Slashdot Mirror
On FPS Sniping And The Ruination Of Gameplay
An anonymous reader writes "FiringSquad has a great article today which puts forth the claim that sniper rifles in multiplayer FPS games have made the genre infinitely worse. They take the time to explain why, and what improvements need to be made. It's definitely not the standard 'I hate campers' article." The editorial argues: "Every... 'reason' for the existence of sniper rifles - realism, historical accuracy, weapon diversity, giving players identifiable roles - is a lie", concluding that "...in games, snipers are given a ludicrous advantage over everyone else."
and as the server falls down on its knees, ten thousand slashdotters yell proudly - "headshot!"
Not true...in America's Army (My FPS of choice)...the sniper rifle is a very difficult weapon to master, and leaves you very adept to attack...there is almost no way of defending yourself at close range.
... in games, snipers are given a ludicrous advantage over everyone else." ... in real life. Snipers are a bitch. It takes very real work to take out a sniper in a battlefield, especially a good one. Snipers are hated in reality because of the real, significant damage they can do to a battle scenario.
... the 'detached delusion' of opiated players looks to have some interesting consequences ... of course snipers suck. That's reality!
Welcome to realism. Killing people is not as easy as your average Game-Junkie might think it is.
I find it moderately ludicrous that such an analysis can be made, in all seriousness.
If anything, this article demonstrates just how big the fantasy world most gameplayers live in can be
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I thought rocket launchers were the flavor of the week to whinge about.
This article was nothing but an ad hominem rant. I almost never play sniper, and suck at it when I do. I do fairly well otherwise. So apparently there must be some skill that snipers possess that I do not.
;) Just because there is one class that you cannot beat as easily as the others, this does not make the class "bad" or "low skill". In fact, it usually means the opposite.
I don't like snipers either. But neither do snipers like spies that stab them in the back
There is a reason for every class. In Team Fortress, Heavy Weapons and Rocket guys would be the only classes anyone played were it not for snipers.
AA (america's army) does a very good job at making the sniper have a real disadvantage. You cant hold the gun straight while standing up, only when your lying on the ground can you get the gun to be steady. While crouched its less steady, but can be used. To get the scope to almost stop, you have to put down the bipod on the gun, and that takes even more time. The other thing it does well, is it takes a couple of seconds to reload the gun. If you find yourself in close combat (guy runs up behind you), it takes several seconds to switch to a pistol or a machine gun. But of course, the one big advantage is you can kill someone with one shot from very far away
I think the author of the article is a pissy CS player. CS has a poor implimentation of the AWP, you can shoot the gun and IMMEDIATELY switch to your pistol. You can even switch back right away and your rifle is reloaded. You can run around and when you stop moving, you have instant accuracy.
I totally agree with the one shot one kill for a sniper in FPS's, but you have to give big disadvantages at close range and while moving. The role of the sniper is not to run around. You set up somewhere far away. They even have spotters there for close combat situations.
Too many people with sniper rifles? Then limit the amount available. Problem solved. Oh no, they fire too quickly. Well, that's easily solved with a change to the reload variable. Problem solved. Boo hoo, they take me down with one shot. Well, duh, that's the whole purpose of a sniper rifle. This simpleton doesn't take into account that a sniper rifle round fires at a much higher velocity than a AK47 and does much, much more damage. Hey, it might not kill you, but it damn will incapacitate you which in a game is pretty much the same thing. Waaah! They have more points at the end of the game. Well, put a ratio penalty on the rifle. Sniper kill is worth 1/2, MP40 worth 1 and a knife kill worth 2 points. Problem solved!
Good grief, why not write an article about how health packs are unrealistic and how in WWII they didn't have medics running around healing and poisoning other soldiers. If this whiner has a problem with it all... then stop playing and find a game that plays by "your" rules. Gah! FiringSquad needs better editorial control rather than let this drek hit the web.
This article gives no basis to its arguments whatsoever.
I fashion myself a bit of a sniper, thats the roll I play for the most part in Battlefield 1942. I also take part in competitive long range shooting IRL.
The truth of the matter is the military employs snipers for two basic reasons: 1 or 2 well placed snipers can hold down 50+ troops. And snipers can create a sense of fear on the battlefield, that any second your head is going to be whisked off your shoulders by an unseen enemy. This same fear is what makes multi-player FPS games fun.
