|
|
Post by Abbot on Mar 19, 2015 17:08:56 GMT
Ooooh my gosh, dood.  Like I just said, the range difference is not that much. Hence why the airsoft sniper focuses, rightly, on camouflaging himself, because the small amount of additional range in his gun is not enough to outbalance the rof in the enemy's. And with a 363mm inner barrel you can easily reach ranges others can't. Buying a mk1 or mk2 simply for the additional range is just overkill. We don't need it. Yes, comfort is a definite factor. I've felt many guns which were very uncomfortable, others that I felt were extremely comfortable. I've used guns which were not maneuverable and very cumbersome due to length (e.g. my 417) and others that are extremely maneuverable. |
|
|
|
Post by Caesar on Mar 19, 2015 18:35:42 GMT
Oooooh my gosh. (seriously?)  Look at my rifle. It also has a 363mm inner barrel and it has 320-340 fps velocity. Can range approx. 100 ft. Now, that range can be beaten by a large margin. Unless everyone are carrying around pistols, this gun seems about average. The same is true for those watered down para things or anything related. The machine gun is not a personal primary weapon. It does not need to meet the long-term engagement requirements for constantly handling a gun. Situations that require maneuverability, such as CQB or advancing under cover, should not apply to machine guns, since they are the guns providing the cover fire and whatnot. As the sniper's position demands that he trades certain weapon characteristics for others, the same is true of the machine gunner's. Give the respected weapon class a break man!  |
|
|
|
Post by Abbot on Mar 19, 2015 19:00:04 GMT
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you again.
#1: I used to have a G&G with a 363mm inner barrel and the same FPS (it was the exact same gun as yours) and could easily reach the equivalent (and then some) of my brother's AK-74 with a 400+mm inner barrel. That range CANNOT be beaten by a large margin as it is the same inner barrel length (363mm) as most guns on the field. And as I pointed out, it easily took down my brother's 400+mm inner barrel. Also, as the LMG is an outdoor weapon, the FPS should be more like 360-380 and therefore should add an additional range over our G&G weapons. As I've said (from experience) three times now, 363mm is more than enough range, no more range is needed. Overkill is what it is: excess. And excess is unusable.
#2: The LMG is indeed a personal weapon. It is the LMG gunner's personal weapon. While it cannot be as comfortable as, say, a Mk18 or even a tactical AK, it is certainly important to have as much comfort, maneuverability, and adaptability as possible. Everything in balance. As range is perfectly taken care of with a 363mm inner barrel, we then turn to what would be more comfortable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sev on Mar 19, 2015 20:25:17 GMT
Range is an advantage in every gun, its just not necessary. The Mk46 looks cooler in my opinion, and a shorter barrel is more maneuverable. Also the stock is retractable, which makes for a more comfortable fit. The standard M249 stock was a huge pain if I recall correctly. Also, another one which would be amazing: www.evike.com/products/31036/Why am I not surprised that Abbot is espousing a navy gun! Oh and the problem people have been having with the A&K Masada is that the hop-up slider handle is easy to break, but it can also be replaced. I still like the M249 in my original post, both because of classic looks and because THE PRICE! It is at least $30 less than the choices Abbot was showing. I do like the M-60 for looks though as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Caesar on Mar 19, 2015 21:36:21 GMT
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you again. #1: I used to have a G&G with a 363mm inner barrel and the same FPS (it was the exact same gun as yours) and could easily reach the equivalent (and then some) of my brother's AK-74 with a 400+mm inner barrel. That range CANNOT be beaten by a large margin as it is the same inner barrel length (363mm) as most guns on the field. And as I pointed out, it easily took down my brother's 400+mm inner barrel. Also, as the LMG is an outdoor weapon, the FPS should be more like 360-380 and therefore should add an additional range over our G&G weapons. As I've said (from experience) three times now, 363mm is more than enough range, no more range is needed. Overkill is what it is: excess. And excess is unusable. #2: The LMG is indeed a personal weapon. It is the LMG gunner's personal weapon. While it cannot be as comfortable as, say, a Mk18 or even a tactical AK, it is certainly important to have as much comfort, maneuverability, and adaptability as possible. Everything in balance. As range is perfectly taken care of with a 363mm inner barrel, we then turn to what would be more comfortable. Excess range can go toward covering an even larger field of fire. Expanding the application of this specific weapon's purpose, greater machine gun range is usable by heading off the enemy's efforts. Defensive firepower was the primary purpose for which the machine gun was designed. You cannot meld weapon concepts. Heavy weapons have a higher tactical responsibility. Therefore, they require superior performance characteristics. Superior range is necessary and comfortable design is recommended. But a machine gun does not require maneuverability. |
