Why aren't there any 7.62x51 Assault Rifles?

[it's ME]

Like the G3?

[das_ben]

because
weapon suggestions are generally disregarded, the inf team made its choice about the guns [for now]

[yurch]

WE waNt a bAtTlE rIflE!!@@!@~!!!!11!
/me starts a riot

[DarkBls]

yes generally disregarded, otherwise I would die to have a FR-F2 of course ! ;)

(/Me thinks with a minimi, FAMAS-G2+Aimpoint+IR+NVG,FR-F2 I can rise a full french quad online :D )

[RAZZ]

all I want added is my dragunove :p
course, an mp7 wouldent hurt either (better than the p90 far as I care ):D

[Sweep]

A FAL or G3 would be the obvious choice for a full power battle rifle, but I don't think we'll see one for quite a while.

I'd personally settle for a few more standard assault rifle choices myself...

[Destructo6]

A G3A4 + HK79 would be great.

http://www.nfm.as/Bilder/txts_15.jpg

I'd prefer a G3KA3 + HK79, though.

[Spetznaz_1]

I'd also like a Battle Rifle like the FN-FAL or G3, but they have made their weapon choice and i'll be happy with the G11 when they release it. *druels*

[[121st]Burton]

Tryout the PSG-1. Now you know the recoil of a weapon using 7.62mm. Now imagine, that you could shoot it in full auto.
Question: Would you use a gun, that needs two hits to kill like the M16 oder SIG, but with much more recoil ?
I doubt it.

7.62mm is a obsolete cal. Too much recoil, to heavy ammo and most of the time too heavy guns.

[DamienW]

Hey, DarkBls, the day you form a french platoon, warn me ;)

[manboy]

M4's would be nice (5.56 I know). Aren't flashlight attachments available for them? Also, modelling an OICW (I know, prototypes galore, no set model) of some type would be cool. Especially the GL part where you can set the arming distance of the grenade *drools*.

[juca]

Still think that a FN-FAL would simply kick ass... :rolleyes:

[Destructo6]

Recoil and muzzle rise on 7.62NATO battle rifles isn't bad, especially true from the bipod. The weight cancels out a lot of the recoil. They're not quite as quick on target, but do quite a bit more damage once there.

[asmodeus]

I'd use a battle rifle on semi.... would be a lot better than a m16 ons emi, /me thinks

[Kuroshio Apocal]

I would say either G3 or M14.

[ecale3]

so what is the difference between Assault Rifles and Battle Rifles?

[Sweep]

Main difference is the round they shoot. By definition "assault rifles" fire intermediate powered cartridges. IE less powerful. Battle rifles fire the standard full power round, like the 7.62x51. They're as a rule heavier with longer barrels, but there is nothing that says they have to be. They make variants of FALs and such with shorter barrels, folding stocks, etc. On full auto most are pretty hard to control.

[BlAcK_PlAgUe22]

M14! :D

[Spetznaz_1]

Originally posted by [121st]Burton
Would you use a gun, that needs two hits to kill like the M16 oder SIG, but with much more recoil ?
I doubt it.


Do 5.56mm not take 3 shots to kill in INF? I am confused as sometimes it seems that i need 2 shots and others i need 3. I'm talking about torso hits.

[Destructo6]

When the M4 is modeled, it would be nice to have a Surefire Millenia Light as an attachment.

http://www.surefire.com/surefire/content/templates/common/images/weapons/img_colt500.jpg

[Kuroshio Apocal]

Destructor, please, read the Armory before you post attachment suggestions. The M4A1 will already include a flashlight attachment.

[spm1138]

Actually, different rifles do different damage.

The SIG might well take 3.

The M16 takes 2 for sure (on AFA, anyway. I don't think Yurch has monkeyed with any of that).

The term battle rifle seems to have originated with the US' half assed attempts to produce an assault rifle. The M14 was pretty much a product improved M1, imo.

The M14 (and similar) were too powerful and long ranged to be proper assault rifles. That most of them had pretty passable sniping variants pretty much says it all (i.e. the round was still too big and heavy to be a proper assault rifle round).

[-Snakebite-]

I guess theres not much point in a battle rifle until a decent damage system is implemented. The current 7.62 (PSG-1) is almost useless compared with the almighty Robar, the guy with the 7.62 has to get two hits on target (unless headshots - very hard on a moving target).

Shooting someone in the chest with a 7.62 should put them down a fair percentage of the time.

I guess the new body armour would make a Battle Rifle more viable.

