"Mosin" and "M4" accuracy test

[7daniel7 8]

I did a test of my own on what affects the m4 accuracy.

I picked up different buttstocks , attachments, different mags, handguards. (everything that I could find, that also involved server hopping for science). I tested from 3 different positions(prone,crouch,standing) again around 200 meters from my target (this time being that giant grey antenna like the one you see in stary).

I also tried testing different conditioned Item (One of my MP buttstock was badly damaged the other was pristine)

so tl:dr

Tested different scopes (all 5)

Tested different mags (all 5)

Tested different attachments, with or without(all except bayonet)

Tested different handguards

Tested different buttstocks

Tested how the bi-pod affects accuracy

The results:

-The only thing that changed the accuracy drastically was the buttstock.

-The deployed bi-pod doesn't reduce the accuracy of your weapon when you are in a standing or a crouched position. it does however greatly increases accuracy when prone, even with the CQB buttstock you get every shot on target.

-Having a damaged buttstock doesn't affect your weapons accuracy (haven't tested other things so can't say about every item)

Basically the buttstock you get with the M4 with is inaccurate(the OE), the CQB showed the same results, maybe slightly more inaccurate. The MP buttstock is much more accurate for some reason.

On a side note the scopes were hard to test, the 2 Iron sights that you can get seems to be less accurate than the ACOG, M2, RDS scopes. (but it might be false)

P.S: Yes I was zeroed in, Yes I was holding my breathe, Yes I can measure distances by eye sight.

[Mao Zedong 48]

I did a test of my own on what affects the m4 accuracy.

I picked up different buttstocks , attachments, different mags, handguards. (everything that I could find, that also involved server hopping for science). I tested from 3 different positions(prone,crouch,standing) again around 200 meters from my target (this time being that giant grey antenna like the one you see in stary).

I also tried testing different conditioned Item (One of my MP buttstock was badly damaged the other was pristine)

so tl:dr

Tested different scopes (all 5)

Tested different mags (all 5)

Tested different attachments, with or without(all except bayonet)

Tested different handguards

Tested different buttstocks

Tested how the bi-pod affects accuracy

The results:

-The only thing that changed the accuracy drastically was the buttstock.

-The deployed bi-pod doesn't reduce the accuracy of your weapon when you are in a standing or a crouched position. it does however greatly increases accuracy when prone, even with the CQB buttstock you get every shot on target.

-Having a damaged buttstock doesn't affect your weapons accuracy (haven't tested other things so can't say about every item)

Basically the buttstock you get with the M4 with is inaccurate(the OE), the CQB showed the same results, maybe slightly more inaccurate. The MP buttstock is much more accurate for some reason.

On a side note the scopes were hard to test, the 2 Iron sights that you can get seems to be less accurate than the ACOG, M2, RDS scopes. (but it might be false)

P.S: Yes I was zeroed in, Yes I was holding my breathe, Yes I can measure distances by eye sight.

 

Well, You beat me to it, but I have a video of the test which i'm uploading now. Not everything is in the video, but I think it's good enough. Agreed.

 

Edit:  Here's the video:

 

Edited December 24, 2013 by Mao Zedong

[Frostbyte_ 44]

You didn´t deploy the bipod, and thus gained no benefit from it Mao. Deploying the bipod increases accuracy a lot.

 

 

Did a test shooting zombies and checking distances from map, all from prone, tried out both of the ironsights (they were identical), with and without bipod. Ris handguard, normal buttstock all pristine.

 

200~m i was able to hit zeds reliably with or without bipod.

300~m was total gamble without bipod, but reliable with one.

300+m was doable but unreliable, even with bipod.

 

Bigest problem i found when hitting 300m or above, was that i had to crank down my fov to very uncomfortable values to even see the damn targets.

 

<edit> i will try to edit small video when i have time.

 

<edit2> Since theres no info on weapons themselves yet, i don´t think we can draw completely conclusive tehories atm, might be some are shooting damaged weapons while others use pristine ones.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Frostbyte_

[deebz1234 243]

they should have just copied the arma 3 weapons code to SA..its far superior in every way.

the ballistics, sounds, skins, etc are far more realistic and fluid.

 

I dont understand sometimes...

 

this video is fucking awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cix07R1vlhI

Edited December 24, 2013 by deebz1234

[per2 9]

not sure if this is the right thread but does anyone know if the bayonet has any influence on accuracy of the gun atm?(mosin mainly/long range) + is there any way to use the bayonet that is attached to a gun like cold weapon?

[-Gews- 7443]

not sure if this is the right thread but does anyone know if the bayonet has any influence on accuracy of the gun atm?(mosin mainly/long range) + is there any way to use the bayonet that is attached to a gun like cold weapon?

