Supressed 5.56mm- Way to powerful?

[})FA|Snake]

Playing on Shan's server today the comment was brought up that nearly everyone now is using supressed weapons. After some thougt it occurred to me that there really isn't much of a reason to not use a supressor, and for the rifles that seems highly unrealistic

I don't have much real research done on the topic (so if I'm wrong about this I'll be appy to admit it) but it was always my understanding that subsonic 5.56 is extreamly underpowered and unstable IRL. (and in thinking most likely the same thing with the 5.7mm that the p90 and 5-7 use).

My basis comes from a little bit of simple "hearsay", but mostly just from common sense. Normally 5.56mm has a muzzle velocity of ~3000+ fps, whereas when a supressor is in use that velocity drops to sub 1000 fps. Yet in INF you only lose a minimal amount of damage potential, and no drop in performence. why is it the subsonic .40S&W, having greater mass then the 5.56, and traveling aproximatly the same speed (just under 1000 fps), does almost half the damage?

In reality shouldn't a supressed FAMAS or M4 do less damage then a supressed MP5/40?

 

[Olethros]

Simple: The suppressed M4 and FAMAS do not fire subsonic 5.56mm ammunition. I don't know exactly how much muzzle velocity is lost by adding a suppressor to the FAMAS or M4 (it probably varies with different kinds of suppressors), but it is not nearly enough to slow the bullets down to below the speed of sound.

 

[ecale3]

also the loss of velocity isn't significant enough to noticably change the ballistics at INF ranges.

 

[})FA|Snake]

the round fired IS subsonic, at least by its sound profile, If indeed its not supposed to be then that is a large problem.

[edit: the supressor does not make it subsonic, you use subsonic ammunition when using a supressor]

 

[Olethros]

That's an engine issue. Firing supersonic ammo through a suppressor won't get rid of the sonic boom made by the bullet, but UT's sound engine isn't capable of simulating this very well. If at all. In vanilla INF, all bullets sound like subsonic ones. Yurch is apparently on it with his bulletsounds mutator, but I don't know if he has taken subsonic ammo into account in the case of the MP5/40A3.

 

[ecale3]

the round fired IS subsonic, at least by its sound profile, If indeed its not supposed to be then that is a large problem.

[edit: the supressor does not make it subsonic, you use subsonic ammunition when using a supressor]

not always. The point of the M4 suppressor is to reduce the localized noise, not get rid of the sonicboom. The sonic boom is harder to localize than the rifle's report. The M4's suppressor is used with regular ammo. the suppressor decreases the sound profile by (i'm pretty sure, but not positive) 35 decibels. It does hit muzzle velocity, but not enough to significantly change the ballistics at INF ranges (except maps like RtK and Junglewarfare). It MAY affect the wounding profile on the 5.56 fired from an M4 because the round is known for having poor performance once its velocity falls below a certain point, and combining a suppressor with a carbine length barrel has its weaknesses. Basically the difference between 2 .22 Calibre holes and 2 or more smaller holes plus a huge wound cavity. But that isn't an everytime occurance.

And as olethros said, sonicbooms have yet to be properly modeled in UT.

 

[yurch]

the round fired IS subsonic, at least by its sound profile, If indeed its not supposed to be then that is a large problem.

[edit: the supressor does not make it subsonic, you use subsonic ammunition when using a supressor]

The only weapon in the inf armory that's actually using different physical ballistics for it's 'supressed' version is the P90, although I can't speak for the third party ones. Everything else is firing the same bullet (some have the possibilty of lower penetration/damage, IIRC, but don't quote me on that)
So yeah, if you ask me, the sound profile is off. Either that or make it subsonic, and I bet a subsonic 5.56 is absolutely laughable as a combat round, you may as well be using a .22.

If I remember correctly, supressors don't nessesarily decrease bullet speed either, in a few cases it may speed it up.

 

[})FA|Snake]

yes, its known to speed up .45ACP, cause its already subsonic so the supressor is basicly adding to the barrel length.

