no accurate FPS games

[k9870]

Or they just get the most training on the AR-15 and want weapons systems they are familiar on for training purposes. The AR-15 is good, but not all-powerful.

[Alcatrazz]

Originally Posted by k9870

Or they just get the most training on the AR-15 and want weapons systems they are familiar on for training purposes. The AR-15 is good, but not all-powerful.

But it shoots bullets made of compressed death, it is 100% accurate, never runs dry and it improves gas mileage on your car by 25%, how could it not be all-powerful?

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by k9870

Or they just get the most training on the AR-15 and want weapons systems they are familiar on for training purposes. The AR-15 is good, but not all-powerful.

You're only addressing part of Jdun's argument. It isn't just American PMCs who carry ARs. It's the SFs of just about every Western/NATO/pro-U.S. military in the world. These are countries whose SFs would NOT be familiar with the AR because they used something else as rank-and-file infantry. The Aussies are a good example - the standard-issue for their military is the Steyr AUG, but their SF all use ARs.

Again, this is not opinion. It's fact. If you look at the weapons of most of the SFs that are pro-U.S. (or at least not overtly anti-American), you'll see all of them using M16s and M4s. Surely, you can't deny that that is significant?

BTW, I'm old enough and have been reading gun rags long enough to remember all of the new rifle platforms that came along over the years which were touted as superior to the M16 and M4, and then wound up failing to gain acceptance. Especially the ones built by H&K. People have been criticizing the AR platform for decades now, and yet at the end of the day, its popularity has endured. No other rifle platform, even "improved" ARs like the H&K 416, has yet managed to eclipse the popularity of the traditional direct gas impingement M16 and M4.

[jdun]

Originally Posted by k9870

Or they just get the most training on the AR-15 and want weapons systems they are familiar on for training purposes. The AR-15 is good, but not all-powerful.

Like I said before, if you don't like the AR15 that's fine by me. However the facts remains that the best warriors in the world use the AR15. These fighter does not use junks and unproven gears. They use the best proven gears in the market and from the experience learn in real combat.

If you never took combat/small arms training or been in the military. You might want to take a look at Magpul Dynamics - Art of the Tactical Carbine, (3 DVD Set). It is inexpensive compare to going to class or buying other videos similar to it.

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/Magpu...d%20dyn001.htm

PSYWAR1-0 did made some interesting points on the AR15 about the SCAR.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=2&t=276835

I have held the SCAR but never shot it or did a complete disassemble of the SCAR but PSYWAR1-0 is in the industry so his comments have weight.

2500 bucks for the gun, the cost of a new optic every 1500-2000 rounds, dealing with dissimilar metals corrision when trying to change that barrel, using a torque wrench to REMOVE screws, destroying the trigger pack first time you decide to change the pistol grip. You would be better off dating a stripper, you would at least have some cool stories to tell after your bankrupt.......

Everyone is in agreement that the recoil for a piston gun is different than a gas gun correct?

So a Mk 18 is about 6 pounds, but the 10 inch version of the 416 is 7.3 pounds. You have a possible trade off, of enhanced reliability but with more weight. So what happens if you take that piston gun and lighten the weight to make it about say 7 pounds? Do you not think that having less weight to help absorb some of the recoil is not going to cause issues with the optic mounted on the weapon? Especially optics that are direct mounted, as opposed to a tube optic that is mounted in rings and can flex and move with the recoil of the weapon?

As to the rest, in the past Operators and Maintenance manuals have been released to the public, you can even find right here on this website what the torque spec for a M16 barrel was back in the 80's

But recently all Ops and Maint manuals are limited distro, some not outside of DoD, others only to other Fed Agencies, none to the general public so,,,,,,,,,,,,,

When you take that barrel off your SCAR, do you think you can just start undoing bolts? And not just any, the right ones that are not perm attached to the receiver, and if you do get the right ones, how are you going to get it back on properly, do you use rockset, locktight or torque for that suppressor QD flashider? Know the right way to take that pistol grip off without destroying your trigger pack?

Its not just having a screwdriver and a set of hands with opposable thumbs

Regarding Pmags, if you go in a certain building, on a certain base, in the midwestern US, you might see a Fathead of a guy in Multicam, with a 1911 in a drop leg 6004 holding a SCAR L with a tan Pmag inserted in the mag well, Or so Ive been told

Anyway, Im off break and the ice cream machine here at the Dairy Queen needs topped off

Anyway the problem with FPS other then the typical bad understanding of firearms is tactics. While I don't play a lot of games, CoD 4 is bad in this regard. No objectives between the two military combatants. It's like a headless chicken running around doing the same thing over and over again without any gains.

In military and LE, they have objectives like defending or taking territories (rescuing hostages)but rarely both. In other worlds there should one attacking and one defending team. Each team have an objective. The attacking team trying to take the defending team territories, while the defending team trying to prevent it.

I don't remember how their disable bomb mission works but what I do remember is that I thought it was silly.

It's all about clear objectives. TF2 while doesn't have realistic guns it does have clear objectives and I think it is one of the best tactical FPS out there.

[ManiacallyChallenged]

One FPS I recently got the chance to play was the STALKER series, including Shadow of Chernobyl and the prequel Clear Sky.

The first one handled firearms very well, with semi-realistic performance and a variety to DIE for. The second one got lost in weapon upgrades which is still believable but not perfect.

The weapons are also a mix of East-bloc surplus and mercenary imports, and include handguns with an impressive range, with no clear standouts. From a gameplay balance standpoint, it sucks, but from a gun-nerd's view it's awesome. SIG Sauer P226s, HK USP, 1911, Beretta 92FS, a weird anomalous Desert Eagle(shooting .45ACP), Walther P99, Fort MK12 etc.

Plus they portray multiple types of ammunition with different qualities and ranges.

Rifles are well varied too, but the G36K is portrayed as the end all beat all rifle. Tragically enough. Also, the only SMG is an old model MP5.

In fact, the IMFDB page on STALKER is really good!

I've said too much now I think. Suffice to say Clear Sky wasn't as good.

[Gunmaster45]

I think Arma was the only game to successfully capture the realism of military and shooting. The gun is even more to the right of the screen in FPS since most shooters fire from their right shoulder. And no "from the hiP" crap that every FPS has for some reason. Sniping is pretty cool too.