Final MW2 multiplayer weapon/perk list

kabob983 said:
The SCAR comes in 2 different flavors, the SCAR-H which is a 7.62x54mm (.308) designated marksman style rifle and the SCAR-L which is a 5.56mm M4 replacement weapon. The L hasn't been tested very much yet, the H isn't being very well favored by the military people I've heard from.

Honestly I think they need to look into switching to the Remington 6.8mm SPC cartridge. The 5.56mm gets a bad rep and when it works properly it's great, but too often it doesn't work as anticipated. The ACR comes ready for the 6.8mm w/matching barrel and lower receiver ready to go.

And you can't trust everything you see on YouTube videos.
Click to expand...

I think the 6.8 is a great round, however I see two issues with it. They really aren't problems per se, but worth noting. Ballistically you get more penetration with the 6.8 which is great when you're fighting through cover. However in CQB urban environments over penetration becomes a concern. Secondly switching to 6.8 would be a major hassle to change the NATO standard, and if you decide not to go that route supplies would be even harder to come by.

On a side note, I am pretty sure the "L" model is available for purchase, so there should have been more than enough testing.
 
Chombo said:
Stopping power is a moot point since most of the guns designed to replace it are 5.56. You need a bigger cartridge which you can do with the AR platform as it is.
Click to expand...

This is basically why I was confused to see the "damage" rating the M16 had in this CoD video was so much greater than others firing the same round. I don't get the disparity; why the M16 bars are all basically full compared to guns designed to improve upon it.
 
Chombo said:
I think the 6.8 is a great round, however I see two issues with it. They really aren't problems per se, but worth noting. Ballistically you get more penetration with the 6.8 which is great when you're fighting through cover. However in CQB urban environments over penetration becomes a concern. Secondly switching to 6.8 would be a major hassle to change the NATO standard, and if you decide not to go that route supplies would be even harder to come by.
Click to expand...

Yeah, switching to 6.8mm would be a hassle but with all the hubbub generated by the media about "OMG their M16's stopped working and they kept hitting them but the bg's wouldn't go down" crap we've seen lately it wouldn't surprise me if there's another push to find a "more stopping power" weapon soon, and 6.8mm fits the book well.

As for over-penetration...when isn't that an issue.

Fliddycent said:
This is basically why I was confused to see the "damage" rating the M16 had in this CoD video was so much greater than others firing the same round. I don't get the disparity; why the M16 bars are all basically full compared to guns designed to improve upon it.
Click to expand...

Because MW2 != real life. They have to have some sort of variation between guns (even guns with very similar ballistics) or it'd be pointless to have more than 2 or 3. The FAMAS, M16, M4A1, F2000, Tar-21, and ACR (presumably) all fire 5.56mm rounds. Now, the M16 has a 20" barrel so it gets a little more damage rating for higher bullet velocity I suppose (certainly not 50% more) and you've still have 5 weapons that realistically should have very similar damage. They've got to mix things up a bit or there wouldn't be any point to having anything more than the M16, M4, SCAR-H, and AK-47.
 
My guess is they list damage per trigger pull. Since the M16A4 has a burst fire option, that's probably why they list the damage so high. Just my take on it anyway.
 
I don't think that's the case as the FAMAS is also a 3 shot burst weapon and it's damage is identical to the M4A1's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top