BF2S Forums M95 Sniper Rifle Needs More Power

The longest confirmed sniper kill in history was done by Master Corporal Arron Perry of Canada while he was working with US forces in Afghanistan in 2002. It was 2.43 Kilometers, (about 1.5 miles,) which broke the record previously held by Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam.

Nurv_Tincup wrote:

[snip]The thing that needs to be adjusted is the scope.  On the game, you have the ability of hitting a target at 100-150 meters tops.  This is a range where a M16 would be adequate. A weapon like the M24sws like I used primarily in the service is a great weapon.  Its a light weapon, however it doesn't have the range of the 50's, it does have loads of power within its range.  Headshots from either of these weapons will drop a man in his tracks.[snip]

My exact point as well. Talking from personal experience as well, even a scoped M4 can hit the mark at 100 yards, while prone and single round shooting. And the SAW as well shoots sorta accurate up to 100 yards, if used in short bursts. But I guess BF2 maps are too small for the M95 to have its effective range made close to reality. If it was allowed to snipe at 1000-2000 yards, it'd be enough to cover even the larger maps in their entireness (= unbalance). Yet, a little more accuracy and a range increase would be most welcome.

But, it does get kinda difficult to explain a headshot...

"oops"

philbymaris wrote:

using the m24 i aim for the head, using the M95 i aim for the neck, i find that that works for me to get a decent headshot going

philbymaris......now 107 using sniper rifle, 300 and something using the sniper kit

I actually do the same, however i rarely use the 95, Kubra damn si about the only map wherein i take that puppy out, I will only use the 95 on extremely long shot at max visability, regardless what anyone says at max range i must aim above the head slightly.

[GDC]SinnFein..now #15 using rifle.

TehSeraphim wrote:

I'd like to add the Army classifies the M95 as an anti-material rifle.  I think my grievance is the scope on this thing.  In RL the gun can engage targets up to a kilometer away, but with the scope you only get maybe 6-700 meters.  But having it do 100 damage would be a little too much...I agree with Tyferra - they should reduce the power of the m24 - it seems ridiculous to me that the two rifles have the same damage

I play mainly a sniper. I use the M24 over the M95 almost exclusively. 1 headshot kills with eiither the M24 or M95, and I believe the same is true for the MEC and PLA sniper rilfes (could someone please tell me if this is correct by the way.) The damage of the M24/M95 should be greater in this game because they are bolt-action rilfes with moderated reload times. The damage of the MEC/PLA sniper rifles should be as it is in this game because they are semi-auto guns. The characteristics of these guns are well balanced IMHO. 2 bodyshots kills with US rifles and 3 for the MEC/PLA rifles. I don't believe that the M95 should have more power (on personnel) because it gives the enemy a chance while encouraging 1 shot 1 kill, which is what I go for. This gives the enemy victim little information on your location. I believe that the M95 should have a more powerful scope and do more damage to Humvees, Helis, and the like. (Maybe 3-4 bars damage for helis if hit in the right spot). I believe that the only reason that the reason that the M95 is in this game is because of its ability to shoot through glass, thin metal, etc. Giving this gun 100 damage would not be a reasonable in a gaming  situation. Don't you think that the developers of this game thougtht of the cons of doing so? After all they gave it 95 damage instead of 100... they must have reasoned their decision somehow.

I think that M95 should be replaced by M24. Have the US sniper rifle defualt be the PSG-1; same stats/usage as the  MEC/PLA sniper rifles.

If they are going to keep the M95, have it do the same damage as the .50 Cal on top of the jeeps; unless im mistaken, its a one hit kill. HOWEVER take the vertical deviation and increase it like 50-fold. when you take a shot with the M95, its as accurate as a regular sniper rifle, that is, 1/2 as accurate as the M24. in addition, when you fire it, your scope winds up being waaaaaaaay off target, forcing you to re-aquire the target.

in short, beef up the M95, as is, its weaker than the M24 (ask any vet sniper on this game; M24 owns the M95) OR basically switch the two and weaken the M95 (or make it a different weapon)

Whoever started this thread and whoever agrees with him is a MORON. You might as well ask to make jets harder to shoot down. Delete this retarded thread and complain about something worthwhile. There is nothing wrong with the M95. LEAVE IT ALONE!

kilroy0097 wrote:

blacksheepcannibal wrote:

I think that M95 should be replaced by M24. Have the US sniper rifle defualt be the PSG-1; same stats/usage as the  MEC/PLA sniper rifles.

If they are going to keep the M95, have it do the same damage as the .50 Cal on top of the jeeps; unless im mistaken, its a one hit kill. HOWEVER take the vertical deviation and increase it like 50-fold. when you take a shot with the M95, its as accurate as a regular sniper rifle, that is, 1/2 as accurate as the M24. in addition, when you fire it, your scope winds up being waaaaaaaay off target, forcing you to re-aquire the target.

in short, beef up the M95, as is, its weaker than the M24 (ask any vet sniper on this game; M24 owns the M95) OR basically switch the two and weaken the M95 (or make it a different weapon)

You have a point here. Give the USMC a default sniper rifle that is like you said PSG-1 like in firing.

Then make the M-24 the 1st tier Unlock.