Okay so I revise that then, the sound profiles are way off, currently there appears to be none or minimal distance sounds for supressed weapons, if the rounds are supersonic there would be most defintly distance sounds. As it is know the supressed rifles are just as quiet as the supressed sub-macine guns. Also I'd like to know if the collision detection changes to account for length increase of the weapon.

edit: I'd also like to add it would be nice to be able to choose between Sub and super-sonic ammunition when using a supressor

 

[GenoOfTheCrayon]

I thought pushing supersonic rounds through a suppressor could severly damage it. At least that's what I learned from all of you guys

 

[ecale3]

Not when the suppressor is designed for it.

 

[Arethusa]

A good suppressor will be able to handle supersonic ammunition just fine.

And, yes, in most cases, adding a suppressor will increase muzzle velocity marginally (generously, as high as ~10 m/s). Of course, these are for muzzle attached suppressors; for something like the MP5SD's, it's a whole different story.

In the case of ingame weapons with suppressors like the FAMAS, yes, the sound profiles are way off. Ballistic performance should be unaffected or even slightly superior with something like your standard M4QD suppressor, but it should also be a bit louder, considering you're packing supersonic ammo.

 

[keihaswarrior]

IF the suppresors are realistic in INF right now, then that would mean that real life soldiers would ALWAYS use a suppressor, which obviously isn't the case.

So either the suppressed rounds need to do less damage, or the weapons need to be louder.

--I'd also like to mention that I still think the M4 should do less damage than the M16 due to the barrel length. Right now, they both do the exact same damage since they use the same exact ballistic code in INF (duke just reused it).

 

[ant75]

Kw, you seem to forget one real life variable : cost. IRL military equipment is not chosen simply on what is the most efficient and reliable, gouvernments also have to balance budgets. The cost of providing an entire army with suppressors would not match the gain in efficiency you could get on the field i think. In Inf we don't have this price variable, this is why we need to have (to some extent) this thing called balance.

 

[ecale3]

IF the suppresors are realistic in INF right now, then that would mean that real life soldiers would ALWAYS use a suppressor, which obviously isn't the case.

So either the suppressed rounds need to do less damage, or the weapons need to be louder.

--I'd also like to mention that I still think the M4 should do less damage than the M16 due to the barrel length. Right now, they both do the exact same damage since they use the same exact ballistic code in INF (duke just reused it).

you guys are exhausting.

 

[})FA|Snake]

I fail to see how a supressed gun would be much more expensive then a non-supressed gun.

 

[ant75]

Go to a gunshop, ask for a suppressor for any weapon, and see if the guy gives you the suppressor for free. If not, it means it has a cost.

 

[})FA|Snake]

supressors are illegal so I doubt that the gunshop would sell them cheap.

edit: hit enter by accident.

My point was was the cost of a suppressed weapon over a non-supressed weapon is negligible

 

[OpFor]

So the M4 uses the EXACT same ballistics as the M16? For shame... So now I can engage and eliminate targets at 400m with the M4! I guess realism just went out the door...

 

[ant75]

So now I can engage and eliminate targets at 400m with the M4! I guess realism just went out the door...

I don't think there is such a range in any of the maps available. Perhaps duke decided that ballistics were so similar at medium range that there was no need to code a new ballistic type.
I'd really like to have an opinion on the m4 from someone who really knows about ballistics, because it seems to me you guys are arguing over realism, whereas what you seek is in fact more balance...

 

[ecale3]

i've seen some pretty flipping expensive suppressors, the cost is hardly negligable. I'm pretty sure i've read accounts of people using the M4 to hit targets out to like 300-400m. The M4 isn't quite as innacurate as you seem to think. The problem is more with the lower muzzle velocity of the M4 occasionally causing problems with fragmentation and wounding in the 5.56mm round.

here, these are just pistol suppressors and they are expensive. http://www.impactguns.com/store/silencers.html