, and let rip and that is snapping my mouse.

I would say the G3 in general would be long like the old SLR, I mean it is not the amazing Lee Enfield Mk4 3.03, which is the ultimate rifle (and another which should be looked into with alot more detail as this to me is one of the best all-time rifles). It is smaller and more wieldable. Harmony is much more aparent than the heavy/long SLR (and so I imagine the G3). But this is working from memory as a teen and not a person that deals in this weapon on a 'trade' basis and take on board those that have more insight into the differences in different weapons. I'll keep playing it though, though in a corridor the more 'snub-nosed' iron sights will win out as my prefered choice, as opposed to I can sight an SA80 and fire a whole mag into a target rather than missing it like I do with the G3 right now - not that I can sight the G3 anyway and this is as rightly pointed out, a key issue.

In all though, G3 and 7.62 all the way. A great and fun gun and one of the best in game for 'realism', if I can use that term in relation to what I have described above. A final word though on that would be, to me, aiming for the feet to ensure rounds hit chest height is not what this gun should be about, and a good example of the failing in its representation in sighting/holding and general harmonics; the issues raised, as described above.

zephyr89

I'm very close to getting one IRL (PTR-91)

Love the damage. I don't think does enough damage. if you look at tissue trauma surrounding a 5.56 wound, it is virtually none. 5.56 puts a hole through someone like an electric drill. 7.62x51 delivers unholy ammounts of trauma to its target. with a 5.56 if you shot someone close to a major artery, it would probably do nothing to it. you shoot a 7.62 within 3 inches of an artery and there is internal bleeding EVERYWHERE!!!

g3 in game and IRL is much better at taking out targets at range. I would take a scope g3 over an scope l85 or acog m4 at any distance greater that 80m. For CQ, I can slaughter with full auto on G3. if they are within 15M you hold the trigger down and don't let go till he drops like a stone. at 50m bursts work very well. with ironsights, the recoil is manageable.

Who gives a rats @$$ about the clip size. if I had a gun that only had a 5 shot clip, but was laser accurate, had little deviation time, and ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED a kill, I would take that over anything. Of course I'm being hyperbolic, but when I normally use half a clip on an m16 to take 1 guy out, I would much rather have high accuracy, high damage.

__________________

Startrekern

Cough MP5 Cough.

__________________

Waldo_II

Being the super-nerd that I am, the L1A1 SLR you speak of is barely alike to the G3A3 (short-stroke piston vs delayed blowback), and the Enfield uses .303.



I'd say you would have to be really good to make three-round accurate bursts. I usually try to perform double-taps. After the second round, the combination of high deviation plus muzzle climb makes a third round futile. After the first round, deviation will shoot up a bit, and if it doesn't get time to settle, after the second round deviation will reach an ugly high amount. This holds true to other weapons, save for the three-round-burst of the AR-15 platforms, which use their own deviation code, IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong), which is why double-taps work best in my experience.

__________________
|TG-XV| Waldo_II

sporkife

I'm not really a fan of the ironsighted G3 because of the crazy crazy recoil, but at long ranges it's quite nice; I really like the marksman version because of the scope - headshotting targets at 500-600m with only 2 or 3 rounds is fun stuff.

SamO

What a terrible weapon.
Small clip.
Horrible Kick.
Pretty bad aim most the time.
Horrendous at close range.
Makes playing MEC a chore
to name a few.

__________________

TurkishDelight

Spoken like a true layperson.....

How much Trauma Management/Physiology,and Ballistics Education do you have?

5.56 does not make "Electric drill" size holes. That is ridiculous. It is high powered rifle round that has temporary and permanent wound cavities. Cavitation>You

I shoot you with 5.56, you bleed. You bleed enough, you die. If I shot you in the knee, your Popliteal Artery will be screaming for mercy while you are withering on the floor.

If I shoot you in your thigh, I might just say hello to Mr. Femoral Artery and his friends.

Maybe I shot you in the Mediastinum, and the missile passed close by your Aorta? What then?

Saying that "5.56 is small", isn't going to save you from dumping all your warm, red, preload on the ground....


