@iamnotapro870
Unfortunately I am unable to test what the guns perform like in Sandstorm as I had to refund it due to it being unplayable on my PC. However, I am interested in discussing the realism of the game because I'd like to be able to play it at some point.
However, I would be very disappointed if they took a step back from realism and would probably be glad I refunded it if they started incorporating arbitrary COD arcade balance into the weapons. I always saw Insurgency as an appealing game because of it's uncompromising attempt at simulating real weapons handling and performance. Without that, there's no reason really to choose playing it over other similar games.
I just went into classic Insurgency and tested the vanilla M16 and M249 with 4x optics firing from the crouched position and prone position.
Conclusion? It's a pretty reasonable representation of the two. It might not be perfect, but there's not a lot to obviously complain about. Any complaints would be very minor and nuanced.
With both fired normally through the optics the M249 has a noticeably bigger pattern of dispersion when used in semi-automatic.
Now, there could be two reasons for this.
- It could be a representation of aimsway. There is significantly more aimsway on the M249 than the M16. So maybe what's happening is that you aren't timing your shot at the right point in the aimsway, which throws the shot off a bit. This would be an acceptable mechanic as long as you had the ability to aim true by timing you shot intuitively with the sway. However, if it's just a flat automatic dispersion regardless of your timing, then that is a bad model because it takes control out of the hands and skill of the player.
Is this kind of aimsway realistic? I don't know enough about the M249's handling to be able to comment. There may be reason to believe that the extra mass of a heavier weapon might actually make it sway less, especially if it's balanced properly to not be too front heavy. The only downside of a heavy weapon is that you get tired holding it up, and then maybe over time your aimsway increases due to tiredness rather than the difficulty inherent in holding a heavier weapon steady.
So, in that sense, it may not even be properly realistic for the M249 to be suffering from greater aimsway problems than the M16. Something to consider. But more research or testing of different weapon sizes at a range is needed to determine if that is the case.
- It could be the inherent inaccuracy of the M249 being represented.
Do we have reason to believe the M249 could be inherently less accurate than the M16? Absolutely.
First off, the reason the M249 is being replaced by the M27 in the marines is precisely because the M249 isn't accurate enough at long range to do it's job. It doesn't suppress the enemy because they know it's not accurate enough that long range. The M27 lets them have the accuracy of a rifle but, due to it's design, it's tough enough to handle sustained automatic fire and not break (which the M16 or M4 can't do).
Why is the M249 less accurate?
For one, it fires from an open bolt in order to help with heat dissipation, as opposed to the closed bolt of the M16. An open bolt is always inherently less accurate because of how it moves the gun and therefore effects your aim before the bullet leaves the chamber.
There could also be other nuances about the engineering differences between the gun which make the M249 mechanically less accurate despite the M249 having the same barrel length, the same cartridge, and even having the advantage of a heavier barrel (so you get less distortion of the barrel from the shockwave of the round going off).
It's also possible for the M249 barrel to simply have bad harmonics. Barrels reasonate with the explosive force of each round fired, and that reasonating of the barrel will impact accuracy. This is why precision rifle shooters will add donut weights onto the barrel of their gun and adjust it up or down along the length until they see an improvement in their accuracy. By adding weight at just the right place you establish harmony with the way the barrel reasonates so it stops throwing the bullet off target. I cannot say whether this is the case with the M249, but point this out only to say that there can be a lot going on behind why a gun is less accurate that goes beyond just barrel length and weight.
However, there's something confusing that happens in Insurgency with the M249. When you press shift to focus your aim, the M249 actually will fire tighter groups than the M16 (even from crouching, not just from prone. Prone makes them appear almost the same). Either this must be an oversight of the design, a bug, or the developers are under the impression that the M249 is inherently more accurate than the M16 when aimsway is no longer a problem. Maybe because they think it's a heavier barrel? But we have no reason to believe the M249 should be more accurate than the M16 given what we know about it's combat performance and it's engineering design.
