Some comments on the new pistols

[-Gews- 1]

While they are very nice, I noticed a couple things I think could be improved about the pistols. In particular:

1. From looking at configs, the difference in damage between .45 ACP and 9x21mm seems extreme! The hit values are as follows:

.45 ACP = 9

9x21mm = 5

(9/5)^2 = 3.24

So, that would mean that .45 ACP has three times as much damage as 9x21? I checked on a metal pop-up target, with both pistols, using HandleDamage, and found the following average damage:

.45 ACP = 0.0290

9x21mm = 0.0101

In my opinion, .45 ACP should do, at the very most (!) 1.5 times as much as 9x21... others may have a different figure in mind, but I am sure anyone will agree that 3x the damage is excessive.

The second thing:

2. Some magazine capacities are incorrect (impossibly so)

The ACP-C2 has a magazine capacity of 9 rounds... but the floorplate of the magazine is clearly flush with the magazine well! This is physically impossible, the following image explains quite clearly:

It is impossible to fit 9 rounds in a flush 1911 magazine. It is possible to fit 8, by changing the design of the spring, but not 9.

The other magazine in question is the FN 45 "Four 5" Magazine. In-game it has a capacity of 11 rounds. In real life, it is 15 rounds, and the civilian version is also 15 rounds.

The only reason I can see for not giving correct capacities is... actually, I can't see a reason, so I hope this issue will be fixed ;)

Apart from this, I generally like the pistols. My favorite feature is the new "muzzle flip" recoil animations - it looks so much better than ArmA 2.

[Wraith420 10]

well finally then, a gun in arma that acts like someone loaded a round into the chamber, then seated a full magazine, which is like 99% of the time due to reloads :)

[Tacti-Cool 10]

the Four-Five has an 11 round capacity of .45ACP :)

[roshnak 41]

Yes, but it uses a double-stack magazine that holds 15 rounds. Although they apparently offer 10 round mags as well.

[Elutheral 10]

I could be wrong but, why are you squaring the damage? 5x1.8=9 only 1.8x stronger... However I do see that the average damage on the metal target is 2.871287129x more but, idk if there are other factors that affect damage on the metal target.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Elutheral

[progamer 14]

If your talking about the new pistols, the "Zubr" is actually using the wrong caliber: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15462

[-Gews- 1]

I could be wrong but, why are you squaring the damage? 5x1.8=9 only 1.8x stronger... However I do see that the average damage on the metal target is 2.871287129x more but, idk if there are other factors that affect damage on the metal target.

In the previous ArmA, hit value was squared. In that game, 45 ACP = 5 and 9x19mm = 4, so .45 was (5/4)^2 = 1.56 times as powerful (at least after a patch that corrected a lot of damages, before that patch .45 was hit = 9 and 9x19mm was hit = 5, so .45 was 3.24 times as powerful... this seems to be the case again in ArmA 3... :confused: )

I assumed in ArmA 3, hit is squared the same as in ArmA 2 and damage on metal target appeared to verify that. Also all the weapon hit values, from rifles to 155mm howitzers, are similar to the damages in ArmA 2.

If your talking about the new pistols, the "Zubr" is actually using the wrong caliber: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15462

Could be a local copy using .45 ACP, other variants of the Rhino use .40 S&W and 9mm. However it would be nice to see it changed, so that we don't have to come up with those kind of explanations for why it isn't in the correct caliber.

By the way, the Feedback Tracker issue has a mistake - Chiappa only advertises the Rhino in the following calibers:

-357 Magnum

-.40 S&W

-9x19mm

-9x21mm

Apparently there are no Chiappa products of any type that use .50 AE.

One thing this reminds me of, in ArmA 2, the revolver was also .45 ACP. I remember more than a few times, people commented they would have preferred .357 Magnum, probably because it adds variety.

In this case 9x21mm could make sense, since many other ArmA 3 weapons also use "9x21mm". I would prefer .357 Magnum though, because why would they choose a 9x21mm revolver as their service handgun? It seems like a total handicap to me, so perhaps, at least, they wanted a more powerful caliber to compensate for the lower capacity.

[kilroy the nerd 14]

I hope instead of lowering ACP, they raise power of the 9x21mm. Seem at some point in Arma 2, in 1.62 or 1.6 I think, they weakened the pistols, and they brought it to arma 3. Which is a little lousy, because now 9mm is worthless without a headshot. I can understand with body armor, but for soldiers wearing no more than uniforms and bandoliers, it's a little silly to need to put off 5 rounds to the chest.