[yurch]

Originally posted by [121st]Burton
Tryout the PSG-1. Now you know the recoil of a weapon using 7.62mm. Now imagine, that you could shoot it in full auto.
Question: Would you use a gun, that needs two hits to kill like the M16 oder SIG, but with much more recoil ?
I doubt it.

Oh, sheeeeyeet. You just gave me an idea.
RANdOm DaMaGe!

[ecale3]

^ UH OH, yurch is getting ideas! Run for cover!

[asmodeus]

what has the m4 got to do here anyways? get that 5.56mm crap out of here, I just washed the floor!:p

[St0rmcaller]

Originally posted by yurch

Oh, sheeeeyeet. You just gave me an idea.
RANdOm DaMaGe!

Yurch. We need to talk about this.

[Destructo6]

Originally posted by Kuroshio Apocal
Destructor, please, read the Armory before you post attachment suggestions. The M4A1 will already include a flashlight attachment.

Saw that. I was suggesting a specific attachment. If you've not played with a Millenia Light, they're so damn bright that they hurt the eyes of those illuminated, even in daylight.

The idea of 7.62x51 knocking a player down if it doesn't kill him sounds pretty good.

[asmodeus]

bad suggestion+bad thread=really bad idea:p

[FiringAimlessly]

Originally posted by Destructo6
The idea of 7.62x51 knocking a player down if it doesn't kill him sounds pretty good.
- only a tiny fraction of the bullet's kinetic energy would press against the target, most of it would remain in the bullet travelling through him... even if the body and armour stopped it, the person would still be far too heavy to tip over without continued application of force...

[Destructo6]

I wasn't figuring that the bullet's energy dump would cause a Hollywood-like knock down.

I'm not sure what causes it, whether it's a nervous system overload or otherwise, but people tend to drop to the ground when shot. The direction is usually forward, regardless of direction of impact. The bots seem to do this.

[ecale3]

Well if any modelers want to take a shot at it then submit it to the team maybe we can get them yet.

http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101685

[[121st]Burton]

Actually, different rifles do different damage.
The SIG might well take 3.
The M16 takes 2 for sure
On my computer the AKMSU, SIG, M16, Desert Eagle and FA-MAS kill with 2 hits. If you need to shoot more than these 2 shots to kill online, then its either lag or bad shooting ;)

@Yurch:
Random damage ?!
I dont think thats a good idea.

[spm1138]

Err... I think I meant the M16 takes 1.75, the sig takes 2 (if that makes sense).

It probably was bad shooting.

[BlaDeR]

Originally posted by spm1138
Err... I think I meant the M16 takes 1.75, the sig takes 2 (if that makes sense).

It probably was bad shooting.

Just today I decided to measure the damage of the weapons in the game. And here are the results:

Weapon Torso/arm/leg Head
---------------------------------------------
Beretta M9 37 250
Five-Seven 42 268
Desert Eagle 52 310
Sig 551 SWAT 52 310
FAMAS 60 340
M16A2 60 340
MP5 Unsilenced 37 250
MP5 Silenced 37 250
P90 Unsilenced 49 347
P90 Silenced 30 220
AKMSU 52 310
PSG-1 90 460

I didn't measure the Robar, but it is pretty obvious what the results should look like.

[Ishtvan]

What's wrong with random damage? It means someone with an M1 actually has to fear 9mm or 10mm rounds in a 1v1 situation and can't just charge assuming they'll kill the person before they take enough hits to die. Obviously weapons are still weighted differently - an m16 would usually take two body shots to kill but sometimes take one. MP5 could take three most of the time but sometimes take two and very rarely one. What's wrong with accepting the fact that a 10mm shot to the body has a chance of killing or disabling you instantly?

http://www.inforcers.net/sigs/uniformishtvan.gif

[shadowkil]

i hope they adjust some of that a bit. for example, i have a hard time believing that a 5.7 designed for penetration and not expansion is going to do more damage to a body than a .40 s&w. imho if .357 mag does more damage than 9x19, so should .40 s&w. and yes, if you're curious, i'm more of fan of the theory of putting a bigger hole since physiologically, stops are made by two methods - central nervous system damage (i.e. head & spine shots), and blood loss (more specifically, lack of oxygen to the brain). cns shots are hard to do reliably, so punching bigger holes (or a lot more of them) in order to make that blood drain faster is the way to go. i'm not convinced that having a small projectile go through faster will really help that a lot - velocity seems to do well for penetration and for keeping the bullet accurate at longer distances, but beyond that, not a whole lot. granted, penetration is necessary to an extent - you need to get through to those vitals.