Make the M-95 the 2nd tier Unlock. Increase it's range, it's damage, allow for through vehicle hits. Give it a two zoom scope for near and far targets to demonstrate increased shot range. Give it less ammo and make it harder for the Sniper to sprint. Give it a very loud and distinctive shot audio that everyone can easily pick out.

No, not at all. I don't think that he has a valid point. The reload time for a second shot is already long enough for an M24, switching to a PSG-1 would not be right, that is if the PSG-1 is bolt action. To be honest I am not familiar with this gun and have no idea of its characteristics. If it is bolt action then I couldn't disagree with you more. The damage done by the M24 off-sets the fact that it has such a long (still shorter than the M95 it seems) reload time. Remember, one body shot does not kill, thus encouraging a headshot. This is the art of sniping and if you can't get a headshot or are worried about a weak gun, DON'T SNIPE. Plain and simple. What you and anyone else that agrees with are suggesting is completely idiotic. You should recognize that the game was create with a mindset that there are pros and cons to the weapons and kits for each army. What you and he are suggestion are not rational. If this were done think of what would follow.
     The default assault and medic kit main weapon (M16A2) for the USMC would need to be switched (since it is not fully automatic like its counterpart, the AK-47). The anti tank/engineer main gun of USMC/PLA would need to be switched to match the 45 round mag and semiauto capability of MEC kits respectively. Support weapons of the MEC/PLA would need to be switched because they don't have a magazine the size of the SAW.
The helicopters of their respective classes: attack/transport would need to be changed so that they all fly the same way and have the same weaponry. Afterall the USMC transport heli is dominant since it has twin mounted miniguns instead of dual 50. cals. After reading all of this I hope that you can see that there is supposed to be a VARIETY of weaponry in this game. It is up to you to chose which kit you want to play. If you don't like the USMC sniper kit, simply don't use it. Furthermore, don't complain that it is too powerful. I believe that I have clearly stated and proved above that different armys have different kits with different weapons with different pros and different cons. I hope that you noticed my over use of the word "different" in the last sentence to drive my point home. You probably want to change the armys' skins too because the don't wear the same camo right? In closing, think before you speak.

I donot believe they should change the 95 at'll....its an AMR first sniper second...period.

I do strongly feel ea SHOULD make actually hitting the targets more challenging.

I'm gonna do to this thread what I did to the "there is no such thing as bunny hopping" thread.

Blah blah blah, needs more power, blah blah blah, not realistic.

If you want realism, play Americas Army - it's free to download and play.  The rifles are heavy and you can't run very fast with them, you run slower when you're wounded, you bleed to death if you don't get healed by a medic, and you don't come back to life.

Battlefield 2 is for fun, and although there are realistic aspects to the game, the overall feel is that of one that is unrealistic - shock paddles don't heal bullet riddled bodies.  If the m95 were realistic, if any of you shot someone in the game, realistically you would be put in prison for violating the geneva convention. 

This topic has now passed away.  Time of death, 2:25 PM EST.  Cause of death - beaten to death.  Thank you.

bs6749 wrote:

TehSeraphim wrote:

I'm gonna do to this thread what I did to the "there is no such thing as bunny hopping" thread.

Blah blah blah, needs more power, blah blah blah, not realistic.

If you want realism, play Americas Army - it's free to download and play.  The rifles are heavy and you can't run very fast with them, you run slower when you're wounded, you bleed to death if you don't get healed by a medic, and you don't come back to life.

Battlefield 2 is for fun, and although there are realistic aspects to the game, the overall feel is that of one that is unrealistic - shock paddles don't heal bullet riddled bodies.  If the m95 were realistic, if any of you shot someone in the game, realistically you would be put in prison for violating the geneva convention. 

This topic has now passed away.  Time of death, 2:25 PM EST.  Cause of death - beaten to death.  Thank you.

You obviously didn't read the earlier post where an actual member of the armed forces stated that it is not against the GC to shoot people with 50.cal ammo as he and his buddies do it all the time to prevent mortar attacks. If it were, he and his buddies would be prosecuted. Where did you come up with this idea that it is illegal? After all what are the .50 cals mounted on humvees for as he pointed out? To take out tanks? I don't think so. Trucks and such? Most likely. And what are the chances that a bullet from this gun will not hit a person inside when these trucks and such are shot at? Do you think the gunner is thinking "I can't aim for the driver of the truck because of the GC, so I had better take out the engine and hope that my scuad members outside the humvee are able to take out the three dudes in the back of the truck that are holding RPG's." BULLSHIT. Don't try to convince me and everyone else on hear that you know something about the GC. And as far as I am concerned this post is not dead, but waiting to respawn. 15...14...13...

Dobbs773:  Clear!

Dobbs773:  You'll live buddy, now get back in the fight!

Thanks BS6749....  I'm headin' to Iraq in January.  Gonna go break some more GC laws!

ghostgr wrote:

#1 It is against international law (geneva convention) to shoot any human at all with a 50 rifle unless through armor or walls.

#2 I totally agree with you! needs more power! WAY too weak for a 50 cal I shot one before and they gots lots and lots and lots and lots and etc. power.

WTF, do you really think that it is forbidden to shoot with a M82 Barret .50 on humans, if someone uses it is it war and allot of SEALs use that gun to blow someones head of.