Like it or not, in the real world a sniper rifle is "the finger of god" also.
symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
In other words, I think the problem is not the guns, but the fact that they are treated just like any other gun, which they are NOT. Fixing that would probably make things better, but it wouldn't be that fun so why include a sniper rifle at all.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Moreover, most modern games don't get one aspect of scopes right - you can look AROUND the scope, to maintain situational awareness.
The way the old Outlaws game did it was pretty correct - you saw the zoomed view through the scope, but could see the rest of the scene around the scope. As such, if something moved out of the scope you could re-aquire it, and you could look around while waiting for that "prefect shot".
Modern games basicly "cheat" by altering the zoom ratio of the renderer and masking the display. I'd love to see a game do it right - render the zoomed view, render the scene, then put the scope view in the middle of the main view.
Also, take time-of-flight into account - the real issue with most games is the sniper rifle bullet is moving instantaniously from muzzle to target - there is no hang time of the round, no time of flight, no windage.
Add these, and watch the sniper rifle become much less useful.
www.eFax.com are spammers
2. Historical Accuracy. Sorry son, the battlefield just isn't comprised of 50% snipers.
The battlefield isn't comprised of 90% virgins living in their parents bedrooms either, but that doesn't stop us from playing.
If that does happen, that one player has taken half the opposing team out of the game.
What I know about snipers comes primarily from experimenting with Half-Life/CS. Snipers (and especially cheaters) make the game is unplayable because I cannot survive long enough to learn how to play.
First round, I walk out of a building and BAM! I'm dead -- one shot from about 200m away.
I wait until next round, walk out of the start zone and BAM! I'm dead again. This time I got to return fire before dropping.
Next round, I actually saw him first and hit him three times including a head shot (hey, I'm getting the hang of this!) but he doesn't fall. He spins, looks at me funny and BAM! I die again.
So, I don't play anymore. The lousy, cheating wannabe jerks can have their stupid game. I'm just glad I didn't pay for it.(*) (if I had, I'd have returned it with extreme predjudice.)
[(*) Just to clarify: by "didn't pay for it", I mean that I **PURCHASED** Half-Life single-player and **DOWNLOADED** CS for free instead of paying for the CS retail version. I don't want anyone mad at me!]
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
I can see that this individual has certainly dealt with some frustrating experiences with sniping opponents. I will have to disagree with sniper rifles being the "bane" of first person shooting though. It seems to me like I've read more about cheating being the bane of online FPS games more so than sniper rifles. Also, just because I would contend against this writer's arguments doesn't mean that I can't use any other weapons. Truth be told, in a FPS I am actually lousy with a sniper rifle and prefer to use other weapons. I have always been a fan of the sniper rifle though and certainly feel that it should be included in first person shooters.
Secondly if his argument were an "indisputable fact" then there wouldn't be much discussion going on here now would it. It's kind of risky to try and turn one's opinion, or even a summation of multiple opinions into an indisputable fact.
Arguing against the sniper rifle's lack of realism in FPS is kind of a moot point. I mean most weapons in FPS aren't realistic, unless of course the game is trying to be true to life. In that case I'd say he had a point, but only in the case of FPS that are supposed to reflect realistic weaponry. Games like Halo, Quake, and Unreal Tournament however would fail the realism test when it comes to most every weapon involved.
All in all I'd say this article was an enjoyable rant which obviously reflects a gamers' frustration which they are entitled to have. I can't agree with it being an indisputable argument however and nor can I side with their opinions. Oh well, five years from now (preferrably much sooner than that) it won't matter anyway.
that needs to be beaten with a Physics textbook.
That was the biggest, smack-my-face-due-to-sheer-idiocy point in the whole article..."Oh look, these bullets are the same size, they should do equivalent damage."
Well, why isn't an AK-47 used for sniping then, dammit? It fires WAYYYY more bullets. The velocity is way different! F=MA.
Geez...more like the Fired Squad.
Sniper rifles require less skill and that isn't realistic with real life...so you think the reason they were giving them to 10-year olds in Somalia is because those 10 year olds were crack Commandos? Hello?! They're supposed to be easy to use, and they're supposed to be effective at killing their targets. That's why they FIRE SO DAMN SLOWLY!