 

It increases weapon dispersion by one-tenth of a milliradian, depending on your weapon combo this could mean + >1% to +5% dispersion. It doesn't matter much either way.

[kOepi (DayZ) 35]

nice one.

After Field Manual 3-22.9 ; M4/M16; the shotgroup at a 25m zeroing procedure should be within 40 mm. that equals an MOA of 5,5.
which would equal in a shotgroup size of 48 centimeter on 300 meter and 80 cm on a 500 meter distance, at minimum.

thanks for the effort.

P.S. to get to more accurate results I'll recommend a supported prone position, if that wasnt done.

Edited April 1, 2014 by kOepi

[Judopunch 523]

 

It's very similar to weapon attachments in Battlefield 4 or Call of Duty. Sure, these kind of things are "good for gameplay", if you're not bothered by it. However, DayZ will no longer be able to claim to have any sort of realistically represented weapons.

 

Putting Magpul™ parts on your rifle doesn't make your rifle 6 times as accurate, that's absurd.Free floating yadayada or not, doesn't matter, the difference is massive. Same with the CQB butt stock - all the butt stocks are collapsible - so why would someone choose a stock which somehow totally messed up their rifle's accuracy?

 

Couple things, were you holding your breath in-game when you fired those shots? What stance were you using?  Should this even be tested, they are completely changing how the guns work by release; wind and environment will effect the bullets they may be reballancing general accuracy because of it. And you should have really done the test in SA...Your usually quite thorough there may have already been changes to factors that effect accuracy.

 

Why would you not want something thats good for gameplay, in a game? And because the weapons are slightly off does not mean that the weapons are not realistically representative. These weapons are still vastly more accurate representations of their real world counterparts than almost any other game out there.

 

Thirdly, the QCB makes a large difference in the animation to bring the weapon from down to shouldered as a trade off for accuracy.

[Katana67 2907]

Why would you not want something thats good for gameplay, in a game? And because the weapons are slightly off does not mean that the weapons are not realistically representative. These weapons are still vastly more accurate representations of their real world counterparts than almost any other game out there.

 

Thirdly, the QCB makes a large difference in the animation to bring the weapon from down to shouldered as a trade off for accuracy.

 

Well, I would posit that it isn't good for gameplay at all... to have random dispersion values. Or, rather, random dispersion values that render a weapon useless at reasonable ranges.

 

As to your second statement, they're not slightly off, they're way off.

 

I personally have an issue with attachments making a weapon artificially accurate/inaccurate. With stuff like target acquisition, making certain stocks have "speed" benefits makes sense. Likewise, having foregrips (later on) would make sense if it translated into a benefit to stability.

 

But putting a plastic MOE handguard on your AR doesn't magically make it more accurate on any plane of existence. Why should it? What use does that have, as opposed to just having the weapon be that accurate in the first place? What would be best in terms of gameplay, would be to have the PLAYER be the biggest factor in how accurate a weapon is. How the player manages wind, lead, sway, stance, recoil, and range. Not just applying an arbitrary dispersion value.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Katana67

[Judopunch 523]

Well, I would posit that it isn't good for gameplay at all... to have random dispersion values. Or, rather, random dispersion values that render a weapon useless at reasonable ranges.

 

Reasonable ranges, in regards to gameplay, is highly subjective. That being said I would imagine they will make the guns more accurate when they add physics to ballistics. :)

[gibonez 3633]

Reasonable ranges, in regards to gameplay, is highly subjective. That being said I would imagine they will make the guns more accurate when they add physics to ballistics. :)

 

One can hope.

 

What I think they should do is give all of the weapons their real life properties and then balance the weapons by limiting their spawn chances.

 

Go back and redo each weapon so that it takes only the realistic accessories for the weapon has its real life accuracy put in, and then add wind.

 

I still think realism is the key to balance. The more realism they add the better balanced the game will be.

[-Gews- 7443]

Couple things, were you holding your breath in-game when you fired those shots? What stance were you using?  Should this even be tested, they are completely changing how the guns work by release; wind and environment will effect the bullets they may be reballancing general accuracy because of it. And you should have really done the test in SA...Your usually quite thorough there may have already been changes to factors that effect accuracy.

I fired at the exact same spot with a 10x scope. Prone, but that doesn't make any difference to dispersion.

 

Why would you not want something thats good for gameplay, in a game?

Same reason I don't want killstreaks, achievements, laser guns, powerups... all those things are "good for gameplay", as evidenced by the AAA studios that include them in their lineup each year, sit back and rake in the millions.