edit: typo

[shadowkil]

Originally posted by Ishtvan
What's wrong with accepting the fact that a 10mm shot to the body has a chance of killing or disabling you instantly?

http://www.inforcers.net/sigs/uniformishtvan.gif

Nothing, because it can - but only if it hits the spine. The heart is another good choice, but a heart shot is not an instant stop, just very fast (I believe I heard something like 10-15 seconds, definitely long enough to take a shot or run a few feet - before the brain is deprived of oxygen for long enough for a person to pass out). Anywhere else, and a one shot stop is likely due to psychological reasons, not physiological.

edit: fixed a typo

[W.R]

Nothing, because it can - but only if it hits the spine. The heart is another good choice, but a heart shot is not an instant stop, just very fast (I believe I heard something like 10-15 seconds, definitely long enough to take a shot or run a few feet - before the brain is deprived of oxygen for long enough for a person to pass out). Anywhere else, and a one shot stop is likely due to psychological reasons, not physiological.

If u get hit in the heart u wold drop to the ground and hope u dont take another hit. Thats about the time u paralyze from beeing hit in the heart, u can still think for a cuple seconds but cant move or do anything and then u die.

edit** Man..my spelling really sucks, but you don't need good spelling for a smart sexy businesswom...erhm computer engineer like me!

[shadowkil]

Originally posted by W.R


If u get hit in the heart u wold drop to the ground and hope u dont take another hit. Thats about the time u paralyze from beeing hit in the heart, u can still think for a cuple seconds but cant move or do anything and then u die.

What makes you think that? Physiologically, it is simply not true. Psychologically, quite probable, but by no means certain. It is a fact that people have take retunred fire* or run a bit after being shot in the heart. With the heart completely destroyed, the brain still has enough oxygen to act for several seconds. Whether or not you are in a frame of mind do anything constructive with your last moments and what you might chose to do with that time is beside the point. There is no paralysis involved, it's a matter of the brain being starved of oxygen. You can certainly still move.

edit: from an article here (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/shotthruheart011210.html): "Most people who sustained an injury like this would not be with us for more than 2 or 3 minutes. It's amazing he was able to walk three miles to a M.A.S.H. hospital," says McClurken, "It's really a miracle."


Rare, But Possible

So how can someone survive a bullet through the heart? Experts say these events are rare but not impossible

*changed wording

[-Snakebite-]

Its very hard to guess someones reaction to being shot anywere, a random effect is probably the best way.

I'm still for more wounding effects in Inf, instead of the current "Alive" and "Dead" modes. I wanna shoot someone in the leg, and occasionly see them collapse from the wound - perhaps they can continue fighting prone. Would make the game a lot more interesting, and players a lot more cautious.

- Perhaps someone could add a wounding mutator? (Weapons dropped when hit in shoulder etc).

[yurch]

Well, its perfectly acceptable to shoot a guy once with a PSG and have him go down. Or three times, instead. Of course, the chances of dropping him by shooting at his head is higher.
But it seems kinda lame to me that I just gotta pull the trigger twice with an AK, and know he is dead.
IRL, you shoot till hes down, not till you see exactly 2 bloodspurts.

[W.R]

What makes you think that? Physiologically, it is simply not true. Psychologically, quite probable, but by no means certain. It is a fact that people have take another shot or run a bit after being shot in the heart. With the heart completely destroyed, the brain still has enough oxygen to act for several seconds. Whether or not you are in a frame of mind do anything constructive with your last moments and what you might chose to do with that time is beside the point. There is no paralysis involved, it's a matter of the brain being starved of oxygen. You can certainly still move.

Yes u can take a cuple more steps.Yes u can still squize the triger.
It depends on the person and wich part of the heart they get hit in. What I said in my last post is the most comen way and its the way it shold be in inf (if there was a better damage model).
What makes me think this? I asked my friend, she use to be a medic

[shadowkil]

I guess the best solution (aside from maybe trying the system suggested in New Version Suggestions (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100696) would be a somewhat random amount of damage, with the range of damage appropriate to the caliber.

[W.R]

I agree.

[St0rmcaller]

Originally posted by Destructo6
I wasn't figuring that the bullet's energy dump would cause a Hollywood-like knock down.

I'm not sure what causes it, whether it's a nervous system overload or otherwise, but people tend to drop to the ground when shot. The direction is usually forward, regardless of direction of impact. The bots seem to do this.

