Pistols dispersion, and m4

[darksteeljorge 96]

As everybody knows no one use pistols as primary when they can have better weapons.

 

In my opinion this is due to the stupid innacurate bullet dispersion, FNX pistol has a dispersion of 0.3% When I think it should have just 0.2% You might think "wow thats nothing", man is alot of dispersion. Pistols have to be accurate as long as 25 meters. At least.

 

M4A1 Man that thing sucks.

 

In real life they are very accurate, not perfect of course, but at least 200meters of precission this rifle should have

 

Post Your Opinions  :beans:  :beans:  :beans: 

[odin_lowe 3686]

Although there's lots of other threads covering this issue, I can't agree more. There is official word that it'll change in the future so I'm not too worried. But I have to say that we should enjoy our M4 while we can as innacurate as they are, because they'll become rare sooner than we think.

 

Back to the pistols issue, I hope they "buff" them even more than other weapons.

[darksteeljorge 96]

Although there's lots of other threads covering this issue, I can't agree more. There is official word that it'll change in the future so I'm not too worried. But I have to say that we should enjoy our M4 while we can as innacurate as they are, because they'll become rare sooner than we think.

 

Back to the pistols issue, I hope they "buff" them even more than other weapons.

M4 have to be a little more accurate. Yup they'll become rarer in a near future.

 

p.s. had you ever find a blue press vest? those are rare as fuck

[-Gews- 7443]

Quote from Bohemia developer zGuba:

 

IMO dispersion is obviously too high for most pistols (0.02 is a placeholder dispersion value really).

 

 

That was in regards to ARMA 2... dispersion for pistols in DayZ is even larger.

 

Anyways if you shoot a pistol at 25 yards and can't do better than 2-1/4 foot groups you may want to see a doctor as soon as possible.

[AceQuat 63]

using a pistol is only really valuable when you find yourself in closequarters and have a primary weapon that's unsuitable for that kind of short engagement range -- like longrange weapons with low firerate (mosin, sks) or with limited ammo capacity (b95)

 

i think that's the point of a sidearm/pistol. they should neither be "primaries" nor should they beat them concerning combat performance. a sidearm is just really something to complement your primary rifle with. once you have the m4a1, you're right, there's no point using a pistol really. and that's perfectly fine in my eyes

[rickenbacker 190]

using a pistol is only really valuable when you find yourself in closequarters and have a primary weapon that's unsuitable for that kind of short engagement range -- like longrange weapons with low firerate (mosin, sks) or with limited ammo capacity (b95)

 

i think that's the point of a sidearm/pistol. they should neither be "primaries" nor should they beat them concerning combat performance. a sidearm is just really something to complement your primary rifle with. once you have the m4a1, you're right, there's no point using a pistol really. and that's perfectly fine in my eyes

 

You're right, there's no point in using a pistol if you have something better. Pistols and revolvers are mainly used by police forces and militaries because they're easy to carry, not because they're very good weapons. BUT, pretty much every pistol or revolver ever made can shoot a 3-5cm group at 25m, if the user does his part (and in the game, we all hold our aim perfectly except when winded). 

[Jex 1104]

I tested my M4 last night. Laid down, extended my bipod, used the acog to distance my target, pretty much exactly 300m. Aimed centre point, chest and fired. Both shots hit directly where they were aimed and the zed went down on the second shot.

[taco86 156]

M4 is actually reasonable if you've got magpul stuff on it and have a bipod deployed.  Hitting a man sized target at 500m is not at all difficult.  The problem comes when you don't have all this pristine magpul stuff, or you are crouching/standing.  Having to "lag shoot" on top of leading also makes hitting any moving target at distance difficult which certainly exaggerates the already significant issues with accuracy.

 

Pistols are just way off atm, hitting a sign at 25m is difficult...  No thanks to cone of fire barrel bending mechanics please...

 

One other thing I wanted to touch upon...  Why is the 1.3 lb Troy Battle Axe the "quicker" stock compared to the others when it's .7 lbs heavier than the magpul ctr, and .9lbs heavier than the standard m4 stock?  The selection here just makes no sense...  Obviously the standard m4 stock is to stay, but the other two should be removed and replaced with more appropriate stocks that fill their "roles" in the game...  The easiest thing to do imo, is to simply scrap the Troy Battle Axe and the Magpul CTR.  Introduce the Magpul UBR as the "marksman" stock as it's essentially the Rolls Royce of collapsible buttstocks in terms of how solid and durable it is.  IMO the CQB buttstock could be filled by the CTR (which is probably the best in terms of how solid it feels for the weight), however to prevent cliche magpul spam I suggest the Vtor Imod...

Edited March 14, 2014 by taco86

[kaix12 34]

As everybody knows no one use pistols as primary when they can have better weapons.

 

In my opinion this is due to the stupid innacurate bullet dispersion, FNX pistol has a dispersion of 0.3% When I think it should have just 0.2% You might think "wow thats nothing", man is alot of dispersion. Pistols have to be accurate as long as 25 meters. At least.

 

M4A1 Man that thing sucks.

 

In real life they are very accurate, not perfect of course, but at least 200meters of precission this rifle should have

 

Post Your Opinions  :beans:  :beans:  :beans: 

 

I dont know what M4's you have been using but hell I hit a guy at 600m's with a M4 when I was sniping at electro, it seemed accurate enough for me.

[Zer0HD2 (DayZ) 40]

I tested my M4 last night. Laid down, extended my bipod, used the acog to distance my target, pretty much exactly 300m. Aimed centre point, chest and fired. Both shots hit directly where they were aimed and the zed went down on the second shot.

 

That's because most people put on any attachment they find without understanding what they do, then complain when they can't hit a 200m target with their CQB buttstock. The M4 with a Magpul (MP) buttstock is perfectly accurate upwards of about 400m. 

[xRann 126]

That's because most people put on any attachment they find without understanding what they do, then complain when they can't hit a 200m target with their CQB buttstock. The M4 with a Magpul (MP) buttstock is perfectly accurate upwards of about 400m. 

attachments should not affect accuracy to the degree, if at all, of the firearms. period.

[-Gews- 7443]

I tested my M4 last night. Laid down, extended my bipod, used the acog to distance my target, pretty much exactly 300m. Aimed centre point, chest and fired. Both shots hit directly where they were aimed and the zed went down on the second shot.

 

That's because most people put on any attachment they find without understanding what they do, then complain when they can't hit a 200m target with their CQB buttstock.

 

 

 

 

The attachment system is completely irrelevant. It's been known for ages that adding a bipod means perfect accuracy.

 

 

Jorge_Assad is complaining about the accuracy of the M4A1. Not the M4A1+bipod, not the M4A1+Magpul.

 

 

 

 

 

People are complaining because they think this is terrible:

 

 

 

And it is, it's awful.

[darksteeljorge 96]

The attachment system is completely irrelevant. It's been known for ages that adding a bipod means perfect accuracy.

 

 

Jorge_Assad is complaining about the accuracy of the M4A1. Not the M4A1+bipod, not the M4A1+Magpul.

 

 

 

 

 

People are complaining because they think this is terrible:

 

 

 

And it is, it's awful.

Yeah man you get it, and actually is almos impossible using a bipod when your bullets shoot the "ground"