Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Posts: 548

Date of registration
: Dec 24th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

21

Monday, October 17th 2016, 9:47am

It's perhaps a bit misplaced among all the technical talk here, but I'd just like to point out wherever possible that the Autoloading 8 Extended .25 is HIGHLY anachronistic in Battlefield 1. Remington Model 8 rifles weren't even converted to using detachable magazines until 1929, over a decade after WW1 ended. Thus, every Remington Model 8 that existed during WW1 would have had a non-detachable 5-round magazine, or a 4-round magazine for the .35 Remington variant (which DICE also got incorrect, albeit being a more minor mistake).

Sauce: The Great Model 8 & 81 ? Police Model 8 and Model 81’s

Posts: 3,639

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

22

Monday, October 17th 2016, 9:53am

or a 4-round magazine for the .35 Remington variant (which DICE also got incorrect, albeit being a more minor mistake).


I'll take a look at the long mag later, but a quick search doesn't come up with any sign of the .35 being four rounds, everything says five.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 548

Date of registration
: Dec 24th 2011

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

23

Monday, October 17th 2016, 10:09am

"The Great Model 8 & 81" website is the most reputable site about the rifle family on the internet. According to them, the .35 Remington version does indeed have a 4-round magazine.

The Great Model 8 & 81 ? The Great Model 8

Of course, in game, a semi-automatic rifle with a 5-round magazine already isn't all-that-attractive. Thus, a 4-round magazine would be quite laughable. Of course, DICE can really just rename it to "Autoloading 8 .32" (.32 Remington) to offset the issue.

EDIT: That may actually be incorrect, regarding the magazine capacity of the .35 Remington version. I've just watched a video where the rifle clearly holds five rounds in its magazine. Then again, the site may have been referring to the stripper clip capacity (due to the wording), which would be quite odd to have a 4-round stripper clip for a 5-round magazine.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "CReaperDorian" (Oct 17th 2016, 10:18am)


Posts: 4,259

Date of registration
: Apr 6th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: From the heart of Europe.

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

24

Monday, October 17th 2016, 11:42am

Might wanna tell these guys that their gun is broken: Remington Model 8 - YouTube
[Aristocrat's Shoes]
TLDR -
Teamwork is where players function by themselves, but their effectiveness is multiplied when they work together. Not a checklist of "did we bring a healer so we can start playing?"

Posts: 582

Date of registration
: Sep 3rd 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

25

Monday, October 17th 2016, 1:35pm

Can someone enlighten me as to what the raison d'Ítre of the Autoloading .8 (non-extended variants) is? With only 5 bullets in the magazine, a weak muzzle velocity and a 4 shot kill at range, it doesn't seem to offer much beyond an exercise in frustration.

I get that the fire rate is really good, but that just means you'll be blowing your load faster and at range you'll have to land nearly all of your shots in the magazine in order to kill someone.

Posts: 4,259

Date of registration
: Apr 6th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: From the heart of Europe.

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

26

Monday, October 17th 2016, 1:39pm

burst DPS and HYPE
[Aristocrat's Shoes]
TLDR -
Teamwork is where players function by themselves, but their effectiveness is multiplied when they work together. Not a checklist of "did we bring a healer so we can start playing?"

Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,327)

Posts: 1,531

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

27

Monday, October 17th 2016, 1:49pm

Can someone enlighten me as to what the raison d'Ítre of the Autoloading .8 (non-extended variants) is? With only 5 bullets in the magazine, a weak muzzle velocity and a 4 shot kill at range, it doesn't seem to offer much beyond an exercise in frustration.

I get that the fire rate is really good, but that just means you'll be blowing your load faster and at range you'll have to land nearly all of your shots in the magazine in order to kill someone.

Don't use them at range then.

They are the best CQB SLRs whilst, unlike the extended variant, retaining long range potential.
something something Model 8 bestgun


How to ice an A-91

Next, wanna try adding a guy that you KNOW is bad, and just testing to see that? Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

PP-2000 added. Y'know, it's not that bad....

