Sniper rifle muzzle velocities and "the hell..."

*sigh* Your opinions of me mean nothing. What I think of you means nothing. I will admit my fault on the galil iron sights, you were right on those. It's been a few years.
But I can not, and will not start believing that a single shooter with an "out of the box" assault rifle (no addons) can reliably hit a human sized target at 500m, in combat. Your sight picture alone would make seeing the target a pain, not to mention keeping them there. You seem to concentrate your information on the technical side of the weapon, without consideration to the most important part:the human element. A single shooter, depending on the weapon (disregarding battle rifles and up as those can go to around 400) can reliably hit a human sized target at 200-300m. This is what I was taught in SBK (boot camp), by people I can trust. You could extend that range to around 600 with multiple soldiers shooting at the same target.
Secondly, the information you provide and the discussion WE are having is only tangentially connected to the topic of this thread. (I have completely disregarded the NW discussion some of the others have been having)
What's your point? Why should a weapon best classified in PS2 as a DMR have muzzle velocities equal or lower then an assault rifle?

if a soldier can't reliable hit a target past 200 meters no country in the world would keep him in any combat MOS period... the most common zero on assault rifles is 300 meters... which means at 300 meters your POI and POA will cross and given the ballistic rise on most intermediate rifle rounds and loads a shot aimed COM should ALWAYS hit the target... for god's sake on most assault rifles we call 300 meters maximum point blank zero because any errors in range estimation up to that range are tactically irrelevant... if you can't effectively hit farther out than that you shouldn't be in any combat MOS because you can't shoot for ****... there is a reason the "effective range to point" on said weapons is listed at 500+ meters because at 300 you should be landing every shot on a human sized target with irons and maximum effective range extends till the average is 50/50 for the average shooter to land it on the same size target... hell throw some 77 grain Mk 262 rounds in that rifle and you better be hitting 50/50 out to 700 meters

as far as DMRs go as I said velocity isn't everything and a lot of DMRs DO have lower velocities than their assault rifle counterparts... one of the many reasons we moved from full sized rifle rounds to smaller lighter intermediate rounds was because they can generally achieve a higher velocity and flatter trajectory out of the same size rifle... the difference between them is that the larger round in the DMR retains more killing potential farther out because of the heavier round and generally is considered more accurate especially when used in platforms with match grade ammunition and parts... again something like an m16 will have a velocity of 950m/s with standards ammo while say an M14 (which has filled the DMR role for a long time) only has a velocity of around 850 m/s with standard loads... an M40 sniper's rifle only gets around 777 m/s with M118LR amoo which is designed for long range shooting... hell even if you go extreme in size and take something like a .50 BMG M107 anti-materiel rifle you are only getting a 853 m/s velocity with standard ammo which again is less than your basic infantry rifle... velocity is not the end all be all of ballistics you seem to think it is... a larger round simply does not need as much velocity as a smaller one does to achieve the same or higher damage potential... the DMRs in this game simply need to retain more damage and/or accuracy past the assault rifles to qualify... having a higher velocity isn't important

if you think just because it's a DMR or a sniper's rifle it has to have a higher velocity than the assault rifles than again you know absolutely nothing about ballistics nor do you have any experience with the actual weapon systems

This is getting tiring. Whatever. Keep to your numbers. They seem rather utopian to me, so don't expect me to be quoting them anytime soon.

So that's a "nay" to muzzle velocity tweak for long range weapons... next.

While we're on the subject of bullet velocity...
Oh darn it, its that NS guy again.

Bullet Velocity
NS-15M: 640m/s 1st place in LMGs (Tied with the T16 and Ursa)
NS-11A: 640m/s 2nd place in ARs (-10 from the Gauss, +10 from the CME)
NS-11C: 450m/s 17th place in Carbines (Tied with the Lynx, only slightly above the Serpent)
NS-44 Commissioner: 450m/s 1st in Pistols
NS-7PDW: 400m/s 1st place (Tied with the Sirius)

Average bullet velocity (in m/s) across all weapons of each type:
LMG: 608
AR: 604
Carbine: 492
Pistol: 362
SMG: 367

I feel that carbine is in need of a re-evaluation.

it's only tiring because you apparently can't deal with actual facts and continue to try and pretend you have actual experience and knowledge in an area you obviously don't

take it as a lesson... next time you are going to pretend to be something you aren't at least do some basic research on the topic so you don't look so foolish

I'm guessing there are reasons for that. They were supposed to be the "middle of the line" when it came to all factions. Why they have above average velocities (coupled with the relatively low recoil) is a bit of a quirk but oh well. As for the carbine... yeah that goes way out left field when compared to the rest though. And as for the carbines having lower velocities, kind of makes sense. They are supposed to be more close range, no? Though by that much is still kinda fuzzy.

Heh. Cute.

Snipers are fun killers. I hope they go and snipe from another planet so I never have to see them in the game. Its such fun to be immediately killed from a completely unknown spot with no way to know where the shot came from and now we don't even have a defence against it.

Nice work SOE. It was already a complete pain before - especially doing tower defence. Now everyone will be a sniper for the easy kills at no risk.

My cup runneth over....

But suddenly using a sniper rifle to get a headshot is?

Player daftness is the number one most common reason for nerfs in PS2.

This. Velocities are abhorrently low, especially on "powerful" and "long range" weapons, seems like weapon damage and velocity are inversely related.

You might be overreacting a bit. Getting killed out of nowhere is frustrating but when it happens more then once in a row, the issue is not the guy on the hill, but it's the one running on the other end.

The problem one has with this is that infantry renders at 300m give or take. Boosting muzzle velocity to the 700-800 would mean the weapon is a hitscan. Overall, I feel the projectile speeds are somewhat in the right place. It's just some categories that might need to be tweaked.