No doubt the 7.62x51 is a superior round, but don't make it out to be some sort of death touch. It falls under the same laws and rules that any other round does.

Of course there is always the rapid, lead assisted, "Intra-Calvarian Exploration Maneuver " if you are really concerned about eliminating your target....

__________________
|TG-X|Turkish

Belhade

One of the original arguments for the 5.56 cartridge against the larger 7.62 is that, being smaller and lighter, the 5.56 would tumble once it entered a body, causing significant trauma by spinning about. The tissue damage you refer to is at the entrance hole, which may be relatively small - but there may not even be an exit wound, instead the round probably veered off and ripped through a few things along the way before lodging into your pancreas. There was a certain round, I forget which, that was so overpowering that it would blow right through a body, leaving entrance and exit wounds but not doing any extra internal damage.

__________________
|TG-6th|Belhade
"I am actually looking forward to watching Jon and Kate plus 8." - Dirtboy

Celestial1

I've heard a lot of conflicting things in arguments about 5.56 vs 7.62, but there are some things I 'believe' are the closest to the truth I am able to find/care about. Please, do let me know if I make an assumption you believe to be wrong, or can clarify for me.

(1) The 5.56 is more accurate, I would suppose that is because it's small size in turn means less surface area, in turn meaning less resistance in flight.

(2) The 7.62 has more stopping power, due to it's large size, heavily punching through an enemy, rather than piercing.

(3) Heavier the round, the more recoil (with technology differences aside)

(4) The actual 'killing power' of each round seems to be biased one way or another, and it is hard to pick out an honest answer out of the crowd. I heard that the 5.56 round seems to do less internal damage than Belhade implies because the spin of the bullet is too fast to do so (perhaps it used to ala M16A1 era, maybe that's where the info comes from?). I would assume that while the 7.62 has stopping power, it is not necessarily more deadly in terms of one shot to the same area, especially if the 5.56 would begin to go off-course once penetrating skin.

Thinking of all this, shouldn't the G3 be less accurate (at least, to a point) than an M16? Because it seems that a lot of people are hooting and hollering about how it should be more accurate. Perhaps the overall accuracy of weapons needs to be taken up a notch, rather than the G3 individually?

Perhaps instead of physical damage being reflected through the hits (perhaps not ENTIRELY removed, just toned down some) and create a kind of 'stopping power' effect when you are hit. It could be akin to the suppression effect, light for 5.56 rounds and a bit heavier/longer of an effect for the 7.62? Or perhaps your aim jumps (don't know if that's possible)?

It seems hard, however, to dispute which weapon should be more accurate/more deadly/more etc/less etc... as there aren't any set standard that the rounds will always apply to, and when you bring biased/tainted opinions into the matter, things just go into a spiral.

Berlancic

Marine, you are a very intelligent person. Whether that be judged on the fact you used a lot of words that would not survive a second in my vocabulary.

Here's what I know about weapons: High velocity makes good gun, larger caliber means larger kick, larger caliber means you can get killed easier. Cover is your friend, unless it is an explosive barrel.

I think the accuracy of a weapon is determined by the barrel or actual weapon, not bullet.
I would like the idea that bullets would slow you down, because that's what they do.
2 things coming head on with eachother at certain and different speeds is going to mean some sort of force being enforced on those things.

__________________

TurkishDelight

Berlancic and Celestial, you are both WAY off track. I mean this in a completely nice way

I disagree completely with everything both of you said. Really.

Disputing both posts is time consuming, so maybe I will summarize?

Accuracy of a firearm is dependent on many factors including, but not limited to: Bullet design, barrel design, velocity when range is a factor, bolt face/firing mechanism, and any intrinsic flex in the chassis itself

Stopping power does not exist. At all. Not even a little. Also, people are not pushed back when struck by a bullet like in the movies. Physics 101.

You cannot really say that either 5.56 or 7.62 is more accurate, because of all the variables and variances involved. If one had to choose though, the 7.62 would generally be more accurate at longer ranges due to its longer effective range.(Stays supersonic further out)

With an appropriate bullet design, 7.62x51 has the undisputed advantage in barrier penetration and interior ballistics. It travels a bit slower, but it's just plain bigger.