Yes, it comes in last so far, but that is mostly because I'm making it shoot at 100m ADS - Not Moving as one of the criteria. Even then, between 50-100m Not Moving, when you include Useability, it is only 1.37% worse than the MTAR-21. Within 50m then it even beats the A-91.

Have a look, vs. the A-91 Carbine:




Using it with Muzzle Brake and Compensator is a wash in terms of overall performance. Comp is SLIGHTLY more accurate, while MB is SLIGHTLY more easy to use. Their overall scores are basically tied, with MB just ahead. I guess either can be recommended.

But... You can't be counting for the fact that it takes 9 bullets to kill at "long" range... Don't you dare tell me my A-91 is worse than a 9 BTK 650 RPM mediocre PDW.

Also. Just go heavy barrel. The recoil is low enough.

Well, technically...

Comparing a PP2K with HB and an A-91 with comp and stubby (as you suggested in an earlier post), at 50m not moving, the A-91 is only better by 4 damage per hitrate. While at 75m and 100m, surprisingly the PP2K does better than the A-91 (I'm pretty damn surprised as well).

And 10m and 50m moving the PP2K also does more damage per hitrate than the A-91. At 25m the A-91 is only better by about half a bullet's damage as well.

In addition, the PP2K has a much larger mag size and substantially less recoil. And it looks hella awesome. So comparing the A-91 to a PDW is of some worth after all, as the PP2K is better (technically, not practically) than the A-91.

Mind blown.

I... I...

*cries in a corner*

Zer0Cod3x explained it very well. If you look at the raw numbers right here on Symthic Comparison, you can see how that happened:

A-91 vs PP-2000 | BF4 Weapon Comparison | Symthic

A-91's "23%" RPM advantage only afforded it 1 extra round.

Reload times are wash.

Velocities are wash.

V-Recoil are wash (and this is HBar on PP2k vs. A-91 without).

Hipfire and ADS - Moving are better on the PP2k, but it's a PDW and not the surprising part.

The surprising part is that, as equipped (and we see above that PP2k HBar has almost same V-Recoil as A-91 without HBar so why not?), the PDW performs better at 50 - 100m than a bloody Carbine. Why?

H-Recoil Spread, 0.525 vs. 0.45, advantage PP2k.

SIPS, 42% better on the PP2k.

And here is the most important part. ADS - Not Moving Spread, 0.35 vs. 0.2, 43% improvement.

Without HBar then of course the PP2k loses, which is why when I add all the attachments together for an Overall Ranking, it would slot below the A-91. Run HBar on it, though, then... I'm sorry

@Veritable
@Zer0Cod3x
I... I...
But...
Wha...
I AM HAVING AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE OF YOU TWO.

FUCK YOU NERDS AND YOUR FANCY NUMBERS

SEXY RUSSIAN BULLPUPS FTW.

In all seriousness, thank you both so much for giving me the numbers. I still don't want to accept them. You have led the horse to water. I still need to drink.


Posts: 1,535

Date of registration
: Sep 7th 2016

Platform: PC

Location: Toronto

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

28

Monday, October 17th 2016, 2:15pm

One can only kill a single enemy with full health via shots to the body from the 5 rounds total of the Autoloading 8 .35 though assuming you have an accuracy of 60%. If you are intending to use the weapon mostly in close quarters, you might as well take the Autoloading 8 .25 Extended with 16 rounds instead since it takes the same number of bullets to kill under 17 metres. Besides, the magazine capacity advantage of many other guns within the same class is just way too big to ignore here, as the Mondragon and the Selbstlader M1916 would be far more useful in a variety of engagements.

Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,327)

Posts: 1,531

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

29

Monday, October 17th 2016, 2:36pm

One can only kill a single enemy with full health via shots to the body from the 5 rounds total of the Autoloading 8 .35 though assuming you have an accuracy of 60%.

But let's assume that you do have that accuracy, and can click at the optimal timings to maximise RoF.

