Here’s the T20 rifle:
3 Likes
Yeah, but the M2 Carbine doesn’t have a bayonet. My point is, as fun as bayonets are, in a historically accurate and gameplay balance view, not all guns were needed / performed well with a bayonet.
With the FG 42, it would actually make a difference, since bayonets have a secret recoil and other soft stat multiplier, so it would reduce the recoil by a noticeable amount. The FG 42 II, however, has very manageable recoil, and if added, other faction mains would complain about imbalance.
That’s why I’m saying only the first variant needs it. Just coming from a humble F2P all faction main.
1 Like
according to this image the M2 has a bayonet:
Even the AVS has it:
What I’m saying is that the factions fighting the Germans have 2 of their BR5 automatic rifles include a bayonet,
Also, this video from Forgotten weapons shows the FG 42 II with a bayonet:
Original FG42: A Detailed Comparison of the 1st and 2nd Patterns
4 Likes
I was referring to real life. By the stage most of these guns were in use, bayonets were no longer being issued to weapons. Of course, some still had bayonets, either because they were still issued, or because the individual trooper added his own onto firearm.
For whatever reason, the devs decided to give every firearm other than the FG 42/II bayonets. Would it be nice? Yes, it would be nice to have bayonets. Will it happen? Possibly not, but it’s worth trying.
1 Like
Honestly, I wanted to ask for a further buff for the FG 42s as them getting buffed will allow for Axis players the ability to keep up against BR5 US and Soviet players, as the Axis faction has long suffered with weapons that are worse than the American and Soviet guns. I feel like a bayonet for both FGs will make them more advantageous to use in CQB especially the OG FG, but you have convinced me the FG 42 II doesn’t need a bayonet, but I would still like the OG FG42 to get the bayonet.
1 Like
i feel like no gun whatsoever should have a cosmetic folded bayonet
6 Likes
Well, they gave the Beretta M1918 a working bayonet in the last update. I’m guessing the FG 42s will be changed soon. That’s assuming it doesn’t just end there with the Beretta.
1 Like
You got a point, making a gun model with bayonet but not having the bayonet useable is a bit questionable, but still master_snail has convinced me the FG42 II shouldn’t need a bayonet
Okay, Japanese LMGs dont need a bayonet either but they still have them
If it has a bayonet, just give it to the gun
3 Likes
Honestly many, weapons have bayonets, but it’s meant for CGB, I have yet to see you complain about the G43 not having a bayonet despite it having the same overall use as the FG42 II
You could just ask the Devs to remove the Bayonet from the FG42II model altogether.
In the case of the fg42s bayonet I’m not sure if it should really give the usual 5% vertical recoil reduction, because unlike the m2 carbine for example the bayonet is a external piece that is added after but the fg42s bayonet is there but it’s just not folded down so surely the weight it would give at the end of the barrel should already be accounted for in the current stats. Just a thought tho 
.
Actually ignore what I said the Berretta m1918 is also a fold out bayonet and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t give any recoil reduction like a regular bayonet.
1 Like
No. They killed it with the fire rate change.
Took the best fg42 variant (GL) and made it on average with the others.
Why would i use it anyway? It’s worse it most every way and fg 42 had better sights… this whole thing that started with the AVS getting more damage is stupid because as you unlock the better stuff the guns get better… that’s how it works.
Not giving the previous stuff unnecessary buffs or stuff that actually nerfs it (cough cough avs and fg42) that creates speculation on which is best.
You missed this part of the message, right after the part you quoted:
I would never use the FG 42 in its current state, since the recoil and sight picture doesn’t line up with me. The FG 42 II on the other hand has nicer recoil, more usable ROF, and better sights.
If they kept the ROF the same (as I have mentioned numerous times), and just gave the FG 42 (non II variant) a bayonet, to reduce recoil and make it more CQC oriented, I would’ve actually equipped a few on my lineup. Now I will never touch it.
I personally prefer using the Gewehr 43 8mm Kurtz and the burst Carno because I find them to be more accurate and have better recoil. And also cause I like them more then the FG 42 & FG 42 2
1 Like
I wasn’t able to obtain the Kurz Gewehr, so I’m stuck with FGs if I want select fires. In all reality, the FGs should never have been select fires. It would have been much better if the STG was the select fire, since it would have been a perfect match for the M2 Carbine.
1 Like
Honestly, I think the FG 42 should get a grenade launcher variant for the OG FG42 but also the probably bring back the G43 kurz put make it a BR 4 or 5 weapon
1 Like
Honestly, I just unlocked the OG FG42, and I’m do great with it, the sights are acceptable, and this works well in CQB, I just don’t like the ammo count in both versions.
1 Like
Well, to my knowledge the reason why they model the guns as having less recoil with a bayonet is because of the increased weight out at the front of the gun. However the FG-42s always have the bayonet mounted on the gun regardless of if the bayonet is actually active or not meaning that in theory the gun shouldn’t get the recoil reduction with them.
1 Like
I just hope they make it optional, I usually take my bayonets off because I find them quite ugly tbh.
1 Like