I move to urge Codemasters and BIS to add the Barret 50 cal

[Sgt Hammer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Browning Automatic Rifle, and the M-1 Garand. both of those weapons werent meant for accuracy, although they got the job done perfectly well. I think this si a good oppertunity to add a sniper rifle that was actually meant to be a sniper rifle. <span id='postcolor'>

Before making a post how about you do a little research dumbass.

The M14 was made to replace the M1 Garand, The M14 came to be after many years of development and controversy. One world class weapon that competed against the M14 for U.S. adoption, and lost, was the FN FAL. The reasons for the military choosing the M14 over the FN FAL were, due to the similarities of the M1 Garand and the new M14, training and manufacture would be easier. The M14 was a pound lighter than the FAL, and the United States was not about to adopt a foreign weapon for the U.S. military. Ironically the FN Corporation would eventually produce the M16A2 for the U.S., and the armed services would eventually replace their 1911A1s with the Italian-designed M9 Beretta.

The M14 is basically a product-improved M1 Garand. The M14 cured the short comings of the 1930's-developed Garand. Briefly, these improvements were a detachable 20-round capacity magazine, a floating gas piston, the gas port on the barrel located closer to the receiver, a roller on the bolt to reduce friction, full-auto capability, a flash suppresser, chrome lined barrel, and a "smaller" round: the 7.62 NATO or as civilians were to know it, the .308.

The reason the M14 is better than the FN FAL are due to a few problems, the first being that the FAL has gas system problems, and gas adjuster knob trouble, it is not as reliable as the M14.. not by a long shot. The second is that the FAL is slightly heavier than the M14, and the third is that it has horrible sights which can't be adjusted to windage & elevation.

The reason for the M14 being better than the G3 are that it too is slightly heavier, (the M14 has a longer sight radius and better trigger pull than the G3 and FAL) it has horrible ergonomics, it is front heavy & unbalanced, it also have Heavier recoil. The magazines / feeding mechanisms isn't as reliable as the M14's, seeing as how the M14 GI magazines are known throughout the gun world as the best, plus the G3 sights are just as bad of the FAL's.

Now lets compare the FN to the G3…

The FN is easier to maintain in the field than the G3, With The H&K G3 you have to remove the buttstock by pulling 2 pins at the rear of the receiver these can be lost under the rigors of combat.

Also with the H&K's roller lock it is fairly easy to get the rollers locked out when cleaning Making it impossible to reinstall without complete disassembly and reassemble of the bolt to reinstall. Which

could be a royal pain to do the first couple of times. So although the M14 tops them both ...... the FN FAL is better than the G3

Lets compare weight now...

The M14 weighs 9.2 pounds empty, the FAL weighs 9.4 pounds empty, and the G3 weighs 9.7 pounds empty. As you can see the M14 is lighter than both of them (information on rifle weights comes form U.S Army M14 Guide book, FN's webpage, H&K's webpage)

When it comes to Accuracy all three rifles run neck and neck ....... its the slight advantages listed above that make the M14 the best followed by the FN FAL and then finally the G3A3 ... at least in my opinion (and every other knowledgeable "gun nut").

So next time do some d*amn research, I garentee you most of those old weapons are x10 better than todays plastic fantast garbage.

[Aculaud 0]

............................................i'm the dumbass...........? YOU JUST PROVED MY WHOLE POINT, YOU IMBICILE!!!!!

Your right about all your little factoids there. the M-14 is indeed a better assault rifle than the G3 and the FAL. What you never learned however, was that the M-14 was made with both semi and gas operation. it was origionally designed for semi-auto fire, but some of them were equiped with bipods to be used as squad automatic weapons. this was un successful due to exessive recoil, and very wide dispersion. the M14A1 was designed to overcome these problems but it was still too light to be truely effective. ultimately, the M249 SAW filled the army's need for a reiable light machine gun. The M14 National match rifle was the model optomized for accuracy with special sight parts, and berrals selected especially for that purpose. Later the M-21, or XM-21 was developed jointly by the army weapons command, combat developement command, and the limited war agency. it was basicly an M-14 National Match fitted with an adjustable range telescope, or ART sight. This rifle was tested and feilded in Vietnam, 1969. Its undergone numrous tests to earn its place somewhere (and i emphisize somewhere) in the army, and is old to say the least. is it reliable? yes. is it accurate? yes. But it has  been taken seriously as an assault rifle, and a light machine gun. only after those asumptions went belly up did the army try it out as a sniper rifle. What i'm asking for is a true sniper rifle. As in, a rifle that was actually made for sniping. the Tango-51, Bravo-51, and USMC M-40 to name just a few.

