RH M4/M16 pack

[scarecrow398 43]

Hmm ive seem to run into a little glitch maybe or wrong value on RH SAM-R and Mk12 they have no where near the same penetrating power of their counter parts using Hypnomatic Quick and Fun Projectile missions those 2 rifles only go through two boards and stop just shy of the third while all their counter parts go through three and stop on the fourth board.

Pic below to show Difference Short shots are from SAM-R and Longer are from M16A3

http://i.imgur.com/O6kXRRB.png (1736 kB)

As said by RH, 262 rounds make a difference, also in game everything to do with the bullet after it leaves the barrel is done by the magazine, the only thing the rifle changes about the bullet is dispersion.

Mk262 rounds are open tip rounds designed to fragment and tear on impact, as such, when they impact with a car windshield or a wall they tend to break up early on their way through, or shortly after while SS109/M855/F1 ball/FMJ (aka standard 5.56mm rounds) rounds are a solid chunk of steel in a copper jacket that has much better penetration abilities (though lower damage done on target).

The reason for adoption of 855 was primarily for machinegun use to increase accuracy from the M249/Minimi and had the added bonus of penetrating light body armor at several hundred meters, something which was thought to be important in the 1970's (With the cold war and such), however modern tech and combat operations against unarmored forces (particularly since 2001) have highlighted performance issues with the round, which are mainly the failure to rapidly incapacitate targets when fired from rifles and carbines (which, again, the round wasn't designed for the US went full derp and made it a standard round for the entire militaries 5.56mm weapons for logistical and cost cutting reasons.) Another issue also highlighted was that 5.56mm in general was less effective with intermediate barriers such as walls, glass and vehicles (something quite common during the Iraq war with urban engagements and checkpoints).

The Mk262 was an interim solution to these problems (Low reliability of incapacitation and poor performance from short barrels.) however it suffered more so from penetration due to the open tip design.

I should highlight that if you have two shooters, both with same rifle and the same ammo, even from the same box, both may see vastly different results with 5.56mm ammo, one may report great results, assuming every bullet is upsetting (Fragmenting/yawing) it will quickly incapacitate, however the other may have no rounds on target upset which will literally cause the same amount of damage as a .22LR round, this is unfortunately true for all 5.56mm rounds, FMJ (855), Open tip (262) or even AP, the round just doesn't upset reliably enough and without reliable upsetting you get decreased wounding effects, you're unlikely to incapacitate and also likely to pass through the combatant and pose a threat to civilians or friendlies...

There was a study done a while ago by the National Defense Industrial Association that highlighted these issues and recommended use of either 6.5mm or the 6.8mm SPC cartridge (which, funny enough, had a total R&D budget of $5,000 and was directly fielded with good results from special forces who where apart of the development of the round... compared to the millions spent on other rounds that failed miserably and also offered more consistent performance and better barrier penetration.) over 5.56mm for it's increased penetration, ability to retrofit to existing rifles with a new upper receiver (barrel, firing pin and such) and a new magazine (or even the existing magazine, just with decreased capacity).

Oh and would you look at that the MX is in 6.5... I guess BI knew what was coming :P

Aaaand this post is longer than I intended, In which case:

TL;DR Mk262 fragments early (damage), standard rounds fragment late (penetration), 5.56mm in general is unreliable and the Military should considered a new caliber.

Here's a short video that sums up the above with gel and slow motion and car doors (Ignore .50 beowulf, it's a hilariously impractical round which weight a shit ton and kicks like a mule.)

Edited February 20, 2014 by Scarecrow398

[spectrersg 9]

6.8mm SPC cartridge (which, funny enough, had a total R&D budget of $5,000 and was directly fielded with good results from special forces who where apart of the development of the round... compared to the millions spent on other rounds that failed miserably and also offered more consistent performance and better barrier penetration.) over 5.56mm for it's increased penetration, ability to retrofit to existing rifles with a new upper receiver (barrel, firing pin and such) and a new magazine (or even the existing magazine, just with decreased capacity).

RIP M468. :( Would LOVE that being an addition, RH.

[scarecrow398 43]

RIP M468. :( Would LOVE that being an addition, RH.

Huh, didn't know they canned it, though the REC7 appears to be the same thing with a short stroke piston instead of direct impingement.

Though at 2,500 for what's essentially a new upper compared to the $673 for a M4A1 I don't see it going anywhere fast...

[spectrersg 9]

A REC7 would be just as awesome, RH. ;)

[EricJ 765]

RIP M468. :( Would LOVE that being an addition, RH.

I have an M468 somewhere on my hard drive, don't know where I got it, but if you have somebody who can texture the model in Oxygen I'm sure it can be done.

[Spartan0536 189]

I have an M468 somewhere on my hard drive, don't know where I got it, but if you have somebody who can texture the model in Oxygen I'm sure it can be done.

