mg34 75 round :
50 meters full / 50 meters tap fire (20/21 shots or so) / 20 meters full.
Okay, so, lots incoming. Iâve repeated the tests, better in keeping with @Rickyd123âs methods. First, where you @Shiivex went wrong, if you were trying to replicate his test to compare your results.
you seem to be using the same firing point, close enough, but his target is 20m farther than yours, which will affect the degree of observed dispersion and how easily a player can control the recoil to stay on target
I replicated the original test to the best of my ability, with the BAR A1, A2, and Bren, on the appropriate 75m target. Probably do more later, but I didnât want this to take all night.
Thatâs about as scientific as we can be within the confines of the game. In order to honestly compare results and get any kind of meaning out of it, we have to perform the test the same way. Additionally, thereâs a variable we canât control for: thereâs no constant for how well different players compensate for recoil. In an ideal world, we could artificially eliminate recoil with a machine rest and just dump mags to see the dispersion patterns at different ranges, but weâre not so lucky.
2 Likes
True.
1 Like
Can I make a request? 
You said thereâs dispersion on semi autoâs. Could you please compare the FG42 to FG42 II? Genuinely curious if they have the same or different accuracy stats.
YesâŚIâm the same person behind this post so would love to finally see the results 
https://forum.enlisted.net/t/does-fg42-ii-have-less-dispersion-than-fg42/26935/13
1 Like
fg 42 fully upgraded left
fg 42 II without 1 star right
random fg42 II auto:
yes, fg42 II does have less dispersion in semi. and way less recoil in auto.
3 Likes
That is very helpful thanks! Case solved 
.The difference is incredible, even more so given your FG42 II doesnât even have the final -15% shot deviation.
As @8383908 said, an accuracy stat on stat cards would be incredibly helpful. Recoil doesnât tell the whole picture.
2 Likes
In theory we could measure MoA on our own, but we would need to figure out the right methodology.
A mortar would be used for (within 1m) precise rangefinding.
Mark the target youâre shooting at and pull out the mortar and itâll give you a distance.
1 Like
Weâd mostly just need to come to one common understanding, one common assumption, and do the work.
The farthest targets on the practice range are 90m(100yds) from the bunker as measured by mortar squad marker reading. If we used this target for semi-auto and manual gun accuracy testing, and use SAE units instead of metric, 1MOA= practically 1 inch/ 100yds, and weâd only need to establish a community standard for how big each ring in the targets are to get our measurements. We could choose a closer target for autmatic weapons testing, so that all the rounds fired stay on the paper, but those test are generally less scientific because we canât account for player skill at compensating for recoil or the randomness of bullet dispersion within a set cone that moves every time the weapon fires.
1 Like
For MoA you could just fire single-shot with machine guns, though it wouldnât account for the known phenomena of accuracy getting worse when youâre moving.
Only problem I can see is the OVP having such a high RoF you canât single-shot it.
For the ones that have semi-auto settings, yeah, and I think thatâs probably the only measurement for stationary dispersion weâd need. When fired in auto, the recoil changes the point of aim every time the weapon fires, and how well we compensate for recoil determines how close the new cone is to our original point of aim. Iâd bet that increased dispersion in full auto is just the base dispersion increased by our input and recoil, and we donât have the tools to test that hypothesis.
Thatâs why I donât think it works for weapons without semi-auto settings. We could still aggregate the communities best efforts, though the data wouldnât be perfect it could be useful.
Yeah, any testing there would be mostly pointless, since weâd be dealing with all of the variables of testing full auto, and adding non-repeatable player movement to the mix. I suspect, for aimed fire, additional dispersion on the move is just caused by three things: Point of aim and therefore fire cone shift between shots, PoA and cone shift caused by the walking animation, and variable player skill at compensating for both.
We could test unaimed accuracy of single-fire weapons, but the less stable the platform the less precise our tests will be. Itâs easy to test a mounted weapon, the only movement is recoil, but we canât test hip fire mounted. Weâd have to test un-aimed fire in all three poses and compare the results to aimed fire in all three poses, unmounted, and compare that to mounted fire either prone or on the bunker window.
1 Like