And back to the subject of the game, i just played the single mission "sniper Team", and i got very frustrated when soldiers didnt die with one shot to the chest. this is a 7.62mm round we're talking about. more than capable of taking a life from any range, and they're not dying. I'm a one-shot-one-kill type of sniper, as i'm sure every other compitant OFP sniper would be as well, so i find this a little discouraging. if no additional sniper rifle is added, at least make this one effective enough to really snipe with. other wise, i might as well go back to using it how the M-14 was origionally designed to be used.

(Edited by Aculaud at 8:31 am on Dec. 16, 2001)

[Sgt Hammer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the M-14 was made with both semi and gas operation. it was origionally designed for semi-auto fire, but some of them were equiped with bipods to be used as squad automatic weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

No s**t, BUT THAT WAS NOT THEIR MAIN ROLE.. did you think the US Army planned on using the Garand the entire time and than going to use the M14 as a support weapon? NO!!!!

The bipod was added to the M14 for the same reason the bipod was added to the M1 Garand, for added accuracy while prone.

[Aculaud 0]

no one ever said anything about dedicating the M-14 to full auto. i said SOME......................SOME. not to be confused with ALL. SOME m-14s were equiped with bipods for use as full auto support for squads. and you better beleive the army wanst planning on using it for support the entire time. they encounterd scores of problems using it for support. so why dont you stop nit-picking, just taking everything you can to make me look bad, and either get on the ban-wagon or stop giving me S#%T

[Sgt Hammer 0]

I *will* give you s**t, I am pointing out that because they were given bipods THAT DOESNT MEAN THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR THE SUPPORT ROLL s**t BIRD.

I have M1As (basically M14s) and know the history of the M14.

The BAR was replaced with the M60 machine gun, not M14...

The m14 was tested in support rolls but was heavily modified, some even had belts.

My beef is that you go shooting your mouth off and you don't even have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

[Aculaud 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Sgt Hammer on 10:40 am on Dec. 16, 2001

My beef is that you go shooting your mouth off and you don't even have the slightest idea what you are talking about.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, says you. If you know so much about history, and the like, you must know that there can be more than one side to it. its called having a different perspective.

So tell me, i'm dying to know. what have i stated thats so wrong?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Damage Inc on 5:12 pm on Dec. 15, 2001

And it's true that nobody would use the M21 anymore.

<span id='postcolor'>

No, it's not!

Available weaponry is entirely dependent on how the mission is WRITTEN!

And the Barrett site says that since its inception in 1982 it has been embraced by the worldwide military and law enforcement communities, so I'm sure that some very black ops were using it long before it became "official" gear for the U.S. Army.

I remember reading reviews about its performance in an American Survival Guide magazine in 1985 and it can more than do the job.

--Uziyahu_IDF

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Aculaud on 3:04 am on Dec. 16, 2001

or to the resistance. the AW50 would be a fine choice as the Avon Lady pointed out. <span id='postcolor'>

...except that the AW50 wasn't available in 1985.

--Uziyahu_IDF

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from RedStorm on 1:00 am on Dec. 15, 2001

It's really bad for long ranges to be honest...It's an anti material rifle.

<span id='postcolor'>

Its being an anti-material rifle doesn't necessarily mean it is inaccurate.

And there is no Geneva Convention Law of Land Warfare rule that you can't use .50 ammo against personnel.

--Uziyahu_IDF

[Black Op 0]

anyone know where theres a list of banned weapons?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from GFX707 on 1:58 am on Dec. 16, 2001

pfff, well there are a lot more important things that could (and should) be put into the game

such as some decent fortifications, decent sandbag walls and bunkers for both infantry and tanks/AA guns, radar stations and other types of military buildings. Also some decent small to medium sized boats, and artillery (although the LGB A10 is good enough for me, if they fix it or tell us how to use it accurately) so I don't see why they should be adding a Barret before any of these other things.<span id='postcolor'>

That's just opinion, of course.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In my opinion it's as stupid as the 'give us a Huey' fiasco simply because it adds nothing new to the game...<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. Authenticity. We still had Hueys in the Army when I left in 1989. The absence of the Huey and the presence of the rather-new "CrashHawk" takes away from the suspension of disbelief. Additionally, the development of the Huey (seemingly already completed with VBS) would enable users to make more authentic Vietnam-era missions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...and would just mean that the US has 2 sniper rifles instead of one, and more significantly one more than the Soviets have, just as they seem to have more of everything than the Soviets have.<span id='postcolor'>

Uhhh, like NATO *DID* have a larger variety of gear than the CommBloc did in 1985.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So if there is something like this to be added then I suggest that the first thing to be added would be given to the Soviets rather than to the US troops.