A REC7 would be just as awesome, RH. ;)

You get the model and texturing done on an M468/REC7 and I will gladly write the ballistics code for 6.8x43mm SPC. The M468 IMO should have replaced the M4/M16 series, it was another masterpiece by Ronnie Barrett.

[EricJ 765]

Well... let's move the M468 off of RH's thread and into my thread ("EricJ Release Thread").

[-J4F-Thunder666 0]

Hi Mr. Hammer,

is there a Chance for a MG Mod(249.240) soon ?

Greetings Thunder

[jakeryan760 10]

So I decided to push up my FOV to 100 using the FOV changer for arma 2. Well to my surprise not only did it show the whole weapon at default but the 3d scopes turned out the way I would have liked. For those of you who were like me and felt that the Acog had a bit to much zoom and was also a bit to close to the screen then this is your answer. I honestly perfer it as if i need any real amount of zoom I will use a 2d scope. Here are some screen shots for you to view for those who are interested. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=234167233

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=234167203

[lao fei mao 21]

So I decided to push up my FOV to 100 using the FOV changer for arma 2. Well to my surprise not only did it show the whole weapon at default but the 3d scopes turned out the way I would have liked. For those of you who were like me and felt that the Acog had a bit to much zoom and was also a bit to close to the screen then this is your answer. I honestly perfer it as if i need any real amount of zoom I will use a 2d scope. Here are some screen shots for you to view for those who are interested. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=234167233

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=234167203

-----Yes, if BIS would set the head camera memory point a little bit back and left, then we could obtain a better FOV of weapons in hand just like the BF4's.

The reason I don't like the 3D scope is that the slow speed of zooming, but not like the one of 2d scope. Ghost sniper2 using 3D scope with a fast speed of zooming, it feels much better.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Lao Fei Mao

[roberthammer 582]

Acog 3D view will be updated - more like BIS style

I will tweak it to more "3Dish" feel but i will keep the 2D real zoom

Still alot to do but not much time to do it , so guys be patient

[ei8ght 11]

Acog 3D view will be updated - more like BIS style

I will tweak it to more "3Dish" feel but i will keep the 2D real zoom

Still alot to do but not much time to do it , so guys be patient

Take your time RH and this is good news for ACOG.

I have just one question for you^^

you'll make more modern version on the AR-10? like the Ruger SR762 or LE 901

[roberthammer 582]

you'll make more modern version on the AR-10? like the Ruger SR762 or LE 901

Modern ar10 maybe in the future ,but there will be few SR25 variants incl m110

[-J4F-Thunder666 0]

So no MG`s like 249, MK84, 240 in close Future ?

Greetings Thunder

[Dreik 10]

@ RH

I've really enjoyed your mods in arma 2 and 3! I see you're working on updating some weapons for the RH m4/m16; will it include the HK416?

None of the hk416s mods really look like hk416s. I can't post links up since I'm new, but checkout the HK416 D10rs on google! This is the variation that SOCOM, at least a few like DEVRU and DELTA, use!

[DieTU 10]

The HK416D10 you see now on Google is the last model of a firearm which begun his service in the SpecOps community almost 10 years ago....there are at least 6 different (not so much different) models of HK416 :)

[The Hebrew Hammer 10]

Seriously though, is there any plans to make a replacement pack for this mod? If no, are there any good resources so I can just do it myself?

[cocazoulou 10]

Hi sir :)

The best M4 pack mod ... Thank you for your work.

I just have a quick question. Do you have the possibility to make a M4 with CQBR upper (10.3 or 10.5 inch) ?

It would be perfect in combination with the mk12 for SFG or SEAL groups.

PS : If you need dimension or picture for Aimpoint M2 with Wilcox mount, Trijicon ta01 with Docter sight, Surefire M951 old gen or M900. I have.

Friendly.

[adam26a 10]

awesome M4 mod :D

[sorophx 25]

I just have a quick question. Do you have the possibility to make a M4 with CQBR upper (10.3 or 10.5 inch) ?

but this mod already has them? with Vltor accessories.

[roberthammer 582]

I think he meant Navy Mk18 mod 0 aka CQBR - those will be but much later

Edited March 5, 2014 by RobertHammer

[chortles 263]

And for Arma 3 there's already a mod for the MOD 1 version.

[cocazoulou 10]

I say CQBR ... not MK18 ^^

The MK18 is a upper 10.5" with M16a1 lower (used by cost guard and Navy VBSS crew)

CQBR is a 10.5" upper with M4A1 lower (used by Navy SEAL and SF) :

[sorophx 25]

I'm not a gun-type of guy, so I don't know the difference between a CQBR and an SBR, same barrel length anyway. aren't they essentially the same thing when it comes to Arma? same magazine == same performance in game, no?

[Spartan0536 189]

if using my 5.56x45mm ballistics and setting the magazine init speed correctly and the two weapons being the same barrel length then yes in ArmA it would be no different than using a MK20C or a TRG20, the only difference I could fathom would be the weapons cyclic rate or the trigger selection group such as burst or auto.