[-Gews- 1]

Seem at some point in Arma 2, in 1.62 or 1.6 I think, they weakened the pistols, and they brought it to arma 3.

They did it for good reasons, the original damages were seemingly picked randomly, for example, 9x18mm Makarov was 1.5x the power of 9mm NATO, and .45 ACP was over 3x, the Lee-Enfield was over 1.5x as powerful as 7.62x51mm NATO, lots of similar examples.

So in the patch, they apparently decided to base the revised damages on muzzle energy. This made sense in theory but in some cases, ie, pistols with low muzzle energy (also shotgun slugs) it caused low effectiveness.

Which is a little lousy, because now 9mm is worthless without a headshot. I can understand with body armor, but for soldiers wearing no more than uniforms and bandoliers, it's a little silly to need to put off 5 rounds to the chest.

Hm, I tried shooting civilians in the chest with 9mm and .45 ACP, and with .45 they mostly died in one shot, with 9mm, it also mostly took one shot, sometimes two (however a couple times it took three shots).

Anyways, the end result should be: shoot someone with a pistol on their body armor = no damage or extremely little, shoot someone in the chest = very high damage.

I wouldn't have an objection to raising 9x21mm, in which case it should be raised to 7 or 8. BIS doesn't like to use decimals in hit values, don't know why, but 7 would give 9x21mm 60% of .45 ACP power, and 8 would give 79% of .45 power.

Personally I think "8" makes more sense, I don't think .45 is "40% more effective" than 9mm, especially if 9x21mm is an improved 9x19mm with better armor penetration / more powerful ballistics. Get shot with either one, well, they are both pistols, placement is the important thing.

[L3TUC3 32]

On the latest DEV I did a quick test with the P07.

Civilian 1 dies to a single shot point blank center mass.

A csat rifleman (light) with vest removed takes 4 point blank to center mass for a kill. The same for regular (they wear the same fatigues as far as I can tell).

A nato rifleman (light) with vest removed drops with one point blank to the center mass. A nato regular rifleman with vest removed also drops to a single shot. (slightly different fatigues)

An AAF rifleman (light) with vest removed takes 5 shots point blank center mass before death. An AAF regular rifleman with vest removed drops to a single shot point blank. (slightly different fatigues)

Now, it appears that the standard CSAT fatigues act as body armor, the AAF's in one case but nato's does not.

Seems to me that armor values on clothing pieces aren't done yet or boosted to offset against lighter armor values on the vests. Nato's default rifleman starts with a plate carrier (light), the others with a bandolier or a chest rig.

[wipman 1]

On the latest DEV I did a quick test with the P07.

Civilian 1 dies to a single shot point blank center mass.

A csat rifleman (light) with vest removed takes 4 point blank to center mass for a kill. The same for regular (they wear the same fatigues as far as I can tell).

A nato rifleman (light) with vest removed drops with one point blank to the center mass. A nato regular rifleman with vest removed also drops to a single shot. (slightly different fatigues)

An AAF rifleman (light) with vest removed takes 5 shots point blank center mass before death. An AAF regular rifleman with vest removed drops to a single shot point blank. (slightly different fatigues)

Now, it appears that the standard CSAT fatigues act as body armor, the AAF's in one case but nato's does not.

Seems to me that armor values on clothing pieces aren't done yet or boosted to offset against lighter armor values on the vests. Nato's default rifleman starts with a plate carrier (light), the others with a bandolier or a chest rig.

Hi, the OPFOR fatiges may be slightly BP because those klingon look alike plates that they have, while as we know... the NATO BDUs are not even really rip-stop; that's my guess, but ain't like what i hear. Let's C ya

[L3TUC3 32]

Hi, the OPFOR fatiges may be slightly BP because those klingon look alike plates that they have, while as we know... the NATO BDUs are not even really rip-stop; that's my guess, but ain't like what i hear. Let's C ya

I'm thinking it's purposely as well. Pretty neat, but bound to confuse people as there's no clear way to show players how clothing and armored vests impact survivability and fatigue (yet). I'm really digging what BIS is trying to do though,

[-Gews- 1]

Another thing, I noticed a slight error in the "airFriction" value for .45 ACP. Right now it is set to -0.0018, which produces the following velocities:

_50m = 236 m/s

100m = 213 m/s

150m = 193 m/s

However, in real life, the bullet keeps its velocity much better, since it's fired at such a slow speed, drag force is relatively low. To get "real life" figures, airFriction needs to be set to about -0.00072, which produces the following:

_50m = 250 m/s

100m = 241 m/s

150m = 232 m/s

This is using Federal ballistics for generic .45 ACP 230-gr FMJ (v=260 m/s, BC = 0.19 G1). Can double-check with any online ballistics calculator.