And one person's good gameplay is another person's poor gameplay, which is why I put "good for gameplay" in quotations.

And because the weapons are slightly off does not mean that the weapons are not realistically representative. These weapons are still vastly more accurate representations of their real world counterparts than almost any other game out there.

The weapons themselves, not really. What really makes the guns themselves any more realistic than in other games? Unless we're comparing to Serious Sam or something.

 

Thirdly, the QCB makes a large difference in the animation to bring the weapon from down to shouldered as a trade off for accuracy.

Interesting.

This is a really old thread by the way.

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

After reading through this recently I quickly tested the M4 in Arma 3 (im on a bit of a rifle range thing at the moment).

 

How does the one in DAYZ differ from my example. I *know* the sight is incorrect, but have a guesstimate.

 

 

I have a feeling, from what I have read that its not as accurate.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[Weedz 1105]

M4A1 = 40.6 MOA

 

This is why the effective range of an M4A1 is 500M IRL. Because as the expression goes "a trained shooter can easily hit an elephant sized human reliably up to this distance".

Edited April 2, 2014 by Weedz

[Katana67 2907]

Reasonable ranges, in regards to gameplay, is highly subjective.

 

As are most things.

 

M4's can accurately reach up to 500m (fairly sure Marines are tested at 200m and 500m w/ the M16 and/or M4). Yet in DayZ, they have trouble going past 100m. Doesn't have to be 500m. But it has to be a useful weapon at range, especially with an optic.

[gibonez 3633]

Hello there

 

After reading through this recently I quickly tested the M4 in Arma 3 (im on a bit of a rifle range thing at the moment).

 

How does the one in DAYZ differ from my example. I *know* the sight is incorrect, but have a guesstimate.

 

 

I have a feeling, from what I have read that its not as accurate.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

 

Great video if only the m4 in game reacted like the one in that video.

 

Video shows how long range shots are perfectly doable with an m4 just harder due to the caliber it fires.

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

Having watched the vid earlier in this thread and looking at mine, they do seem to be rather comparable. (or am I missing something?)

 

My distant targets (500m) I found very hard to hit, whereas the chap shooting the water tower at 400 seemed to have no issue.

 

Ill replicate today using the same (as much as i can) kit. Remember though I cannot add parts like the SA can, only sights etc.

 

It may well be that closer accuracy is different.

 

Let me know if you want me to do any different settings/ranges etc.

 

Its interesting to compare the two.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[Judopunch 523]

As are most things.

 

M4's can accurately reach up to 500m (fairly sure Marines are tested at 200m and 500m w/ the M16 and/or M4). Yet in DayZ, they have trouble going past 100m. Doesn't have to be 500m. But it has to be a useful weapon at range, especially with an optic.

The QCB murders your accuracy. (probably to much)

 

Also thanks for responding Gews :) I didnt realize this was a quazi necro.

[Windex 13]

Gews, is the MOA for the m4 the same at 100? i wouldn't expect much from  5.56 at 500... 

 

The M4 will still shoot shoot minute-of-person at 500m even with iron sights if you know what you're doing.   The main problem you'd run into with it is the wind, and to be honest I have no idea if we even have wind or will have it at some point.

 

Toss in a moderate wind  - particularly an oblique one, or a head/tailwind - and the results Gews got could be plausible, sorta.    The weapons attachments honestly would not mean a damn thing, though.

[OrLoK 16182]

The QCB murders your accuracy. (probably to much)

 

Also thanks for responding Gews :) I didnt realize this was a quazi necro.

Hello there

 

Gews also has a very good thread on DAYZ vs Arma accuracy which I would turn a blind eye to if it were resurrected. My vids are a bit of fun, Gews info is far more concrete than mine (if correct! :) )

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[gibonez 3633]

The M4 will still shoot shoot minute-of-person at 500m even with iron sights if you know what you're doing.   The main problem you'd run into with it is the wind, and to be honest I have no idea if we even have wind or will have it at some point.

 

Toss in a moderate wind  - particularly an oblique one, or a head/tailwind - and the results Gews got could be plausible, sorta.    The weapons attachments honestly would not mean a damn thing, though.

 

Wind is coming.

[hannibaldaplaya 1095]

Wind is coming.

FEAR THE WIND.

[gibonez 3633]

FEAR THE WIND.

 

I embrace it .

 

And welcome the hopefully Mil and/ or MOA adjustments.

 

Hope they get rid of 100m  elevation adjustments unless its a russian optic those do adjust in 100s of m.

[HiddenPuppy 16]

Amazing thread, i see how accurate the mosin is now.

 

Is there anything about SKS accuracy?