Higher FPS for Medium Machineguns

[Jester316]

So if this is a CAG topic, about CAG squads, and CAG games, than why is it on AP?

Take it to your own boards. AP has a long history of knocking down FPS changes. What CAG does is up to them, but when you bring it up here, it's because you are looking for widespread adoption of a certain rule set.

[Ivan Daylovich™]

Maybe because CAG is part of the AP community?
Maybe they don't want to change the rules of the games they host if people are going think they are unsafe and then won't attend?
Maybe they think forums are a place to discuss things?

AP does have a long history of knocking down suggested changes for semi-auto only.
AP used to bash anyone who suggested any such change.
And what do we have now?

[PdxChris]

So if this is a CAG topic, about CAG squads, and CAG games, than why is it on AP?

He's bringing this topic to the general airsoft population here on AP.....

And as Ivan said, CAG is part of the AP community.

[MillerSA15]

I think you guys are still missing Dan's point here.

He wants a gun that can suppress enemy movement from 1.5 times the standard infantry rifle range, for milsim purposes. These guns would be in the hands of people practicing milsim, and would never be running around the field randomly because it has to be mounted on the tripod to be fired (according to the ROE of the game, because in real life that is how it works).

In order to get a gun that can do that effectively you need the higher FPS limits. Just like a sniper engaging you at 300 feet isn't going to hurt much, this wouldn't either, because that is the range it would be dropping rounds on you from (ideally). Sure if you decide to rush the machine gun nest or whatever to try to take it out you are risking a face full of 600fps, but that isn't what it is for.

This is also not to get the community to change over to this, it is to get an idea if people are okay with getting shot by fully automatic fire from 200 feet away plus from a 500 plus fps gun.

I can assure you that this idea would not be implemented but for the most strict milsim game, where the utmost realism is the goal, and therefore some changes must be made to the current rule set.

Also rest assure this topic has already been long discussed about modifying fps levels to make a more realistic milsim game, but once again, these rule sets would only be used at events meant to give you the most realistic milsim possible.

[Catch22]

An M240 bravo dosen't have to be mounted on a tripod. Shit.. You can fire that from the hip while running.

[Ivan Daylovich™]

We understand his motivations are to further a greater mil-sim, but our motivations are safety.

My face has take serious punishment from a 385FPS weapon at very close range. My face was covered in blood. I would not want to imagine what that would have done to me at 600FPS. It would have left permanent scars and possibly lasting physical damage.

And don't tell me that things like that won't happen because the people who use them are going to be safe. Accidents will happen. People will see the highest FPS limit, highest magazine capacity and a high ROF all in one gun and think "Why would I get anything else?"

[MillerSA15]

We understand his motivations are to further a greater mil-sim, but our motivations are safety.

My face has take serious punishment from a 385FPS weapon at very close range. My face was covered in blood. I would not want to imagine what that would have done to me at 600FPS. It would have left permanent scars and possibly lasting physical damage.

And don't tell me that things like that won't happen because the people who use them are going to be safe. Accidents will happen. People will see the highest FPS limit, highest magazine capacity and a high ROF all in one gun and think "Why would I get anything else?"

I won't deny that accidents will happen, but I don't see this option being opened to the public (that is, there will never be a point that someone can show up with an M240 and tripod with his A-gunner and ammo boy and be good to go, it will be hand picked people, for very specific game jobs...essentially part of the admin group) at least that is the way I would do it, and expect to have it done at a CAG event. I don't even think I would advertise it as an option more of "warning, for the sake of milsim there will be fully automatic 600fps machine guns, plan your protective gear accordingly".

If there are people that wouldn't mind going to an event like that, then there might be a future in it. Basically this thread has already proven that there are people that would be interested.

[Darius137]

This is not a change for all AP games. This is an experiment to further the mil-sim experience.

500fps is no different than 300fps as far as safety issues. The issue has been discussed at length regarding the steps of muzzle velocity and what they do and the actual safety concerns.

The people who think this is bad and will avoid it would probably not like the mil-sim aspect so this does not pertain to them.

There will be maybe 2 or 4 of these at any given game, max, and their users and use will be highly limited and regulated. We will not give these weapons to the average 16 year old who has no idea what he's doing, or the 33 year old who is too hardcore for his own good. There will be regulation and we're looking more towards the 1st-Sword model of Sniper Rifle use for certification or pre-game safety instruction.

The people who liked this idea were veteran types who can appreciate mil-sim and this topic is geared towards them.

[Darius137]

I request a mod changes the name of this thread to "Higher FPS for Machine Guns".

Nowhere in the initial post was a SAW mentioned and because people are not able to read the thread before posting, you're seeing a lot of ignorant posts about SAWs when SAWs aren't even part of this equation.

Also, this is not for widespread use. It will require a tripod to fire the weapon and possible pre-game training in the 1st-sword sniper rifle use example.