|
|
|
Post by Abbot on Mar 19, 2015 23:50:50 GMT
363mm is more than enough range, no more range is needed. Overkill is what it is: excess. And excess is unusable. |
|
|
|
Post by Caesar on Mar 20, 2015 19:49:07 GMT
Remember Spidey's T3-K3 or Sev's SVD Dragunov? Those beat the heck out of any shorter barreled guns. That is what I want an LMG to be like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spidey on Mar 20, 2015 20:10:43 GMT
363mm is more than enough range, no more range is needed. Overkill is what it is: excess. And excess is unusable. "Overkill is highly underrated." Seriously though, the more range, the better. You can always use more range than your enemy. It gives you something that he has not. I have always found that range is a huge factor in any battle. I am really willing to go with any of the above, because as Abbot says the range is enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Abbot on Mar 23, 2015 14:06:56 GMT
Overkill is definitely not underrated. It's useless. While I have no argument that more range is better, it's unusable range.
The only AEGs that the G3 and SVD (with 400+mm inner barrels and 350-450 FPS) "beat the heck out of" was my Mk18 which had a 247mm inner barrel and 320 FPS... that's not much of a "beat the heck". The shotguns used by the Mattsons don't count, they're just shotguns. Tony's AK was never outranged and neither was your M4 by any significant amount. There was a reason we felt secure if it was you on one team, and Spidey or Sev on the other.
The other guns are far superior due to comfort, weight, and length. If we were buying the MkII or MkI purely for range (a range we will never use), then that's not a good reason. If we were buying them for looks, I could understand that. The range should not be an issue with any of those guns at all. Not one bit. 363mm is an excellent range and will never be outgunned. The team should have no qualms about getting any of the guns, as all have superior range and ammo. The only thing this team should consider concerning them is looks, feel, comfort, and maneuverability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ajax on Mar 23, 2015 18:00:00 GMT
While this is a good discussion to figure out what kind of lmg we want to get, I think it may be a bit premature. This is probably something we should talk about in the future. (And probably make a separate thread for)
|
|
Predator
Rookie
Sniper operator in progress.
Posts: 54 
|
Post by Predator on Mar 23, 2015 21:42:42 GMT
I agree with Ajax, but I just want to state my opinion. If you are just comparing those guns then range won't make much difference. The amount of range you can get out of the longer LMGs can be made up just by raising your aim about an inch. Especially on an LMG, range is not necessary at all. As for maneuverability and comfort, because these guns are much heavier than your average gun, the team should make it as easy to carry as possible so that it doesn't weigh anybody down (remember, games last all day!). The main features you should be concerned for are: rate of fire, accuracy, comfort, and convenience of cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caesar on Mar 26, 2015 1:13:15 GMT
Granted, these are important conveniences. All the the same, we need the LMG to have certain advantages to accompany the conveniences. Since one is paying extra for a machine gun's performance, the team still needs to consider what tactical advantages an LMG can provide.
|
|
Like I just said, the range difference is not that much. Hence why the airsoft sniper focuses, rightly, on camouflaging himself, because the small amount of additional range in his gun is not enough to outbalance the rof in the enemy's. And with a 363mm inner barrel you can easily reach ranges others can't. Buying a mk1 or mk2 simply for the additional range is just overkill. We don't need it. 
Look at my rifle. It also has a 363mm inner barrel and it has 320-340 fps velocity. Can range approx. 100 ft. Now, that range can be beaten by a large margin. Unless everyone are carrying around pistols, this gun seems about average. The same is true for those watered down para things or anything related. The machine gun is not a personal primary weapon. It does not need to meet the long-term engagement requirements for constantly handling a gun. Situations that require maneuverability, such as CQB or advancing under cover, should not apply to machine guns, since they are the guns providing the cover fire and whatnot. As the sniper's position demands that he trades certain weapon characteristics for others, the same is true of the machine gunner's. Give the respected weapon class a break man! 