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
Part of the reason the games don't let you look around the scope is balance. Yes, looking around the scope is something a person could realistically do. But give a player a 1 shot 1 kill weapon that enables them to see across a map, and you've given them enough of an advantage.
The limited field of view forces the player to chose: zoomed in, ready to take the shot in a particular area, or zoomed out, looking at other potential target locations (and monitoring your safety). There has to be some disadvantage to sniper rifles, and the inability to see much while zoomed is it.
If anyone has ever played Americas Army, they'll know what I'm talking about. For everybody else, let me just say that having a sniper rifle in AA does not give any great advantage. The game developers spent a LOT of time getting the weapons feel, accuracy, speed of reload, etc as close to the way they are in real life as it is possible with today's technology. There is an annectdote where the programmers had real US weapons master sargeants check the weapons in game, and had them tweak them a lot of times untill they were realistic enough.
In this game all rifles (M4s, M16 and variants), sniper rifles (M24, M82), machine gunes (M249) and their russian counterparts move in the rithm of the character's breathing, movement and a few other factors. The character position (walking, crouching or prone) also affects accuracy, as does the health level (forget about sniping if you are red, almost dead).
In fact, it is sometimes easier to shoot long range with an M4 or M16 than it is to shoot with a sniper rifle (m24 or M82). The sniper rifles are very hard to shoot because they have very long reload times between shots and they shoot one bullet at a time so if you miss you might die. The m24 is the easier of the two, because the m82 requires refocusing after every shot due to recoil. Not to mention that your accuracy goes to hell someone shoots close towards you, even if they don't touch you.
I'm a fairly decent player (60 honor points), and I can shoot well enough that I can take out most snipers with my m4 or m16. Unles, of course, the sniper is at least as good as I am, which doesn't happen too often to ruin the game for me. And even then there are ways to get close enough to a sniper to put him at a great disadvantage.
If in any game the sniper rifle gives an unfair advantage (as it used to in CounterStrike), that game is not very well designed.
The problem is in bad game design, not in the concept of a particular weapon itself.
When accurate modelling of the power of a sniper rifle is not accurately offset by its shortcomings, it's bound to unbalance things. the shortcomings being chiefly - refire rate, recoil, bulk, required stances (prone, propped or seated), range falloff, spotting, support, etc.
Sniper rifles in video games often ruin balance because they don't model those things at all, or effectively enough.
They don't have falloff over distance, so the primary skill of sniping is obviated.
They don't slow you down when moving (in cstrike, just switching to the pistol negates the penalty, allowing you to jump and move unrestricted).
They don't require you to take a prone, propped or seated position for accuracy. (AA excepted)
Furthermore, the 'damage' modelling for a sniper rifle is simply a linear scaling of the ambiguous 'damage' applied to the single hitbox on a target (subsets of the hitbox only model increased damage, never decreased as in, for instance, grazing shots).
Also, when games accurately model even modest anti-sniper technology (eg smoke grenades, thermal imaging) the usefulness against nonmoronic enemies plummets. Particularly given the relatively small spaces rendered in a game.
Ironically, counterstrike chooses to more heavily restrict the use of smoke grenades than sniper rifles: you can only carry 1 smoke grenade, but you can run and jump with the rifle without too much ill effect. (granted that is likely due to their original fairly high resource consumption)
Complaining that cstrike should allow more smokes per soldier, or thermal/nightvision imaging is reasonable. (whatever happened to nightvision goggles in cstrike? oh yeah, unfair gamma settings) Complaining that campers own you when you aren't even leveraging the tools at your disposal is akin to bitching that shotguns have an unfair advantage over knives.
There is always a trade-off in gaming (shooters particularly): reality vs fun. A 'real' sniper rifle would require proper positioning, spotting, support and cover. People don't find that fun. That's not something you can manage in most 'pick-up' FPS matches.
IMO removing 'sniper rifles' is a moot point - so long as i can fire off headshots over any distance with a stock AK, the AWP isn't necessary to upset balance. All one needs is a precise mouse and a high resolution. They'll likely even still call it 'sniping'. Removing a single weapon or lowering its damage just hides the true problems.
(bad balance and game design decisions)
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
The problem's with their implementation.
Sniper rifles in most games are, as the article describes, fingers of God. Point them at where you know a target's going to be, click fire as the target moves under the crosshairs, he's dead. Then near-instant repeat.
