MEC G3 Rifle recoil.

[Copper.8]

The kick of the G3 to many may be a bit overwhelming and it's easy to imagine why. I know the DEVs have tried to simulate the fact that the G3 uses a larger round which apparently = larger kick back. But after gathering some opinions from a few 10s of people on my community's forums, the majority thinks the G3 has too large recoil and I agree.

I don't know what formula you would use to figure out recoil, but I'm simply suggesting that the G3 recoil is lowered, only slightly though. The recoil is controllable but some opinions from a few people who have used the G3 in real life say that it doesn't have as large a kick back as on PR. The MEC rifle is the G3A3, correct me if I'm wrong.

Apart from that, the G3 is accurate and deadly. And If the suggestion is snubbed, I've no problem with it, it's just that I would, along with some others, would like it lowered slightly. Like not want.

[waldo_ii]

Lets do a little bit of math here. We won't take into account the other variables that affect muzzle climb/recoil (like the AR-15's straight-Z-axis-recoil design).


63 gr. 5.56x45mm NATO will contain 1,796 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

147 gr. 7.62x51mm NATO will contain 3,352 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

The G3 should have at LEAST 85% more recoil than AR-15 platforms (Newton's third law gives us this conclusion). I don't have the skills to properly add variables previously mentioned, but the AR-15 is built to channel all recoil straight backwards into the shoulder, not affecting recoil, but theoretically eliminating muzzle climb. AFAIK, the G3A3 is not built upon such properties.

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

Originally Posted by waldo_ii

Lets do a little bit of math here. We won't take into account the other variables that affect muzzle climb/recoil (like the AR-15's straight-Z-axis-recoil design).


63 gr. 5.56x45mm NATO will contain 1,796 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

147 gr. 7.62x51mm NATO will contain 3,352 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

The G3 should have at LEAST 85% more recoil than AR-15 platforms (Newton's third law gives us this conclusion). I don't have the skills to properly add variables previously mentioned, but the AR-15 is built to channel all recoil straight backwards into the shoulder, not affecting recoil, but theoretically eliminating muzzle climb. AFAIK, the G3A3 is not built upon such properties.

Or you know, we could listen to the people that have actually fired the weapon instead of math theory...

I have fired the rifle and use it several times a year and the kick is a bit to high ingame.

Originally Posted by DankE_SPB

i think you forgot about muzzle breaks in your estimations(or its "other variables"?)
surely its recoil should be higher, but not like you shoot half clip on auto and start looking into sky i guess AK-47 has nearly same bullet energy and its recoil ingame is great

You can shoot auto burst with the G3, it is no problem getting 5 rounds in auto on/around a target at close range. Also the AK47 uses a smaller bullet, the G3 uses the NATO 7.62 round that is around twice as long as the russian 7.62.

[ComradeHX]

Originally Posted by waldo_ii

Lets do a little bit of math here. We won't take into account the other variables that affect muzzle climb/recoil (like the AR-15's straight-Z-axis-recoil design).


63 gr. 5.56x45mm NATO will contain 1,796 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

147 gr. 7.62x51mm NATO will contain 3,352 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

The G3 should have at LEAST 85% more recoil than AR-15 platforms (Newton's third law gives us this conclusion). I don't have the skills to properly add variables previously mentioned, but the AR-15 is built to channel all recoil straight backwards into the shoulder, not affecting recoil, but theoretically eliminating muzzle climb. AFAIK, the G3A3 is not built upon such properties.

85% more? not that much.

Because the gas system is different, G3's shell ejection strength can shoot a shell from 20 ft away and hit some guy and cause damage(that is why G3, or CETME, have that deflector thing)...

Originally Posted by DankE_SPB

i think you forgot about muzzle breaks in your estimations(or its "other variables"?)
surely its recoil should be higher, but not like you shoot half clip on auto and start looking into sky i guess AK-47 has nearly same bullet energy and its recoil ingame is great

...G3 fires 7.62x51mm nato, Ak47 fires 7.62x32mm... not the same energy.

[HellDuke]

Originally Posted by waldo_ii

Lets do a little bit of math here. We won't take into account the other variables that affect muzzle climb/recoil (like the AR-15's straight-Z-axis-recoil design).