And as far as safety, there is no physical difference in 500fps and 400fps for damage and personal safety. That is a generally accepted idea that has no basis in physics.

[Mini-Marine]

As far as MGs are concerned I would like to see mounted weapons get a higher FPS than 400, but 600 is out of the question if for no other reason than pure practicality.

The wear and tear on the internals would preclude using it for sustained suppressive fire and hence totally nullify the advantage the additional FPS would have.

With time and money you could probably get an M240 shooting reliably in the 450-500 range, but I don't see the internals being able to handle any more than that.

General purpose machine guns are supposed to have a longer effective range than an assault rifle or a SAW, as it stands there is absolutely no reason to use an M240 or an M60 over an M249 other than the aesthetic value.

Yes, you could get into details of caliber and whatnot, but there is no way to regulate that this gun can only use .25 bbs, this one can only use .23s and that one .2s.

However, classes of weapon CAN be effectively controlled. Subguns have one FPS limit, assault rifles another, DMRs slightly higher still, and bolts being at the top end.

Why is there no place for GPMGs in that group? As long as it is restricted to games where users have to get approval from the game host in order to use them and their numbers are limited so you don't have every swinging tool running around with one, I see no problem.

[Pharaoh 6]

An M240 bravo dosen't have to be mounted on a tripod. Shit.. You can fire that from the hip while running.

Apparently you've never touched a M240B. Whether real steal or airsoft that would be quite difficult.

--break--

I'm sometimes amazed at the lack of maturity and intelligence that is displayed on these forums. Maybe I'm one of the few, but I understood Dan's post from the start. My panties aren't all tied up in a knot over FPS changes.

Dan just wanted to have an adult conversation about the practicality of MG teams/weapons. He is presenting a concept for open and mature discussion. If you have something constructive to input, then put your comments in.

Immaturity like...I'm not coming, bloody face, band aids, "oh this crap again" and all the rest of the negativity doesn't contribute to the discussion.

And Catch..Pulling games? That's immature. Just because YOU don't like an idea doesn't mean you need to ruin it for those who do. You want a voice. Don't show up. That says a lot. There are a lot of games in this community that I don't like, but I don't make bold statements about having them pulled. Personally I think zombie games are for kids and full grown adults who still play xBox in their parents basement in between shifts at Game Stop. But those people and others who like those types of games enjoy them. So I say to each his own and save my cash for the more mil-sim type of events. I don't threaten to have the game shut down.

Let me set the example for those who don't understand.....
--------------------
Dan,

I like the idea. An M240B shooting 450-500 sounds like it would enhance the mil-sim experience. I think it would add a dimension to mil-sim that is sorely missing in this community.... the true need to plan your tactics, coordinate, and play as a team. This instead of just hiding behind the tree and lobbing BB's until one side prevails.

I do however have some concerns...
1. There would have to be a qualification course. Strictly followed. IS CAG willing to establish one? Who would be on the board that sets the rules and course standards? Not just CAG. Maybe some other respected members of this community?

2. How would you address the liability issues? Have you checked with insurance carriers to see what they say?

3. I think in order to move this topic forward those interested in either seeing this plan come alive or be squashed should meet at a neutral location to develop different COAs in order to implement the idea or discuss not allowing it in the community.

I would be willing to give some time to the project to research the possibility of implementing a change of this nature within the community provided the general safety concerns were analyzed, mitigated, and the control measures enforced.

P6

[KA-BAR]

I request a mod changes the name of this thread to "Higher FPS for Bolt actions".

ill be changing my Bolt action FPS to 850 for games where the MG's are running 500/600 FPS

The people who think this is bad and will avoid it would probably not like the mil-sim aspect so this does not pertain to them.

The people who liked this idea were veteran types who can appreciate mil-sim and this topic is geared towards them.

Nowhere in the initial post was a BOLT ACTION mentioned and because people are not able to read the thread before posting, you're seeing a lot of ignorant posts about SAWs when SAWs aren't even part of this equation. I am Talking about BOLT ACTIONS


And as far as safety, there is no physical difference in 550fps and 800fps for damage and personal safety. That is a generally accepted idea that has no basis in physics.



just know that if you are holding a MG, ill probably shoot you in the face.

[Pharaoh 6]

Once again my point is reinforced.

[KA-BAR]

you got trolled fool.

deal with it.

[Matt]

Topic name changed.

At OP Gallant Saber II up in WA, they ran two 500 FPS gas Asahi M60s mounted to an M113 all day. Nobody got hurt. The weapons were operated by the vehicle crew, who were essentially part of the volunteer staff for the game. The made the vehicles more feared because the crew-served weapons had more range.

I'll all for allowing higher FPS for crew-served weapons if they require a crew to operate and they are regulated by game administration, but I would not want (or tolerate) a single individual running around with a hot shooting 240 on the field at a skirm like it's an M4.

I'd attend a mil-sim event that allowed powerful crew served weapons. It becomes a challenge to disable those weapons and creates a new dynamic in the game.