A couple of really simple additions would level the playing field, bringing sniper rifles back to more realistic levels...
Variable Cones Of Fire
Most sniper rifles aren't that fast to fire. Ghost Recon does a great job of this with a cone of fire that expands the more you move. Those things fire large caliber rounds to try negating wind effect so have the thing recoil heavily, throwing the cone of fire waaay off for a second or two.
Slow Reloading
Now add a slow reloading animation for WWII era rifles. You end up with a weapon that can be devastating but can't clip off entire squads in a couple of seconds. Again, Ghost Recon does a great job: Modern rifles do use clips but, because of their large caliber, you only get half a dozen shots before you have to slowly change clips.
Wind
Just like golf games, add wind effects. Put a wind gauge or whatever on the screen. Now the sniper requires genuine skill to factor in the wind speed and distance of shot as the crosshairs are now just a guide.
Combine a cone of fire that widens as the player moves and now it takes real skill to balance tracking a shot to compensate for wind changes with moving it smoothly enough to not lose your accuracy.
Wind can also become a balancing factor. Make it a server config option. Sick of snipers? Make it a very windy, gusty day. Feel like there aren't enough snipers, calm the wind right down.
Slow Focusing
Have you ever tried moving your eyes, from something close to something far away, really quickly. It takes a moment to adjust. Make the responsiveness of scopes somewhat slower and you take out the ability to sit zoomed largely out, watching the wide angle, then zoom in for the kill. All of a sudden you need a spotter, just like many real world sniper teams who watches the wide angle, tells you where people are coming from, and guides your shots.
Mix all of those in and a sniper rifle can still be truly lethal. But it takes a genuinely skilled marksman, with a smooth aim, the ability to factor in wind and distance, and a spotter working with him - and he kills one at a time. The unbalanced 4:1 ratios stop and normal players stand a genuine chance while rushing them.
"The rocket is the sniper's bane. Any serious sniper will soon have half the opposing team on his ass lobbing dozens of rockets at him."
Whenever I played Quake 3, everybody thought the proper protocol when dealing with a sniper was to bitch. In all the games I've ever played, I have never ever seen anybody say "Hey man, you're kicking my butt to the point that I'm not really having any fun. Could you please lighten it a bit?"
The fact of the matter is that there are people who will become insanely good at whatever weapon they have. You can tweak reload times etc, but the real solution here is to encourge having fun.
In short, it's more of a societal issue than a gameplay issue.
"Derp de derp."
Then you get called a rocket whore, or some other name that implies you use rockets too much, or are cheap.
It's the circle of FPS whining.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
Lead Time
Bullets are not lasers, they have to take time to travel to thier target, which may move. In most FPS games, bullets instant-hit, there is no travel involved, just a laser drawn through the air.
There was a fantastic mod for the original Unreal (it was called serpentine, if anyone else remembers it) that actually did all of what you're talking about. IIRC, it had the zoomed view, manual reloading, time-of-flight, something like double-damage on headshots with all weapons, and grenades with realistic blast radius. I only wish I could find a version for Unreal Tournament...
Having to lead your target, figure the drop over the range, and reload the sniper rifle after 5 shots made for a lot of fun.
Just because two weapons use the same sized ammunition doesn't mean they deliver the same kinetic blow.
First, bolt-action weapons don't waste any energy on blowback/rocker/whatever action to automatically cycle the next round into the chamber. This adds a whole lot of energy to the bullet as nothing is diverted from its purpose of propelling the bullet (this is why snipers still use bolt action weapons when newer technologies are open to them).
Then you have the difference in barrel length, which means that more of the energy of the gunpowder is utilized. (Ever fire a snub-nose magnum pistol ... that huge jet of flames coming of out the muzzle may look cool, but it is all just wasted energy).
Then there are all the different powder loads you can put behind a bullet of the same caliber. This is something that games don't visibily take into account because it would add too much complexity (note the ability in Counter Strike and other games to simply put a silencer onto a weapon without using reduced load/subsonic ammunition. The game still makes the weapon do slightly less damage, but you don't need to buy or change ammo).
Having spent a chunk of my 20's crawling around in a gilly suit with a hideously expensive rifle with an even more hideously expensive targeting system strapped to the top, I feel its fair to say that snipers *DO* have a huge advantage.