With stealth it may well be, for all the reasons meantioned above (it is easier to 1 shot kill at 300m with a sniper than a tank).

At the very least I think this will guarentee the eventual inclusion of some sort of kill-cam.

I completely understand the carbines having a slower velocity thing; it helps enforce the shorter range niche.
All I'm saying, is the Carbine NS weapon is just off compared to the rest of the NS family. I'd really really like to see it brought up to be relative to its cousins, in its respective category.

*/broken record mode, off*

How so? Hitting a target in the head is easier than hitting the ground near them?

Any kind of kill-cam would just ruin PlanetSide2 for snipers, so I would have too agree with you. I think SOE was planning on it already.

With Flak prevalence there's very little that will kill with splash damage in one shot (in fact nothing I thing), personally I find factoring bullet drop easier than shell drop + arc.

Of course getting a headshot is interesting these days when enemies have no heads.

I'll have to take your word on it, as the only time I ever drive a tank is when the driver disconnects. But at least you only need to hit them in the chest, and not just head.

But that makes it infinitely more interesting, doesn't it? Who else can kill what they can't see with such cold efficiency?

Actually at the moment I'm finding the x4 scope 1 shots kills much more deadly (from a me using them at the moment), than the 300m ones, of course with the way servers are at the moment it is very difficult to hit at extreme range presently.

It isnt really an accurate comparison as you disregarded ballistic coefficients, which will heavily influence the velocity at range. And why are you using American weapons with metric measurements? Furthermore why even pick something like the M24A1 which is just a glorified Remington 700 presumably chambered in 308? If we want to cherry pick data there is the M24A2 in 300 Win Mag which when using 165gr rounds can easily achieve 990 m/s, and even higher velocities if you were to load 110gr bullets. I'm too lazy to open up QuickLOAD and figure out the velocities but you get the idea.

No, you can get similar or greater velocities in full sized cartridges with light weight bullets see my post above.

No. The accuracy requirements for a M16 is 4 MOA. Which equates to about 33 inches at 700 meters, even if you were shooting at a paper silhouette you wouldnt hit 50% of the time because the target chest diameter is going to be around 20 inches or so, and then you have to factor in problems people have with windage.

Source: I make ammo

Too lazy to take pics of the rest of the stuff but a Forster Co-Ax press and powder measure, Wilson case trimmer with a Sinclair stand and micrometer, Thumblers rotary tumbler with stainless steel media, Forster neck turning and reaming set, CH4D cannelure tool, etc. And slowly saving up for a electromotive force restoration scale.

One good thing about the 300m one is that one can kill in one shot from any distance, allowing for some maneuverability that most other rifles just don't get. But of course they fall much shorter in short range than the low-zoom rifles. But even then at the out-skirts of short range they can still be alright.

But it is the extreme difficulty that really sets one aside from the rest. Makes ya' feel pretty good about yourself too.

I chose the m24 chambered in 7.62x51mm because I chose the M16 as it's comparison so it was only fair to chose the most common sniper's rifle used as it's counterpart tho the M40 would have worked the same (which just both happen to be rem 700 based and most commonly chambered in 7.62)... that is also why I went with standard loads on the M16 and M118LR for the M24 as those are the most common rounds used and served well for this oversimplified example... I was making it as simple to understand as I could by comparing commonly used weapons and ammo in those two roles... if we want to cherry pick the comparison would be rather pointless cause we can get it to go anyway we want and we'd be here all day... it would also kind of dumb in this context because no military actually lets you have the freedom to pick and choose the way you can as a civilian shooter... it was simply to show him that just because it's a "sniper's rifle" it doesn't mean it will ALWAYS have a higher velocity (and in this case the the most common weapon systems and ammo in those categories used by the US just happen to show that)... no where did I say higher velocities were impossible with larger calibers... also just FYI for the reconfigured M24s the Army started issuing in 2009 they issue MK 248 mod 1 .300 Winchester Magnum match-grade ammunition which only has a nominal muzzle velocity of 869 m/s

also the effective range to point for Mk 262 out of a standard m16 with a 20 inch barrel is actually listed officially as 700 meters... in fact that is pretty much what is used as the whole selling point for the ammo... I've read reports of it being used effectively to engage past 800 with proper optics in the field and I've seen people make 1000 meter shots with it out of a SAM-R... it's why it's considered a lot better round by most in the military than the M855

oh I was using metric measurements with american weapons because despite the fact you would think I should be using imperial most of the time we actually do use metric... sometimes we use a mix of both...

The 7.62 NATOs were changed to 300 Win Mags:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...fa29069716b16&tab=core&_cview=0&cck=1&au=&ck=

Then why did you cherry pick a discontinued rifle? The majority of A1's were upgraded to A2's per above.

It always will at range due to the high ballistic coefficient of the bullets. And this is the only metric which matters unless you think you're going to be 360 noscoping people IRL.

The effective range is the range at which is has enough energy to likely kill someone, not that you'll hit someone. Which is rather ironic because 5.56 isnt exactly known to be effective at killing people at close range, for christ sakes many states have even banned it for hunting deer because it cant reliably deliver ethical kills. The sights on a Mosin Nagant have BDC out to 2,000 meters, does this mean you're really going to hit anyone with it? Consider the Remington 2020 with a TrackingPoint optic, it is 5.56 and arguably a much better rifle than a SAM-R, uses proprietary ammunition loads and it's range is rated to only 457 meters.
http://4.bp.************/_YnukvBCvWxc/TJ4e_oxq2vI/AAAAAAAAABM/9iO11WXIbFk/s1600/sights.jpg

If you shoot enough rounds at something you'll eventually hit it.