As to your comment about slowing the soldier carrying it down, either BIS can't implement this or they won't, since machine gunners and AT soldiers are still just as agile as normal soldiers, it seems.

(Edited by GFX707 at 2:01 am on Dec. 16, 2001)

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, the AT soldiers are NOT as nimble. You have to switch to your primary rifle or you are stuck in a kneel-crawl position. If anything, it should be much easier to run with an empty rocket launcher.

--Uziyahu_IDF

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from GFX707 on 1:58 am on Dec. 16, 2001

pfff, well there are a lot more important things that could (and should) be put into the game

such as some decent fortifications, decent sandbag walls and bunkers for both infantry and tanks/AA guns, radar stations and other types of military buildings. Also some decent small to medium sized boats, and artillery (although the LGB A10 is good enough for me, if they fix it or tell us how to use it accurately) so I don't see why they should be adding a Barret before any of these other things.<span id='postcolor'>

That's just opinion, of course.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In my opinion it's as stupid as the 'give us a Huey' fiasco simply because it adds nothing new to the game...<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. Authenticity. We still had Hueys in the Army when I left in 1989. The absence of the Huey and the presence of the rather-new "CrashHawk" takes away from the suspension of disbelief. Additionally, the development of the Huey (seemingly already completed with VBS) would enable users to make more authentic Vietnam-era missions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...and would just mean that the US has 2 sniper rifles instead of one, and more significantly one more than the Soviets have, just as they seem to have more of everything than the Soviets have.<span id='postcolor'>

Uhhh, like NATO *DID* have a larger variety of gear than the CommBloc did in 1985.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So if there is something like this to be added then I suggest that the first thing to be added would be given to the Soviets rather than to the US troops.

As to your comment about slowing the soldier carrying it down, either BIS can't implement this or they won't, since machine gunners and AT soldiers are still just as agile as normal soldiers, it seems.

(Edited by GFX707 at 2:01 am on Dec. 16, 2001)

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, the AT soldiers are NOT as nimble. You have to switch to your primary rifle or you are stuck in a kneel-crawl position. If anything, it should be much easier to run with an empty rocket launcher.

--Uziyahu_IDF

[Guest Scooby]

It is silly that in OFP you are forced to go so slowly with AT weapon in hands.

You can move alot faster even with Apilas which weights almost 10 kilos in hands than in OFP with LAW.

In army people are taught to move with Apilas when being close to enemy so that you have Apilas and assault rifle at same time on your hands so that you can still fire your rifle (though not very accurate).

Wouldnt either mind ability to use AT weapons from prone position.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Uziyahu IDF on 11:12 pm on Dec. 16, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from RedStorm on 1:00 am on Dec. 15, 2001

It's really bad for long ranges to be honest...It's an anti material rifle.

<span id='postcolor'>

That's the Hague Accords, not the Geneva Conventions, my friend...

Its being an anti-material rifle doesn't necessarily mean it is inaccurate.

And there is no Geneva Convention Law of Land Warfare rule that you can't use .50 ammo against personnel.

--Uziyahu_IDF

<span id='postcolor'>

[GFX707 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Uziyahu IDF on 4:23 pm on Dec. 16, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from GFX707 on 1:58 am on Dec. 16, 2001

pfff, well there are a lot more important things that could (and should) be put into the game

such as some decent fortifications, decent sandbag walls and bunkers for both infantry and tanks/AA guns, radar stations and other types of military buildings. Also some decent small to medium sized boats, and artillery (although the LGB A10 is good enough for me, if they fix it or tell us how to use it accurately) so I don't see why they should be adding a Barret before any of these other things.<span id='postcolor'>

That's just opinion, of course.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In my opinion it's as stupid as the 'give us a Huey' fiasco simply because it adds nothing new to the game...<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong.  Authenticity.  We still had Hueys in the Army when I left in 1989.  The absence of the Huey and the presence of the rather-new "CrashHawk" takes away from the suspension of disbelief.  Additionally, the development of the Huey (seemingly already completed with VBS) would enable users to make more authentic Vietnam-era missions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...and would just mean that the US has 2 sniper rifles instead of one, and more significantly one more than the Soviets have, just as they seem to have more of everything than the Soviets have.<span id='postcolor'>

Uhhh, like NATO *DID* have a larger variety of gear than the CommBloc did in 1985.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So if there is something like this to be added then I suggest that the first thing to be added would be given to the Soviets rather than to the US troops.