Berlanicic, I believe you were referring to my earlier post, when you said Marine. So, you should know that my name is actually TurkishDelight. If you were talking about one of Marine's earlier post, I apologize.

Anyways, the bullet probably has the BIGGEST effect when it comes to long range accuracy so you are wrong there.

Try and have some experience with the subject matter at hand, it will prevent you both from spreading false information to be repeated by others. Then I have to make these long posts

Note:The 5.56 Tumbling thing is taken way out of proportion by the History Channel.

__________________
|TG-X|Turkish

Celestial1

Well, I did have a disclaimer at the top of my post... :P

Understood. I was not quite going straight into the others due to my limited knowledge, but the bullet design was something I could wrap my head around, at least a little.

I understand barrel design and velocity as well, just not quite well enough to discuss it well.
The barrel rifles the bullet when it is fired, making it fly more accurately through the air, right? And the velocity helps with issues of ballistic drop, and of course having the projectile at a high enough speed to push through the air helps it from 'tumbling' in mid-air?

So then, how would one determine which gun to be more accurate than another?

Now, this confuses me quite a bit.

I know that people aren't pushed back, or fly back when a bullet hits them. For every action there is an equal, opposite reaction. The bullet isn't the weight nor size of a human body, so it cannot push a man back.

However, it has been often misconstrued that stopping power is a physical attribute of a weapon, and I had always thought that the 'stopping power' was the round's sheer inertia causing more of a puncture than a pierce, like using a hammer and nail as opposed a drill.

Taking a little trip to wikipedia has informed me that stopping power is a fancy name for how well a gun can incapacitate a target; to stop him where he stands.

While I never heard of 5.56 tumbling inside the target previously, I would assume as much.

TurkishDelight

Not by discussing it on the Internet, but by comparing each firearm as objectively as possible. Comparing MOA groups at 100 yards on the same range, same day, same time.

Now, this confuses me quite a bit.


How does one measure stopping power? It's pretty much an impossible thing to measure. Far too subjective, with too many variables.

Ballistic gelatin is the best medium out there to measure internal ballistics at the moment. One can then take a a look at the wound cavities/tracks and compare them.

__________________
|TG-X|Turkish

Dreadnought

5.56x45mm:
Mass = 4 grams = 0.004 Kilograms
Muzzle velocity = 940 meters/second

E(Joules)=(1/2)*M(Kilograms)*V^2(meters/second)

0.5*0.004*940^2 = 1767.2 Joules

Baseball = 142 grams = 0.142 Kilograms

1767.2=0.5*0.142*V^2

V=158 meters/second = 353 Miles Per Hour

This assumes negligible energy loss due to air resistance which would change depending on range to target. Lets assume point blank for this. This also assumes that ALL of the bullets energy is deposited in you. (The bullet is stopped by you or something you're wearing.) If you stop the bullet with your armor plates or femur, you will feel the energy of a 353Mph fastball.

Lets try something different.

250 lb guy = 113 kilogram guy

1767.2=0.5*113*V^2
V=5.6 meters/second = 12.5 Mph

If you stop the bullet with something at point blank range, you absorb enough energy to cause a 250 lb guy to fly back at 12.5 Mph at the first instant. For example if a guy gets hit in the helmet and it stops the round at point blank range (this helmet was forged in the fires of mount doom) all you will see would be the guy being thrown to the ground at that speed.

Stopping these rounds hardly ever happens I would imagine. It's actually beneficial to some degree to let the bullet pass through you instead of stopping it.

I'd imagine in most cases the vast majority of the energy is maintained by the bullet as it exits the body and that is why you don't see much "stopping power".

As an aside: Why am I up at a quarter after three AM calculating ballistics physics?

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dreadnought1984


If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One --
I am become Death, the shatterer of Worlds.

-J. Robert Oppenheimer, lead scientist of Manhattan Project quoting Bhagavad Gita

TurkishDelight

Silly Engineer people and your math!

__________________
|TG-X|Turkish