You get shot in the leg, you'll fall, most likely. If you get shot anywhere else, and you fall down, it's because you are dead, or dying, and no longer feel the need to stand.

[asmodeus]

Originally posted by St0rmcaller


You get shot in the leg, you'll fall, most likely. If you get shot anywhere else, and you fall down, it's because you are dead, or dying, and no longer feel the need to stand.

or you're just a wuss:p

[BansheeVT]

Originally posted by spm1138
The term battle rifle seems to have originated with the US' half assed attempts to produce an assault rifle. The M14 was pretty much a product improved M1, imo.

The M14 (and similar) were too powerful and long ranged to be proper assault rifles. That most of them had pretty passable sniping variants pretty much says it all (i.e. the round was still too big and heavy to be a proper assault rifle round).

Hi all, first post. Had to join after seeing the above being said. All I have to say is that the US wasn't trying to make an assault rifle with the M14. You're right about it being a product-improved M1, it's extremely similar. The .308 was designed to save weight, and be more compact. It was never conceived as an assault rifle cartridge. The british tried that, with various .27 and .28 cartridges, but we shut 'em down. The US didn't want an assault rifle cartridge, because it saw no no compelling need to change, having witnessed no change in infantry combat that would require such a thing. Which was, simply put, bull. The Germans had the right idea, and the Russians certainly did as well, and the rest of the world seemed to have caught on quickly enough, but the US forced NATO to keep a full-power cartridge until Vietnam.

Also, the M14 is an excellent platform for a sniper rifle. It is used to great effect in matches out to 1km. The .308 round is considerably more accurate at ranges than the .223, so even though the mouse-gun (AR-15/M-16) rules the shorter competitions, the .308 still has a purpose.

In terms of damage, it's nothing special, and it doesn't penetrate as well as the new NATO round that replaced the SS109. An armor-piercing or hollow-point variant would be very useful, however.

I don't expect them to be adopted for Infiltration any time soon, but I hope that one is, eventually. At the least, as a GPMG. Now that we have a SAW (baby machine gun), let's have a real medium MG (like the M240, or MG3)! That's where a .30 cal weapon really shines. Recoil problems are eliminated due to high mass arms, and they're just so darn purdy!

Banshee

[shadowkil]

Originally posted by BansheeVT

...
Also, the M14 is an excellent platform for a sniper rifle. It is used to great effect in matches out to 1km. The .308 round is considerably more accurate at ranges than the .223, so even though the mouse-gun (AR-15/M-16) rules the shorter competitions, the .308 still has a purpose.
...
Banshee

Do you shoot highpower? I'll be starting in the spring =)

[BansheeVT]

Sadly, no :( You see, I'm just a poor boy with no money to go around and buy nifty fire-sticks. OLD fire-sticks, sure, but not an AR-15, M1A or the like. Perhaps a job would be the proper remedy to that situation? ;) Best of luck to you in your future matches!

Banshee

[ecale3]

hey banshee, do you have RL experience?

[shadowkil]

Originally posted by BansheeVT
Sadly, no :( You see, I'm just a poor boy with no money to go around and buy nifty fire-sticks. OLD fire-sticks, sure, but not an AR-15, M1A or the like. Perhaps a job would be the proper remedy to that situation? ;) Best of luck to you in your future matches!

Banshee

Thanks for the good wishes, and good luck to you in getting a hold of a new rifle ;) Btw if you are interested in an AR-15, you may consider building it yourself and just buying a part here and there when you get the cash.

[spm1138]

Originally posted by BansheeVT


Hi all, first post. Had to join after seeing the above being said. All I have to say is that the US wasn't trying to make an assault rifle with the M14. You're right about it being a product-improved M1, it's extremely similar. The .308 was designed to save weight, and be more compact. It was never conceived as an assault rifle cartridge. The british tried that, with various .27 and .28 cartridges, but we shut 'em down. The US didn't want an assault rifle cartridge, because it saw no no compelling need to change, having witnessed no change in infantry combat that would require such a thing. Which was, simply put, bull. The Germans had the right idea, and the Russians certainly did as well, and the rest of the world seemed to have caught on quickly enough, but the US forced NATO to keep a full-power cartridge until Vietnam.

Also, the M14 is an excellent platform for a sniper rifle. It is used to great effect in matches out to 1km. The .308 round is considerably more accurate at ranges than the .223, so even though the mouse-gun (AR-15/M-16) rules the shorter competitions, the .308 still has a purpose.