A huge ammount of training goes into teaching you to correctly use your firearm, that is assuming you have the raw skill to use one in the first place. Targets are engaged down range with insanely accurate weaponry without the pressure and uncertainty of direct engagement.
Of course, sniper vs. squad with assault weapons at close range is one very, very costly and difficult to replace corpse.
Whilst realism dictates the use of snipers; they will always destroy game balance. Just as including the M214 (The Amazing Rotary Machinegun As Used So Effectively By Blain In Predator, to quote the literature) would unbalance gameplay.
However, if your team works as a team and employs effective counter sniper tactics; fps games such as counter-strike are still fun and, in tactical terms, a realistic experience. Unfortunately smoke grenades in such games are simulated far too poorly; a single smoke grenade should create larger, thicker clouds of smoke much more rapidly; and without microwave radar (requiring a non-man portable emmiter), a sniper cant see you through a cloud of smoke.
just my $0.02AUD
err!
jak.
Sure they have an advantage. But it's equaled by the satisfaction of sneaking up and dropping a satchel charge in thier face.
I for one love BF1942 and a good round of Enemy Territory - in those games, sniping actually *does* take skill. Yes, anyone can grab a sniper rifle - but to be good at it, consistently good, requires skills.
I like being a sniper - in BF1942 especially since there are no real "set" routes to get to a point - as a sniper, you do need to look at the terrain, find a suitable spot (i.e. somewhere you can get a shot off without immediately being mowed down), and actually hope and pray to god that those airplanes overhead didn't see you get in position.
In Enemy Territory, it's also not quite as easy as you'd like to think, it's easier though than BF1942.
Both games feature quite realistic action, it takes time to reload, and in BF1942 you actually lose your scope sight. Also in BF1942, a sniper rifle up close is useless. If someone gets close, surprises you, or otherwise hunts you down, you can bet your ass on it that if that player has any skills, they'll kill you.
And sure, you do have the advantage of the 2 shot kills in ET and BF1942 - the 1st shot is usually easy to get, but most people know damn well that if their health drops suddenly, that a sniper is busy aiming for their noggin, and will most likely take cover.
You also need to use some tactics and move around, if you just stay where you are, someone will come, find that you are peeking thru your scope, and will unload a full clip in your head because you never saw them coming.
Oh well, just my 2 cents.
There is no sig...
People playing these games are always complaining about "camping", something that's almost always synonymous with "sitting in one place, waiting for the enemy", "sniping", and, of course, "winning".
The fact that the entire gameplay depends on at least one person moving around at any one time, makes it a bit impractical to include a weapon that enables the player to sit still and shoot from a long distance.
Jakub, in his ranting listed 4 reasons that sniper rifles shouldn't be included in FPS games. Or 4 reasons that weren't "good enough". But there is only one overwhelming reason anything should be included in any game...
Fun
Plenty of people enjoy sniping, in various games. Sure the sniper rifle(AWP) in CS is a bit over powering, but CS is only one game. The sniper rifle in Unreal Tournament is underpowered compared to the shock rifle, rocket launcher and flak cannon. The railgun in quake is powerful, but plenty of people still use a rocket launcher.
While a camper may take out his or her share of newbies, It takes quite a bit of skill to camp, against very good/great players. All things being equal, a very good player knows all the camping spots and the advantage in any FPS is always with the player who is moving not the one who is standing still.
To camp against a great player, you need better spots, and you need to be smart about where you camp and where the player has looked. You might have to piston jump, or rocket jump depending on the game to take a good spot. That doesn't take skill? Aiming does take skill? Usually you get one or two shots in most games with a sniper rifle before whoever you are shooting at figures out where you are. You had better make them count.
All in all, his argument is pretty poor. I could make a better argument about rocket launchers being low skill but included in most games than Jakub has about sniper rifles.
Ok, for those that didn't RTFA, and for those that did, but still would like a Reader's Digest version, broken down by paragraph:
1. Whaaa, snipers keep killing me,I'm a god, they must all suck.
2. I only care about K:D ratios, therefore that must be all they care about.
3. Sniper rifles in games aren't realistic. People keep killing me with them, I'm a god, therefore sniping doesn't take and skills. I hate campers.