As to your comment about slowing the soldier carrying it down, either BIS can't implement this or they won't, since machine gunners and AT soldiers are still just as agile as normal soldiers, it seems.

(Edited by GFX707 at 2:01 am on Dec. 16, 2001)

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, the AT soldiers are NOT as nimble.  You have to switch to your primary rifle or you are stuck in a kneel-crawl position.  If anything, it should be much easier to run with an empty rocket launcher.

--Uziyahu_IDF

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but bear in mind while you're talking about the US having more equipment and whatever else, that this is a GAME. This is not real life, and some of us do like to play the Soviet side now and again. Pretty much all of the addons BIS has released since OFP came out have been for US, I am just saying that maybe it is time the Soviets get some before the US get more.

The 'give us a huey' argument came about before I knew that BIS or the VBS1 people had already made a Huey, so if they have one ready and adding it is just a case of porting it to OFP, that's fine with me. My main gripe was them wasting time making one because you people requested it, when there was already a helicopter in the game that does the exact same job, perhaps an even better one....add to that the fact that I was using that as an example.

[KillorLive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Mister Frag on 1:40 am on Dec. 15, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from erfworm on 8:27 am on Dec. 15, 2001

<Snip>

He said the snipers where so far away the bad guys dropped before you could hear the gunshots.

<span id='postcolor'>

The bullet will get there before the sonic crack regardless of distance, because the bullet is supersonic.

The only time when that is not the case is with suppressed weapons, such as the MP5. In order for the sound signature to be suppressed effectively, the bullet must be subsonic, or transsonic. As quiet as a suppressed SMG is, it can be heard before the bullet gets to the target.

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, wrong.

The H&K MP5 is not silent at all.

The SD model, however, is.

But for power in the military perspective it's crap past 30m. The 9mm round just isn't enough.

[quakergamer 0]

Im working on a Barret Model. ocmpleted at 50%

http://quakergamer1.multimania.com/berret.jpg

http://quakergamer1.multimania.com/berret1.jpg

[KillorLive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

That's the Hague Accords, not the Geneva Conventions, my friend...

Its being an anti-material rifle doesn't necessarily mean it is inaccurate.

And there is no Geneva Convention Law of Land Warfare rule that you can't use .50 ammo against personnel.

--Uziyahu_IDF

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, in a declaration of War, the .50 JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point) round is outlawed.

It is classified in-humane.

(Edited by KillorLive at 12:37 am on Dec. 17, 2001)

(Edited by KillorLive at 12:38 am on Dec. 17, 2001)

[quakergamer 0]

woops

http://quakergamer1.multimania.com/barret.jpg

Second Shot

http://quakergamer1.multimania.com/barret1.jpg

[KillorLive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> ...replace their 1911A1s with the Italian-designed M9 Beretta. <span id='postcolor'>

*ahem* There is no 1911A1's.

It's the *M*1911A1 (technicality point, woo!).

The M9 was used for about 10 years then dropped from the blatant lack of power. Officers barely ever use issued weapons as they are allowed to carry their own sidearm (Usually a weighty .45, over the crap 9mm). The pistol is mainly used for "humane" killing in war time, anyway. That is why medics are issued M1911's, but since supply officers "accidentally" under order the .45, they are often issued the M16A3. The people that actually get issued pistols only use them at target practice. You barely ever see a Lieutenant carry a pistol, though they should be issued them as comm officers, that's because they actually ARE on the front half the time, the ones that do are unlucky. Pistols now are used as a last ditch effort, meaning your BCO (Battalion/Battery Commanding Officer) is running for his life shooting at the people over running his establishment.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from KillorLive on 7:20 am on Dec. 17, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Mister Frag on 1:40 am on Dec. 15, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from erfworm on 8:27 am on Dec. 15, 2001

<Snip>

He said the snipers where so far away the bad guys dropped before you could hear the gunshots.