Note the airFriction (-0.00072) is lower than the value for 7.62mm (-0.00096) or 6.5mm (-0.00089). This seems counter-intuitive, but it has to do with the disconnect between ArmA ballistics and real life ballistics. If the .45 ACP bullet was launched at 850 m/s, like the 7.62mm, it would have an airFriction of about -0.0026, so it changes drastically depending on the muzzle velocity. Since the velocity is slow - much lower airFriction, should definitely be patched. :p

Yes, I'm bored ;)

[John Kozak 14]

Another thing, I noticed a slight error in the "airFriction" value for .45 ACP. Right now it is set to -0.0018, which produces the following velocities:

_50m = 236 m/s

100m = 213 m/s

150m = 193 m/s

However, in real life, the bullet keeps its velocity much better, since it's fired at such a slow speed, drag force is relatively low. To get "real life" figures, airFriction needs to be set to about -0.00072, which produces the following:

_50m = 250 m/s

100m = 241 m/s

150m = 232 m/s

<...>

Excellent research!

Looks like we need a sweep to verify ballistics of all calibers.

[-Gews- 1]

Excellent research!

Looks like we need a sweep to verify ballistics of all calibers.

Already doing that :p

So far have also found problems with:

35x228mm Oerlikon: is -0.00096, should be about -0.000245 (0-3000m), muzzle velocity is also wrong (issue #16021)

12.7x108mm Russian: is -0.00096, should be about -0.000550 (0-1500m)

12.7x99mm NATO: is -0.00096, should be about -0.000595 (0-1500m)

All currently use the same airFriction as 7.62mm, so I think perhaps it is a placeholder.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Goose

[marksinnerdemon 11]

The 45 shouldn't even be 1.5 ballistics experts all over the place say the same stuff. 9-45 = same temporary wound cavity, and same penetration using similar ammo (FMJ or JHP) being that it is "military" then FMJ is the only round technically allowed for our purposes and for ease of discussion. With that said anyone looking at DocGKR's work that has been published and re-posted a billion times makes the point that it doesn't matter what caliber you get. As for the magazine capacities this might be do to copy-write issues and being just different not to be attacked by such companies.

Service Pistol Duty and Self-Defense Loads

When comparing well designed duty handgun ammunition, there are minimal differences in penetration depths and temporary cavity effects, as noted below in the gel shots by Doug Carr:

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg

As you increase bullet size and mass from 9 mm/357 Sig, to .40 S&W, to .45 ACP, more tissue is crushed, resulting in a larger permanent cavity. In addition, the larger bullets often offer better performance through intermediate barriers. For some, the incremental advantages of the larger calibers are offset by weapon platform characteristics. As is quite obvious from the photo above, NONE of the common service pistol calibers generate temporary cavities of sufficient magnitude to cause significant tissue damage. Anyone interested in this topic should read and periodically re-read, “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness†by Urey Patrick of the FBI FTU, as this remains the single best discussion of the wound ballistic requirements of handguns used for self-defense -- it is available at: http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm .

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/Handgun_expanded_JHP.jpg

Keeping in mind that handguns generally offer poor incapacitation potential, bullets with effective terminal performance are available in all of the most commonly used duty pistol calibers—pick the one that you shoot most accurately, that is most reliable in the type of pistol you choose, and best suits you likely engagement scenarios.

9mm FMJ

45 ACP FMJ

It is a game accuracy can't be perfect I guess.

[progamer 14]

The 45 shouldn't even be 1.5 ballistics experts all over the place say the same stuff. 9-45 = same temporary wound cavity, and same penetration using similar ammo (FMJ or JHP) being that it is "military" then FMJ is the only round technically allowed for our purposes and for ease of discussion. With that said anyone looking at DocGKR's work that has been published and re-posted a billion times makes the point that it doesn't matter what caliber you get. As for the magazine capacities this might be do to copy-write issues and being just different not to be attacked by such companies.

9mm FMJ

45 ACP FMJ

It is a game accuracy can't be perfect I guess.

The magazine capabilities are not copy right issues, if you find ones that haven't been reported on the FT then please do so.