dude, sure I agree that there should be some sort of deviation, but as i said, it should not be noticeable under 200 meters, unless you are firing 9mm or some other small arms round.
If the “effective range” on something like a M1 Garand is 500 Meters, you SHOULD NOT notice any mayor accuracy problems at 300 Meters, in fact you should hit consistently as long as you are on target.
My Opinion is still unchanged, I shot and hit targets at 100 Meters distance with a BB gun So this argument is ridiculous 100 Meters should be no problem for a SMG and 200 Meters should be not even scratching the capabilities of a Rifle. Yet if I shoot something like a FG42 you have a 50% hitchance for targets at 100 meters distance, and this is unacceptable, whether or not the FG is unbalanced, it destroys immersion.
oh. I havent tried the Fg42 in game yet but acc to people it seems rly good, if its only 50% hitchance then it need to change for sure (if its single fire mode). Well then we differ in experience when it comes to rifles in game. I usually hit effectively when i shoot with them at long distances. But there is also mechanics as how good the rifle is and perform baked in to the game as well as balance like MG kickbacks and such which dont bothers me as i understand them from a game perspective. Some are better then others in different situations which can be fun tools for gaming even if reality might not be the same. One example of this from what ive noticed so far is that ZB 26 is much better in long range MG coverage then MG36 but has an ammo trade off for it. Can still cover with the MG36 but it has an bigger spread and harder to hit at distances and would rather use that for mid to close range