|
Post by smoothoperator on Apr 21, 2010 19:54:30 GMT -5
I've been experimenting recently with the Garand and the M14 in touch football mode on a few different PC servers. The Garand lets me take down 3 guys with a clip. The M14 on the other hand requires me to use an entire clip on 2 people at the most with magnum ammo on. I take 4 shots at the head and only one of them registers (Usually as a headshot). Is the M14 cursed for some reason when compared to the Garand which only contains 8 rounds?
I wish the M14 had optics whether it be RDS or a 4x. *tear.
You are my bro, bro.
|
|
|
Post by zuluzuluzulu on Apr 21, 2010 22:39:13 GMT -5
In my experience (1300+ M14 kills at 30% accuracy), the M14 is a fickle lover. She'll be your best friend in some firefights, and when strafing, she's a completely different beast. I am of the belief that the M14, while super-accurate ADS and still, is VERY unreliable if there is any lateral movement of your character.
In a fight, while using the M14 I often try to run towards an enemy if at all, and I usually decide in the split second whether to engage the enemy or run and hide, since I don't expect to hit anything if I fire while trying to run to cover.
|
|
|
Post by jackson on Apr 22, 2010 9:37:12 GMT -5
In my experience (1300+ M14 kills at 30% accuracy), the M14 is a fickle lover. She'll be your best friend in some firefights, and when strafing, she's a completely different beast. I am of the belief that the M14, while super-accurate ADS and still, is VERY unreliable if there is any lateral movement of your character. In a fight, while using the M14 I often try to run towards an enemy if at all, and I usually decide in the split second whether to engage the enemy or run and hide, since I don't expect to hit anything if I fire while trying to run to cover. My 800 kills and roughly 33% accuracy with the M1 Garand say the same thing (they are basically the same rifle stat wise). You must be stationary when firing or you will not hit the target. This isn't MW2 where ADS puts your shots dead center of the sights no matter what. There's that spread cone to consider and the sights merely show the center. It looks stupid, and will get you killed sometimes, but often it is best to literally stop in the open and fire. Trying to strafe to cover while firing will only slow you down and make you miss your target, meaning you die. If you can get the timing down, firing once every third of a second, every shot will be dead on accurate. Learn the range where it changes from taking two to three shots to kill (with magnum on the consoles). Stop, fire, then sprint to cover.
|
|
|
Post by dragoneye on Apr 22, 2010 9:41:53 GMT -5
If you examine the stats page carefully, you realize that the m14/Garand are pretty much just crappy versions of the semi-automatic sniper rifles, with worse damage falloff, no scope, and a measly 20 faster firing rate (barely noticeable, especially since they share the same zoom/spread stats-- meaning you have to fire both more slowly than their max speed anyway to ensure accuracy.)
Though it pains me to say it-- you're better off rolling a recon kit, and putting a reddot on an SVU or a T88 ):
|
|
|
Post by jackson on Apr 22, 2010 9:57:20 GMT -5
If you examine the stats page carefully, you realize that the m14/Garand are pretty much just crappy versions of the semi-automatic sniper rifles, with worse damage falloff, no scope, and a measly 20 faster firing rate (barely noticeable, especially since they share the same zoom/spread stats-- meaning you have to fire both more slowly than their max speed anyway to ensure accuracy.) Though it pains me to say it-- you're better off rolling a recon kit, and putting a reddot on an SVU or a T88 ): By just the damage and spread numbers, sure, you'd be correct. However, to run with a semi-auto sniper with a red dot or 4x, that takes up Spec 1. I like to run my M1 kit with Lightweight or Extra Explosives. Also, you have to be a Recon. I prefer to be an Assault. That way I get C4 (you can get it with the Recon too), but more importantly infinite ammo with the Ammo Boxes. The slightly better fire rate can aid in CQB spamming. And plus, I play on console, so the M1/14 get the 25% damage boost while the snipers don't.
|
|
|
Post by dragoneye on Apr 22, 2010 10:04:10 GMT -5
Ahh. You play console, that would explain it. Yeah, I hear that the m14 is useful there. For us on the PC, the m14 isn't as viable. It takes longer to kill with, and the awful scope tends to get you killed while ironsighting. I'd imagine that there's less medium-range headshotting on the move in console though, so it's a different beast to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by turdferguson on Apr 22, 2010 13:05:10 GMT -5
And plus, I play on console, so the M1/14 get the 25% damage boost while the snipers don't. Semi-auto snipers have the boost, only the bolt action snipers are unaltered. The SVU kills in 2-3 shots with magnum, just like the M14. But I agree with you about how the M14 is useful on the assault kit. Needless to say, one should almost never consider using the M14 on a recon kit.
|
|
|
Post by jackson on Apr 22, 2010 14:07:18 GMT -5
And plus, I play on console, so the M1/14 get the 25% damage boost while the snipers don't. Semi-auto snipers have the boost, only the bolt action snipers are unaltered. The SVU kills in 2-3 shots with magnum, just like the M14. But I agree with you about how the M14 is useful on the assault kit. Needless to say, one should almost never consider using the M14 on a recon kit. You sure about that? Then the guy that made the console damage charts is wrong. It's been a while since I've used the semi-auto snipers, but I think the damage lined up with not having the 25% boost.
|
|
|
Post by turdferguson on Apr 22, 2010 17:43:06 GMT -5
You sure about that? Then the guy that made the console damage charts is wrong. It's been a while since I've used the semi-auto snipers, but I think the damage lined up with not having the 25% boost. I got that from those charts. Make sure that you are looking at the most updated version. denkirson.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general2&action=display&thread=1281Pre-patch damage for the Type 88, SVU, and M14 should read 48.8 to 31.3. With the new patches, things will change, though. The Type 88 and the M14 will both have damages 48.8 to 35. The SVU will still have the 31.3 minimum damage, but a longer range until damage drops off.
|
|
|
Post by individual on Apr 23, 2010 22:47:53 GMT -5
I've been experimenting recently with the Garand and the M14 in touch football mode on a few different PC servers. The Garand lets me take down 3 guys with a clip. The M14 on the other hand requires me to use an entire clip on 2 people at the most with magnum ammo on. I take 4 shots at the head and only one of them registers (Usually as a headshot). Is the M14 cursed for some reason when compared to the Garand which only contains 8 rounds? I wish the M14 had optics whether it be RDS or a 4x. *tear. You are my bro, bro.I think it's most likely the sights. The M1 Garand's sights are much cleaner, less obscuring. It's precisely for this reason that I prefer the M1 Garand over the M14.
|
|
|
Post by suicidalcheez on Apr 26, 2010 13:52:12 GMT -5
The randomness of this gun increases 1 degree per shot. The randomness goes back to normal 3 degrees per second.
1/3 = 0.33. You can fire three shots per second without worrying about bad accuracy. You're shot will land exactly on the same spot every time.
Don't look at the recoil. It's 96% bogus.
Oh, and the semi-auto snipers have the same recoil and damage and the slug semi-auto's have 1 shot every 0.56 seconds at the price of a bit more damage.
|
|
|
Post by .KiNG. on May 14, 2010 18:48:28 GMT -5
imo...garand and m14 are useless weaponss...
they are part of the reason why, smtimes, there are so many stupid teams around, full of ppl using useless guns...
those weap can't be compared in efficency to AN94, XM8, G3..and so on...
i simply wonder what's the point in using them :/
|
|