In terms of damage, it's nothing special, and it doesn't penetrate as well as the new NATO round that replaced the SS109. An armor-piercing or hollow-point variant would be very useful, however.

I don't expect them to be adopted for Infiltration any time soon, but I hope that one is, eventually. At the least, as a GPMG. Now that we have a SAW (baby machine gun), let's have a real medium MG (like the M240, or MG3)! That's where a .30 cal weapon really shines. Recoil problems are eliminated due to high mass arms, and they're just so darn purdy!

Banshee

Fascinating post.

The Brit assault-rifle I heard of was a .280 (I got a picture somewhere. you got a good link on it?).

I thought the CETME was by the original StG team (or some of it).
Which is why I thought 7.62 could almost pass as an AR round.

Good to have you on the forums.

[Destructo6]

I thought the CETME was by the original StG team (or some of it). Which is why I thought 7.62 could almost pass as an AR round.

The STG44 was chambered in 7.92x33, IIRC. That's pretty dang short by modern standards.

As far as the CETME goes,

After WW2, quite a few engineers and designers left the destroyed Mauserwerkes to work in Spain. There, they worked with Spanish engineers at the CETME works to design a new battle rifle. Toward the end of development, Siedel, Heckler, and Kock left CETME to form HK where they continued to work on the same design that they had been. Therefore, the HK G3-CETME models A-C development tree forks pretty close to the final product. They're not the same, but they're very similar.

The CETME model A was chambered in an odd 7.62x51 cartridge that was not supposed to be interchangeable with 7.62NATO. From CETME's model B through C, the rifles were chambered in 7.62NATO.

[BansheeVT]

The British .280 cartridge can be found in detail in the trivia section of www.cruffler.com, for any that are interested. As far as I know, the British never had a proper assault rifle in that caliber, but my knowledge is very limited in this area.

The CETME was indeed designed by some migrant Germans, displaced by the fall of the third reich. The lead designer, as I recall, was a Ludwig Vorgrimmler (don't quote me on that spelling). The CETME was originally chambered in a unique cartridge, the 7.92x40mm CETME round (8mm CETME will also do in reference). This was a true intermediate round, like the Russian 7.62x39. According to what I've read, the 8mm CETME did not have, generally speaking, a full metal jacket, making its use in warfare a violation of the Hague and/or Geneva Conventions, to which Spain (I believe) is a signatory. And so, the design team created a revised CETME model that fired what was known as the 7.62 CETME round. This cartridge was little more than an underloaded 7.62 NATO round, and could be fired in guns chambered for that cartridge. It provided light recoil, and was also a true carbine/intermediate cartridge.

Following this development, the CETME was once more altered to take conventional 7.62 NATO cartridges, and thus, until the adoption of the G36, Spain would no longer have an intermediate cartridge.

For those that aren't aware, the HK G3 is in fact a CETME rifle. Until 1961, all G3's HK produced were stamped with the CETME mark. It's the same design, and many parts are compatable. The operation of each is the same (delayed blowback by means of roller-levers).

The 7.62 NATO round is a full-power cartridge, ballistically almost identical to the earlier US cartridge, the .30-06. The cartridge case was merely shortened by 12mm, which was possible due to advances in powder technology. In any case, the US wasn't interested in having an intermediate cartridge, and we forced the 7.62 on the rest of NATO. US power politics it their worst, perhaps.

A true intermediate cartridge is designed to produce less recoil than a full rifle cartridge. They're less powerful than normal rifle cartridges (such as those fired from hunting rifles, or the aforementioned battle-rifles, the G3/CETME and the M1A1), and so they're much more controllable during full-auto fire. Further, since they're usually smaller and lighter, more ammo can be carried for a given weight, a real bonus to soldiers. Any vietnam vets here who had to lug around the M60 know what I'm talking about (I'm not one of them, mind you).

The M1A1/M14 was indeed a step forward from the M1 Garand, but it could have been a giant leap. Had it been adopted in a lightened version, with an intermediate cartridge, it could have been a reasonable facsimile of a genuine assault rifle. As it was, it was a very fine weapon, but not an assault rifle.

Banshee

[Destructo6]

What's sad is that the British still don't have a decent assault rifle.

If we'd only adopted the T48 (FAL) instead of the M14...the world wonders.

For those that care, assemblies like the gripframe (with trigger pack) and the forearm are interchangeable between the CETME and G3.

[TheRaptor007]

I hates french people! Dites-moi ce que vous en pensez. BIATCH!

Hehe, gotta love the High School French...

[Snipe*Star]

at-4 rocket launcher