<span id='postcolor'>

The bullet will get there before the sonic crack regardless of distance, because the bullet is supersonic.

The only time when that is not the case is with suppressed weapons, such as the MP5. In order for the sound signature to be suppressed effectively, the bullet must be subsonic, or transsonic. As quiet as a suppressed SMG is, it can be heard before the bullet gets to the target.

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, wrong.

The H&K MP5 is not silent at all.

The SD model, however, is.

But for power in the military perspective it's crap past 30m. The 9mm round just isn't enough.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the H&K MP5 is always suppressed. I used the name MP5 because that is what it is called in OFP. The H&K MP5SD is a model with an integral suppressor, but you can certainly attach one to any other MP5 model.

[Aculaud 0]

alright, so now we've got enough opinions on the board, so now i'll just ask. Who else would actually like to see the Barrett in OFP?

[ScreamingWithNoSound 0]

M14 is technically a battle rifle.

Why was the M249 mentioned? This was not introduced until the very late 80's/early 90's - a full 2 decades after the M14 was withdrawn from service and over 3 decades after the BAR was withdrawn.

One reason the bad guys don't die with one hit to the chest, is because if THEY die with one hit YOU die with one hit!

Simple.

If you're having problems making 1 hit 1 kill, you need more practice.

I think people that desperately want 'better' snipper rifles are just beardy puffs that are scared to run at the enemy screaming "Die Bastard! DIE!" because they may get killed.

It's a game. Play it like one. You wanna make beardy sniper shots, play UT.

OFPs strength is that it's a squad-based grunt game. None of this "one man army" s**t that just doesn't happen in real life. (NO, it doesn't - look at the Gulf, the SAS were deployed in 8 man teams). THAT's what's good about OFP as someone else pointed out on a similar thread - the M21 is not there for true snipers, it's there to give a squad extended reach on the battlefield.

Snipers are just boring, cause all they do is find a hole and lay there. Yawn. I played this all-sniper mp game once, it was interesting, but <I> won the game, because <I> was not a beardy-boring sniper git, I ran upto people and got stuck in. (with an M21)

It's not what you've got, it's how you use it.

[KillorLive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from ScreamingWithNoSound on 1:33 am on Dec. 17, 2001

M14 is technically a battle rifle.

Why was the M249 mentioned? This was not introduced until the very late 80's/early 90's - a full 2 decades after the M14 was withdrawn from service and over 3 decades after the BAR was withdrawn.

One reason the bad guys don't die with one hit to the chest, is because if THEY die with one hit YOU die with one hit!

Simple.

If you're having problems making 1 hit 1 kill, you need more practice.

I think people that desperately want 'better' snipper rifles are just beardy puffs that are scared to run at the enemy screaming "Die Bastard! DIE!" because they may get killed.

It's a game. Play it like one. You wanna make beardy sniper shots, play UT.

OFPs strength is that it's a squad-based grunt game. None of this "one man army" s**t that just doesn't happen in real life. (NO, it doesn't - look at the Gulf, the SAS were deployed in 8 man teams). THAT's what's good about OFP as someone else pointed out on a similar thread - the M21 is not there for true snipers, it's there to give a squad extended reach on the battlefield.

Snipers are just boring, cause all they do is find a hole and lay there. Yawn. I played this all-sniper mp game once, it was interesting, but <I> won the game, because <I> was not a beardy-boring sniper git, I ran upto people and got stuck in. (with an M21)

It's not what you've got, it's how you use it.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, snipers always move around. Otherwise they get dead.

They are also not lonely old goats waiting to kill someone, that's an Assasin. Get it straight. Snipers are always used in conjunction with major US assaults, unless it's a recon team, in which case they use an M16A3 with a 4xs scope, anyone stupid enough to use it however....

Yes, squads do employ snipers- OFTEN. Barely ever do I see a large scale (platoon+) sized assault without sniper cover.

OFP is a game, though, so b*tching about this is moot since BIS doesn't give a d*amn about us anyway.

They care about our money, and the reviewers. Right now they care more about VBS1 (which I'll probably see in a couple years anyway). The M21 sucks as a sniper rifle, as stated, it is an extension of the average storm soldier. I've stated this before, and people have stated this before.

[Sgt Hammer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, says you. If you know so much about history, and the like, you must know that there can be more than one side to it. its called having a different perspective.

So tell me, i'm dying to know. what have i stated thats so wrong?<span id='postcolor'>

Where stated the Garand was not an accurate weapon