63 gr. 5.56x45mm NATO will contain 1,796 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

147 gr. 7.62x51mm NATO will contain 3,352 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

The G3 should have at LEAST 85% more recoil than AR-15 platforms (Newton's third law gives us this conclusion). I don't have the skills to properly add variables previously mentioned, but the AR-15 is built to channel all recoil straight backwards into the shoulder, not affecting recoil, but theoretically eliminating muzzle climb. AFAIK, the G3A3 is not built upon such properties.

I study physics and even I didn't really understand this: what the hell? Newtons third law states that to every action there's an reaction with equal force but oposite trajectory (so if the force is on the X axis and action force Fa and reaction Fr then it's Fa=-Fr)Now at this point the kickback is absolutely the same on both weapons and no design changes will affect that.

Moving on: when the smokeless powder in the cartrige ignites and the gas expands it goes evenly in ALL directions (forward backward up etc). Since the expansion is limited, it pushes the bullet out and then by the law we have that the weapon is pushed BACK but NOT upwards.

Why it goes up? You hold the weapon and the force pushes it back. But since it can't go back withouth blowing your arm off the shoulder everything goes up (force arm, not sure if that's how you translate it). Now the weapons have a slanted muzle to compensate for this a bit but that's something all of them have.

[hiberNative]

Originally Posted by waldo_ii

Lets do a little bit of math here. We won't take into account the other variables that affect muzzle climb/recoil (like the AR-15's straight-Z-axis-recoil design).


63 gr. 5.56x45mm NATO will contain 1,796 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

147 gr. 7.62x51mm NATO will contain 3,352 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

The G3 should have at LEAST 85% more recoil than AR-15 platforms (Newton's third law gives us this conclusion). I don't have the skills to properly add variables previously mentioned, but the AR-15 is built to channel all recoil straight backwards into the shoulder, not affecting recoil, but theoretically eliminating muzzle climb. AFAIK, the G3A3 is not built upon such properties.

i will never understand why some of you sit on forums and make stuff up.

1. the g3 is a bit heavier than an ar rifle.
2. practice with the g3 makes the user control the rifle better.
3. the stock is pretty aligned with the barrel, so to me the energy should travel straight back.

[=]H[=[Amish]Kommando]

Originally Posted by waldo_ii

Lets do a little bit of math here. We won't take into account the other variables that affect muzzle climb/recoil (like the AR-15's straight-Z-axis-recoil design).


63 gr. 5.56x45mm NATO will contain 1,796 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

147 gr. 7.62x51mm NATO will contain 3,352 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

The G3 should have at LEAST 85% more recoil than AR-15 platforms (Newton's third law gives us this conclusion). I don't have the skills to properly add variables previously mentioned, but the AR-15 is built to channel all recoil straight backwards into the shoulder, not affecting recoil, but theoretically eliminating muzzle climb. AFAIK, the G3A3 is not built upon such properties.

The G3 employs a roller-delayed blowback system - its recoil is actually very manageable. During my time in the Bundeswehr I probably fired it a thousand times or more (with live ammo).

[Indian_Clay]

Originally Posted by waldo_ii

Lets do a little bit of math here. We won't take into account the other variables that affect muzzle climb/recoil (like the AR-15's straight-Z-axis-recoil design).


63 gr. 5.56x45mm NATO will contain 1,796 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

147 gr. 7.62x51mm NATO will contain 3,352 Jules of energy at the muzzle.

The G3 should have at LEAST 85% more recoil than AR-15 platforms (Newton's third law gives us this conclusion). I don't have the skills to properly add variables previously mentioned, but the AR-15 is built to channel all recoil straight backwards into the shoulder, not affecting recoil, but theoretically eliminating muzzle climb. AFAIK, the G3A3 is not built upon such properties.

It's basic physics.

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

Therefore, there should definately be a higher recoil on the G3 than the the M16.

This topic has been brought up so many times. I think the G3's recoil is fine.

[DankE_SPB]

i think you forgot about muzzle breaks in your estimations(or its "other variables"?)
surely its recoil should be higher, but not like you shoot half clip on auto and start looking into sky i guess AK-47 has nearly same bullet energy and its recoil ingame is great

[nedlands1]

The muzzle climb might be quite high compared to real life however in real life you counteract the recoil using your body. In-game you do it with your mouse.