4. I'll justify my position by listing some strawman arguments.
5. Realism, sniper rifles kill people with one shot, this can't be real. Editor's note: Yes, guns can and do kill, or disable, people with one shot. And in this type of game, disabled is as good as dead. For reference, see Viginia Sniper. Also note, that the other guns he lists also tend to kill people quickly and messily.
6. Historical Accuracy, there's too many snipers. Editor's note: People also don't rush into firefights and dance around each other spraying bullets, this is usually called suicide. Realism has little to do with games, other than a basis for the game.
7. Weapon Diversity, whaaa snipers keep killing me so I feel compled to snipe also. Editor's Note: did you even consider finding a way to deal with the sniper, other than a headlong rush?
8. Skill, I'm an Ub3r l33t g@m!ng g0d, they kill me, therefore sniping must not require skills.
Page Two
1. My opinions are now fact, because I say so. Everone wants to use the sniper rifle because it gives a good K:D ratio, and this is all people care about.
2. Snipers make me actually have to think about tactics, I just want to run in like a mad man shooting my gun.
3. Whaa, snipers make me have to think about tactics. They don't have skillz, but they can aim damn well. They make the game hard for me, because I have to outthink them, but they are the ones who don't think about the game. Editor's note: Ok, so they can aim like crazy, but they don't have any skills? Also, they seem to be able to control the game, but they are the one's who don't understand the flow of the game? And they don't know how to survive in a real firefight? Ok, the last may be true, but it sounds like they beat you before they got to that stage, by out-thinking you.
4. Whaa, I can't deal with snipers so I'm going to call them names.
5. Whaa, snipers get too many kills. Its not realistic. Editor's Note: Yes, we have established that we are playing a game, move on already.
Page Three
1. There are some games that actually have the snipers weaked enough that they don't bother me.
2. I like these games, the snipers aren't a threat to my masculinity.
3. I don't want weaked snipers. I want CoD without snipers, 'case they kill me.
4. Limiting snipers doesn't solve the problem, I still get killed by the few snipers in the map.
5. Everyone would agree with me, if they would only try it. The only way to play an FPS is to do brainless headlong rushes at the enemy.
6. Whaa, snipers make me have to think.
So why is this article more than the standard, "I hate campers" rant? The guy spends three pages complaining about snipers, and only comes up with the solution of removing them from games. Its sounds like he needs to either figure out a way to deal with snipers, or just stick to servers where rushing and spraying is the only tactic. Personally, I'd rather have snipers, they make me have to actually think about what I am doing. Do I want to cover that wide open area, and risk getting shot? Or do I find a more circutiuos route that is safer? Or maybe even figure how to deal with the sniper, and then take the quick route.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
I'd say that the reverse is true in BF1942. The sniper is very hard to get many kills with, but many people seem to like playing as a sniper. As long as you don't run in a straight line in the open for too long (which is pretty stupid), you're a pretty hard target to hit.
So you get lots of snipers sitting around doing bugger all for the team, wildly shooting rounds in the vague direction of the enemy team. In the meantime the enemy storms in with assaults and captures all the flags.
From the article
.338 Lapua Magnum caliber can push a 200 grain
.338 Lapua at 250 grains, we get a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps.
.338 Lapua would slice through it like butter.
"The guns also aren?t one-shot kills. If they are, so would be the MP44 Sturmgewehr or AK-47 at shorter distances, which use similarly sized ammunition."
This idiotic fuck knows NOTHING about external or terminal ballistics. It's not only the SIZE of the bullet that makes it lethal, it's the amount of energy that the bullet delivers.
The MP44 Sturmgewehr fired 7.92x33mm Kurz ammunition, it pushed a 122 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2,055 fps. The AK-47 fires 7.62x39mm ammunition, this pushes a 125 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of approx 2130 fps. The
bullet to over 3200 fps.
Or if we were to consider the
Are you fucking high?
It's a heavier bullet (in one case twice the mass) at nearly 150% of the velocity of the two lesser calibers. There is no way under the sun that you can liken their lethality.
The two lesser calibers would bounce off of a target armored to level IV spec, but the
In short, Mr. Jakub, you don't know what in the fuck you're talking about.
I'm sick and tired of people who know nothing about ballistics pretending to be experts when they are trying to bolster a weak position.
Fine, he [whiney little bitch voice] doesn't like campers and snipers.[/whiney little bitch voice], he has the right to his opinion, but don't take this asshole's word for gospel, because that it ain't.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano