There are no tech trees in Enlisted. There is only “Allies” vs “Axis”. You are not “screwing” anything, you are only adding more stuff that was actually used by said Allies or Axis in those time periods/fronts.
Just because you only want to think about your own nation or whatever, doesn’t mean other stuff doesn’t deserve to be in the game.
There should be seperate tress if you want crappy commonwealth weapons wait to go play there Tunisia campaign there wont be Americans there as they are represented in normandy The end i didnt design the game i dont like the current system of intermixing countries that never fought todather on a small scale.
Im fine with the Commonwealth being in Normandy i want them there but they should not be intermixed if someone wants to get US weapons we shouldnt have to grind through 15 levels of UK trash weapons to get them and vice versa if someone wants to play commonwealth they shouldnt be forced to unlock US weapons first. thats it.
Then this may not be the game for you. The developers decided for it to be this way, and I personally like it, just like a whole lot of other people. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean nobody likes it.
I could probably agree on an optional opting system, aka, that you can choose to unlock the minor allied weapons, like the British weapons, by unlocking them in squads, but not be forced to go through them in campaign level. But that’s a whole different thing.
Funny Normandy Allies sign is the American Star indicating its representing the US and the lack of Brit troops and vehicles its safe to say this is the US in normandy so Go play Tunisia
Also judging by the amount of responses and feedback to the thread looks like way more people agree with me than you so…
Most people actually don’t give enough fucks to read the forums unless they are mad about something. It’s called negativity bias. Go check it out.
Welp have fun keeping the sand out of your tea makers in Tunisia!
Battle for Normandy is kind of SMG, MG vs Semi Auto Rifles !
I just use the US weapons. If you dont like British weapons dont use them. My squads are nothing but Garands, BARs and Thompsons now. The sten and lanchester arent really better than the M3A1 anyway so if you want historical the weapons are there (minus the bazooka so my bomber guy looks weird)
Yea thats great except for when you have to grind through 15 levels of crap.To get to what you want, when i could just get the weapons we should be unlocking in the first place.
I think you’re being a little obnoxious. You can disagree and make your points without being a brat about it.
Like this. Be civil, just because you disagree with people doesn’t mean you have to show so much attitude. It’s no way to come to a reasonable understanding. Also, Tunisia isn’t even released for closed beta testing yet, at least that’s how it seems, so adding on “so Go play Tunisia” is not going to help whatsoever. You’re free to disagree and to make your case, but I think you’re bringing a level of toxicity to this thread which helps no one.
I love America, I hope to be an American someday, but damn do people like you make it difficult for people like me yet oh so easy for those who hate America and Americans which is the type of person I used to be but managed to turn my back on that unjustified hatred that I seemed to be indoctrinated with in Canadian public schools.
Bro the amount of crap i catch all the time on forums like this for wanting stuff to be realistic soured my manners pretty hard especially when on reddit i got called racist for asking for real weapons US used when Commonwealth are getting there own campaign. I apologize if i offended anyone but its not like im unique in being this way when this sort of vitriol and worse is thrown at us in the states before we even say anything.
It wouldnt bother me so much but the weapons they chose to put in are signifigently worse then what should be in there places, Every single weapon is just neutering the US for no reason. Im sick of it the US shouldnt be the test bed faction for the Commonwealth the end. Give the US there weapons and test the Commonwealth weapons when they come out. This is pure bullcrap. Id say if it were the otherway around the Commonwealth players would be just as angry. USSR isnt a test bed faction for other countries Germany isnt why should the US be bogged down by another countries early war equipment.
Every weapon is worse Sten and Lanchester are worse then the Thompson line
Bren is worse then the BAR do to sights and reload
Piat is awfull due to the arc of aiming and glancing off all the time Bazooka would be amazing.
Ross well theres a reason why that thing barely saw action in both world wars.
Lee Enfield is the only weapon thats better then anything in its class but its just taking up more rifle space that could have gone to another infantry gun like the M1A1 Carbine or the 1903A3 Springfield with improved sights. All of these guns are taking up space that should be used on American guns and it quite pisses me off maybe more then it should but it does and i know im not the only one i hear that in game chat alot.
On a side note good luck i hope you do become an American its pretty cool here aside from the last couple months ( since jan-20)and what looks like the next 3 years 8 months are gonna suck but hers hope it gets better. And were actually allowed to own some pretty awesome guns (atleast for now) im working on getting a Springfield Armory M1A wich is a civillian version of the M14 right now,
Well there’s your first problem; you care about the word ‘racist.’ The left have over-used that word and watered it down to the point that it doesn’t matter. If someone calls you racist, they may as well call you a shimmy-shammy. If you’re letting that word get to you, you need to see that word for what it is nowadays; nothing. Or, as a compliment. It is what the left paints everyone as who do not follow their ‘politically correct’ Marxist ideology, and if they paint you as an opponent of theirs, you’re probably living a better and more truthful life than they are. I can’t comment on Reddit other than the fact I don’t use it. Oh yeah, also, if you’re at all a particularly proud American then yeah, that’s rather right-wing and racist of you, at least from the left’s perspective. Anti-Americanism is left-wing, the left want to diminish American freedoms such as the 2nd amendment (which they’ve been diminishing for decades), to weaken the 1st amendment with nonsense ‘hate-speech’ laws, and well look at California and Oregon. Look at who they voted into power, removing the leader who gave America the greatest economy she’s ever seen. Nah, if you’re saying stuff that’s pissing off the left, you’re doing something right. So be brave and be bold. As the good book says, “Fear not.” Only speak truth.
Anyhow, to get back on track, I think it’s because it wasn’t just the US involved in the Normandy Invasion. Brits, as well as Canadians like myself (well, I wasn’t there but I am a Canadian) were on the beaches. America had two, Britain had two, and we had Juno Beach. The game is in beta, they’re getting around to making the Battle of Berlin accessible, but Tunisia is still a ways away. Frankly the inclusion of the Mk.III Ross Rifle seems outright stupid, that was replaced in 1915 by the Mk.III even thoguh allegedly the Ross is an inherently more accurate rifle, it wasn’t as reliable and the mud played havoc on it. Including it in a WWII game, even if it was bloody Juno Beach meaning Canadians, it still makes no sense. That aside, it’s going to be made right in the end, this is just a transition period. I don’t really see the reason to get into a tizzy, and save for the PIAT you can immediate or in time obtain American firearm to replace any non-American ones. Well, the M1 Garand was designed by a French Canadien, John Cantius Garand, but we’ll leave that aside.
In the Normandy campaign, the Germans are given the French MAS rifle quite early on. Though, technically that’s not experimentation. Apparently many Germans in France were indeed issued that rifle. Also, if it helps at all, Americans did manufacture No.4 Lee Enfields for the Brits, specifically the Savage company. Pretty sure they made the simplified No.4 Mk.I*, which is also what we produced here in Canada at Longbranch. The Germans also have an Italian SMG in the Normandy campaign it seems, and I honestly don’t know if that’s legitimately historically accurate or not. I certainly have doubts that there were more MP34 in Normandy than the MP40, and indeed in the game the MP34 and that Italian SMG I can’t remember the name of are FAR more common than the MP40.
Wow, I see, so I wouldn’t call you racist but based on that third paragraph either you’re not too knowledgeable on firearms or you just have a severe pro-American bias to the point of basically hating anything that’s not American. Claiming that the STEN and Lanchester are worse than the Thompson family of SMGs, that’s your opinion. I can’t comment too much on the Lanchester due to not knowing much about it, but the STEN is superior to the Thompson in terms of cost of manufacture, weight, and in being less bulky. 9mm is also much lighter than .45 ACP so someone with a STEN could carry more ammo than someone with a Thompson.
As for the BREN vs BAR, Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons has experience firing both on fully automatic. The M1918 style of sights, stylized after the M1917 which itself is a rechambered British P14, made in .30-06 instead of .303. More British-style M1917 rifles were used by Americans in WWI than American-made German-style M1903 rifles, which are pretty blatant Mauser rip-offs. The P14/M1917 is less blatant, though does lift some Mauser aspects in the bolt-design, particularly the extractor. The M1918 sights were quite useable, but the M1918A2 sights in practical use are apparently so small that it’s hard to get/keep a good sight picture unless you’re under ideal shooting-range type of calm and peaceful situations with targets that aren’t moving. The bipod is also inferior to the BREN’s, and the BREN has 50% more capacity as well as a damn slick tripod it can be attached to for VERY stable fixed-machine-gun fire as well as for AA usage. The BREN having the mag on top also makes it easier and faster for an assistant gunner to swap the mag out for the gunner. I regard the M1918A2 as among the worst LMGs of WWII, because it even lost its advantage of being relatively lightweight because the M1918A2 is several pounds heavier than the M1918 and with worse sights. It also has no ability to change barrels in case of overheating, which by the way, the BREN can indeed have the barrel swapped. Ian regards the BREN as overall one of the best non-GPMG (so perhaps more specifically one of the best mag-fed) LMGs of WWII if memory serves.
Canada entered WWI when Britain did, August 1914 if memory serves, and the Ross was used by the Canadians until the 2nd year of the war. To say it barely saw action in WWI is preposterous, though no I don’t think it saw much or indeed possibly didn’t see ANY service in WWII.
As I recall the M1903A3 was mostly used for training troops on the style of sights that the M1 Garand used and saw little-to-no front line use by America in WWII. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall that being the case.
It does indeed sound like it pisses you off more than it should. As for game chat, I managed to make a message once and don’t know what button I pressed. I searched the controls before but can’t find which button it is. Kinda seems like Gaijin wants to leave it a mystery on how to send messages on this game.
Yeah, pretty bad leadership of late, and due to that bad leadership a whole lot of unAmerican stuff is going on at the southern border. A real shame. I hope to be American someday and my wife and I will very much be Republican voters.
I am very aware of what a Springfield M1A is, that would be nice to own someday but I have my eye on an AR and an AK. Well, at least one AR but hopefully both a 7.62 and a 5.45 AK. We can’t get AKs in Canada, but we do have some firearms that are more available and lower price than in America because we can still buy from Russia and China. America hasn’t been able to buy guns and/or ammo from Russia and China for years as I recall, though the USSR has dissolved so I dunno why they don’t change that. In Canada we have more SKS rifles and probably lower prices, WAY lower prices on SVT-40s (I once owned like 5 of them, and bought 10 SKS rifles in bulk once for about $1800 CAD), we also have cheap Chinese copies available of M1911, TT-33, Hi Power, and P226 pistols, as well as Chinese Police pistols available. There’s also Chinese copies of the M1A too, I think they were going for about $400 a decade ago, and also about a decade ago you could get a Russian SKS and a 1080 round crate of 7.62x39 for $500 CAD. I told that to many aspiring gun owners back in the day, I hope some of 'em took up that incredible offer, which is significantly more incredible now given present circumstances.
Anyhow, hopefully the more harsh and direct aspects of this comment didn’t rub you the wrong way, like that claim that you may not know much about firearms. At minimum, even if you are knowledgeable, the way you outright say that one American firearm is better than one non-American firearm… it isn’t exactly smart. All firearms are a trade-off. The Thompson has advantages over the STEN, like the M1928A1 can use 50 round drums, which is superior capacity. Maybe the Thompson has less felt recoil because it’s so darn heavy. As I recall the Thompson can have its stock removed but still function, which is more than the STEN can say since removing the stock removes all tension of the recoil spring and allows the bolt to be removed. For some, on an individual basis, they might prefer the sights of the M1928A1 or the M1A1 Thompson over the STEN. See, even on an individual basis, firearms are a trade-off. Ian prefers the BREN over the M1918A2 in part due to the SUPERIOR sights of the BREN, but in your opinion the BREN sights are awful, mostly because of the top-mounted magazine obscuring vision but also because, well, in terms of non-American firearms you seem to have a negative bias, but at least you can give kudos to the No.4 Lee Enfield, which is my favourite bolt-action of WWII and I suppose also of Korea.
I once had an anti-American bias, possibly even a violent anti-American bias, but thankfully I managed to see that hatred I had and to turn my back on it, to remove it from myself like a cancer, and now I love America because I better understand what the Founding Fathers were doing. It sounds like you have a pro-America bias that is to the point of, well, the left use this term a lot but in this case I believe I’m using it correctly, slightly xenophobic. The fear/hatred of things outside of one’s country, of course in your case it is hatred or at least it’s annoyance with this game. They’ll eventually get Tunisia rolled out, all these Commonwealth firearms will be thrown over there, and probably only American firearms will remain in the Normandy campaign. It is only a matter of time, or if Tunisia comes out and they still have Commonwealth firearms in Normandy even without including Commonwealth squads/uniforms/dialects, then I’ll be by your side in protesting that the Normandy campaign on Enlisted has only American troops/uniforms/dialect on the Allied side, so should only have American firearms. To have it otherwise makes no sense and is historically inaccurate.
For the time being, while so much of this game is still being tested in the beta phase it is, it does make sense to have Commonwealth firearms in Normandy to some degree because as they are used, they’re being tested, so that when Tunisia opens up it will be in a better state from the beginning than if they don’t include them in Normandy. You may not like that, but technically speaking, from a game-developing point of view, it may not be realistic (even though Brits/Canadians were also in Normandy, in fact 3 of the 5 beaches were British/Canadian), but it still helps to develop the game. Just give it time. This too shall pass.
Why not?
We seem to agree politically on Guns speech and freedom, and on that its nice to see a friendly face!
And remeber while John C Garand was born in Canada he became American and is one of the most important figures in American history. Also Amost ARs are fine but seriously watch out for AKs the cheap AKs suck and can actually blow up Brandon Herrera does a great video on what AKs to buy and which ones to not buy ima try and link the video here
And i try to stay away from Chinese guns while being okay quality and cheap they have no Customer service were my 2 current new guns Ruger Mini-14 and the Beretta 92A1 have amazing customer service.
Ima keep this relatively short tho and ima get staight to the point.
1st i think the Commonwealth including the Canadians deserve to be represented at Normandy they were very important especially the Canadians fighting the SS at Caen. So what i hope happens is they add a full tech tree to Normandy were you click Allies and you get to Choose Commonwealth or USA because the Commonwealth have a ton of cool stuff that should be in this game from Spitfires and Tempests to Cromwells and Fireflies and everything in between, Voices uniforms and Divisions. Would be awesome in my opinion i dont have anything against the Commonwealth i quite enjoy playing them in games like Men of War and Steel Division. It would be great to have them in!
And if they put a second Allied tech tree they could put the SS in of the Axis side and it would be interesting in my opinion the SS tech tree would have no planes but have acsess to Tigers and Panther tanks. Would be a great addition as thats who the Commonwealth fought alot, I might even make that its own thread an Expansion to Normandy two new trees. Infact i think ima make it right after my reply.
Now as for the Sten vs Thompson. Ill give my opinions
As my experiance in firearms is limited to modern stuff ill give my opinion on the ammo mostly. and it involves the highly memed .45 vs 9mm debate and in my opinion the 9mm today with modern hollowpoint tech the 9mm wins hands down. But if FMJ are all thats available in my opinion sheer stopping power of the .45 is much better. (god this is a meme saying now)
As for the guns themselves the ergonomics and quality of the Thompson cant be compared to the Sten but also you could fit an entire squad of people with Stens for the price of a Thompson so yea i get the appeal of the Sten. I think a more appropriate comparision would be Sten vs M3 Grease gun and i think they are pretty equel especially when you can get a 9mm Greaee gun at the time. Wich btw i think would be a cool thing to distinguish the M3 and the M3A1 in this game since they are basically the same thing…
Bren vs BAR
I understand the Bren is pretty good in reallife it just doesnt feel right ingame and thats mostly what i was refering to something on it just feels off. As for it being better then the BAR yea the 1918A2 was pretty dumb but it was still a few pounds lighter then the Bren wich is pretty damn heavy, And i do like the slower setting i just wish it was in this game. Also theres 15 year differance inbetween the two guns.
Like in Day of Infamy its awesome i just cant use it in this game it feels weird.
Lee Enfield is probably the best bolt action ever made so i apoligize for smack talking it. That being said the 1903A3 was used extensively by rear troops and some divisions even had full 1903a3s not M1 Garands. but it was very common to see the 1903A3 among US National Guard, Engineers and US Marines.
PIAT ehh id rather just have the direct fire bazooka really. Most of Commonwealths AT was in there at guns like the 17 Pdr wich is amazing.and wish they had a full tech tree in Normandy so we could use.
BTW i have 18 Piats from the bronze weapon orders… But also have like 25 Flame throwers aswell so ill just chalk that up to bad game mechanics.
Idk i guess it just rubbed me the wrong way especially when the Thompson was rank 29 while the Sten and Lanchester were in the teens. Anyway ill calm down and thank you for explaining it the way you did. I loom forward to you becoming an American as we need more people like you here.
BTW meant to say look forward* loom sounds creepy AF why cant we edit our posts?
Sadly that stuff isn’t properly represented in-game. Should add long barrels getting stuck against stuff, better weight stats, etc.
Cheaper cost meaning it was rickety and terrible but better than nothing. The Sten Mk 1 is vastly superior to the Sten Mk 2 but the Sten Mk 2 was more commonly used because it was cheaper to provide.
Yup! Love him, he made an AK50 vid recently too. Looking forward to seeing it cycling a few rounds, I’m hopeful that it will function. Better be safe about it, considering what happened to Kentucky Ballistics. What a badass, sticking his thumb into the neck hole he was given by his exploding .50 BMG AK firing SLAP rounds. Not sure if I’ve seen the quality control bit though, I’ll definitely do research before buying an AK, and yeah I’ll be avoiding cast trunnions.
Yup, the 9mm vs .45 debate is indeed quite the beaten dead horse. Yeah the bigger boolits of the .45 would cause larger through-and-through wounds, meaning arguably a larger chance of hitting something vital, but shot placement is ultimately more important than anything. A 9mm to the head is better than a .45 to the foot, and a .45 to the chest is better than 9mm to the hand. With 9mm there’s less felt recoil thus easier follow-up shots and controlled full-auto recoil, and 115/124gr FMJ 9x19 is significantly lighter than 230gr .45 ACP. A comparison of around 21 rounds per pound for the .45 and 31-36 or so rounds per pound for the 9mm, depending on which bullet weight you go with. In fact, 55gr 5.56 is very similar in weight to 115gr 9x19, while 150gr M80 7.62 Nato is about 18-19 rounds per pound, BARELY heavier than 230gr .45 Ball ammunition. So comparing the weight of those two pistol cartridges is VERY similar to comparing the weight of 5.56 vs 7.62, which is a more significant difference than many would realize. I recall, years ago, when I first experimented with weighing rounds of ammunition on my powder scale, I thought it was malfunctioning because I just could not comprehend 230gr .45 ACP FMJ being so close to the same weight as rifle cartridges with 147-150gr bullets.
I adore .45 in pistols and love the M1911 platform, first firearm I ever bought was a Springfield Armory M1911A1 Mil Spec, but given the weight of the cartridge I wouldn’t want an SMG in it to carry around. I also think that the extra ammo plus less recoil, and the fact that the thinner cartridge either means higher capacity and/or lesser bulk in the mags, make up for any possible difference the two might have in ‘stopping power.’ They’re ultimately both pistol cartridges, and FMJ, with a lot of the energy being lost as the bullet penetrates the target. So in the case of 9mm vs .45 ACP, at least in terms of their abilities in FMJ format and how useful they are in SMG roles, we’ll agree to disagree. Not much of a disagreement anyhow. I’m not saying that .45 is BAD as an SMG cartridge. Just that 9mm is better suited to that role. I’m also aware that the M3 already basically has almost no recoil at all, but it also has a very slow rate of fire. A 9mm SMG of the same weight, design, and rate of fire would be even easier to control, and I’m certain you could increase the rate of fire of this 9mm SMG over the .45 M3 and the ease of controllability would remain roughly the same in spite of the superior rate of fire of the 9mm example in this hypothetical situation.
Firstly, yes, comparing STEN to M3 is FAR easier to do than STEN to Thompson. The Thompson is essentially of the WWI generation of SMGs, and the MP34 seems like it may be the perfection of that generation, of costly milled SMGs. It was a bit further in the 1930s it seems, and throughout WWII, that stamped SMGs truly rose to prominence and no wonder. Significantly lighter and cheaper. Same reason why the AKM of 1959 quickly came to become the most common AK variant on the planet, with the milled receiver AK-47 Type 3 type of AK being abandoned. That’s how I conceptualize the first few decades of SMG use in the Military. As for after WWII, that’s when closed-bolt SMGs came to prominence like with the MP5, which due to having that roller-delayed blowback design, could be produced quite compact and light with almost all variants being less than 7lb, some being less than 5lb. Granted the PPS-43 is also less than 7lb, but it is clearly quite a bit longer and bulkier. Anyways, I digress.
Secondly, 9mm Grease Gun? I did a little research, pretty sure I’d read about the 9mm M3 stuff before but I’d forgotten it. Main thing that came to mind was the 9mm SMG in New Vegas. Seems like only limited examples of 9mm M3 were produced, perhaps 1500 or so. That seems a bit negligible, in the grand scheme of things, but still an interesting bit of M3 history. Probably an easy SMG to handle one-handed, given it’s over 8lb, has that slow rate of fire, and the 9mm would kick less than .45.
I’d say in the game they’re more different than in real life. In the game, as I recall, they’re given a slightly higher cyclic rate and a slightly faster reload. In real life… well… cutting down material in the bolt for that little hole for the finger to cock the bolt, in theory that WOULD increase the cyclic rate a bit, since a lighter bolt in an open-bolt SMG will typically cycle faster than a heavier bolt, in fact as I recall, the MG34 and/or MG42 had an extra bit of metal you can add to the bolt to decrease the rate of fire, or remove it to obtain that super-high rate of fire that the MG42 in particular is known for. So maybe it’s true that the M3A1 has a SLIGHTLY higher rate of fire than the M3, but faster reload? Doubt.
If memory serves it’s 19lb vs 23lb perhaps, a 4lb difference, which means the BREN is about 20% heavier or that the M1918A2 from the BREN’s perspective is roughly five sixths (A bit over 80%) the weight. With the M1918 from WWI, it was more like 16lb, a difference of 7lb, which is far more significant. TheBAR had a legitimate advantage when it comes to weight with the M1918, but I really think that the M1918A2 took away this advantage. I actually looked it up and the difference between the four is less than 4lb. Either way you look at it, they’re both very much of a traditional amount of weight for mag-fed LMGs of WWII or Korea, the M1918A2 is just at the lower spectrum, but the WWI M1918 BAR at 16lb, even by WWII standards, that’s very lighter for an LMG. In fact, the M1918 appears to be a tiny bit lighter than even the belt-fed 7.62x39 RPD that was designed during WWII! Bloody impressive for a WWI .30-06 select-fire LMG! I do not believe the 4 pounds you save with the M1918A2 BAR vs the BREN would make up for having only 2/3rds the capacity, no ability to swap barrels, and sights that are more difficult to use in stressful situations or with moving targets. Perhaps another ‘agree to disagree’ situation, I just do not see that very small advantage of being 19lb unloaded instead of just shy of 23lb unloaded to be a noteworthy advantage, not like the 16lb M1918. At that weight, and the superior sights, the drop in capacity and loss of ability to change barrels seems to be a small price to pay for having either a 7lb lighter loadout, or the same weight loadout but with 7lb of extra… whatever you want. Ammunition, grenades, whatever!
I think you’re reaching. In fact it’s not 15 years. 1918 for the BAR, 1926 for the Vz.26 which is what the BREN is based off of, so 8 years of difference. Then M1918A2 was not long before WWII, and likewise, the BREN was actually adopted a bit before the M1918A2 was, but the foundation of their designs are from 1918 and 1926. 50% more capacity for the BREN, can change the barrel, and there’s a dandy tripod that can aid in the BREN being a fixed machine gun or to be used in AA by aiding a soldier to fire more vertically up in the air. Just seems to be an overall better LMG than the M1918A2, and for within 4lb of extra weight. The Mk.III BREN appears to have been adopted July 1944, a month after D-Day, and was 3.5lb lighter than the Mk.II, BARELY heavier than the M1918A2, and likely with a superior bipod as well. They are very different, and I think it would be very much an uphill battle to try and compare the BAR and BREN with a favour for the BAR.
I don’t know about the best bolt-action ever made, but I regard the No.4 Mk.I Lee Enfield (specifically with the ladder sight, not the two-position 300yd/600yd (270m/550m or so) rear sight), moreso the even more accurate No.4 Mk.2, as being the greatest standard-issue bolt-action for infantry ever made. The only way it could be topped would be by perhaps developing a sort of No.4 Mk.3 in which it was rechambered to rimless 7.62 Nato, even though Military .303 with their rounded-edged rims seemed to have basically no problem with rim-lock. Modern commercial .303, however, with straight-edged rims, those can indeed experience rim-lock, but allegedly with the rounded rims of Military .303 it was a non-issue, even if you intentionally try to produce a rim-lock it seems to be a difficult thing to create. That’s my perspective anyhow. A shame India didn’t adopt the No.4 and instead stuck with the Mk.III style of Lee Enfield, because their 7.62 Nato Lee Enfields they adopted in the 1950s or so seem very cool, and due to rimless rounds stacking more easily than rimmed rounds, they have a 12 round mag. A No.4 Mk.3 with a 15-round mag… if I ever realize my dream of becoming a firearm designer/manufacturer, I think I’d have to make that a reality for myself just as Brandon Herrera is making a .50 BMG (and has already made a .50 Beowulf) AK a reality. Unless AIA in Australia has already done so. They do make .308 (or at least did, don’t know if they still do) Lee Enfields in the No.4 style. If they have 15-round mags available, there you have it. I know they have 20-round mags available. They’re a loophole here in Canada, since they’re designed for a bolt-action and are thus legal (at least they were a decade ago to my understanding) but they can fit into those Chinese-copy M1A rifles, allowing Canadians to fire 20-round mags from a centrefire semi-auto, which is typically illegal but since the mag is not designed for a centrefire semi-auto and instead for a bolt-action, all the RCMP would be able to do is to tell you to stop. It is not illegal to use TECHNICALLY inappropriate magazines in different firearms. Similarly, you can have 10-round mags for AR-style pistols allegedly, but nothing stops them from fitting into non-pistol style of AR rifles. 10 rounds is pretty pathetic compared to the standard capacity for 30 rounds, but here in Canada where we don’t have as much freedom, we look for a bit of extra fun where we can find it. Upgrading from 5 rounds (yes, that’s our limit for semi auto centrefire rifles) to 10 rounds, that’s an exciting improvement… and now Trudeau is attacking Canadian gun owners some more, ugh, I’d rather not think of it, this nation has been going to Hell since 2015 when he came to power.
Pretty much in agreement with you in every other part of your comment, this has been an enjoyable exchange, thank you.
I hate being able to pull out a knife/axe and run faster than with a firearm. That needs to be fixed.
As for long barrels getting stuck, seems like if you’re too close to a closed window you can’t actually aim with your firearm, so they might already have something along those lines. Red Orchestra II, Rising Storm, and Rising Storm II: Vietnam has many such realistic additions, and handles the ‘propping your firearm on something for more stability’ aspect FAR better! You don’t have to hit any buttons! Just get into position and it happens on its own with a little icon showing up on your screen letting you know that your firearm is rested. RO2/RS/RS2 are my go-to games when assessing firearm realism in any other videogame. I’ve yet to see that series of games topped in terms of firearms handling, well, except for the Receiver series on Steam where reloading is FAR more realistic than any other game I’ve ever played. A different button for ‘remove mag,’ ‘put mag in your inventory,’ ‘select fresh mag,’ and ‘insert mag.’ The videogame Receiver in that regard is the closest you can come to handling a firearm without actually holding one in your hands. Once you get the hang of it via muscle-memory and perform an emergency reload while under pressure, possibly even while sprinting (repeatedly tapping W), it feels so incredibly rewarding.