You would be using the 8 .25 (and the Luger), because there's not much reason to choose anything else. Sure, if you want to be able to kill more than one target without reloading, you'd probably go with the Cei-Rigotti or Mondragon, but if you want pure 1v1 potential, you might as well choose the 8 .25 for engagements under 47 m, and the Luger for engagements over 47 m.

Also, if you can land headshots, there's even more incentive to use the 8 .25 and Luger.
something something Model 8 bestgun


How to ice an A-91

Next, wanna try adding a guy that you KNOW is bad, and just testing to see that? Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

PP-2000 added. Y'know, it's not that bad....

Yes, it comes in last so far, but that is mostly because I'm making it shoot at 100m ADS - Not Moving as one of the criteria. Even then, between 50-100m Not Moving, when you include Useability, it is only 1.37% worse than the MTAR-21. Within 50m then it even beats the A-91.

Have a look, vs. the A-91 Carbine:




Using it with Muzzle Brake and Compensator is a wash in terms of overall performance. Comp is SLIGHTLY more accurate, while MB is SLIGHTLY more easy to use. Their overall scores are basically tied, with MB just ahead. I guess either can be recommended.

But... You can't be counting for the fact that it takes 9 bullets to kill at "long" range... Don't you dare tell me my A-91 is worse than a 9 BTK 650 RPM mediocre PDW.

Also. Just go heavy barrel. The recoil is low enough.

Well, technically...

Comparing a PP2K with HB and an A-91 with comp and stubby (as you suggested in an earlier post), at 50m not moving, the A-91 is only better by 4 damage per hitrate. While at 75m and 100m, surprisingly the PP2K does better than the A-91 (I'm pretty damn surprised as well).

And 10m and 50m moving the PP2K also does more damage per hitrate than the A-91. At 25m the A-91 is only better by about half a bullet's damage as well.

In addition, the PP2K has a much larger mag size and substantially less recoil. And it looks hella awesome. So comparing the A-91 to a PDW is of some worth after all, as the PP2K is better (technically, not practically) than the A-91.

Mind blown.

I... I...

*cries in a corner*

Zer0Cod3x explained it very well. If you look at the raw numbers right here on Symthic Comparison, you can see how that happened:

A-91 vs PP-2000 | BF4 Weapon Comparison | Symthic

A-91's "23%" RPM advantage only afforded it 1 extra round.

Reload times are wash.

Velocities are wash.

V-Recoil are wash (and this is HBar on PP2k vs. A-91 without).

Hipfire and ADS - Moving are better on the PP2k, but it's a PDW and not the surprising part.

The surprising part is that, as equipped (and we see above that PP2k HBar has almost same V-Recoil as A-91 without HBar so why not?), the PDW performs better at 50 - 100m than a bloody Carbine. Why?

H-Recoil Spread, 0.525 vs. 0.45, advantage PP2k.

SIPS, 42% better on the PP2k.

And here is the most important part. ADS - Not Moving Spread, 0.35 vs. 0.2, 43% improvement.

Without HBar then of course the PP2k loses, which is why when I add all the attachments together for an Overall Ranking, it would slot below the A-91. Run HBar on it, though, then... I'm sorry

@Veritable
@Zer0Cod3x
I... I...
But...
Wha...
I AM HAVING AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE OF YOU TWO.

FUCK YOU NERDS AND YOUR FANCY NUMBERS

SEXY RUSSIAN BULLPUPS FTW.

In all seriousness, thank you both so much for giving me the numbers. I still don't want to accept them. You have led the horse to water. I still need to drink.


Posts: 582

Date of registration
: Sep 3rd 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

30

Monday, October 17th 2016, 2:37pm

Don't use them at range then.

They are the best CQB SLRs whilst, unlike the extended variant, retaining long range potential.
Don't use them at range? If so, I'd rather use the Cei-Rigotti with double the magazine size and only a small hit to its RPM. Or the M1907 with quadruple the ammo capacity and still only 60 RPM less.

Sure, it has a niche as "Best RPM in class", but that niche isn't near enough to save it from its absolutely atrocious (albeit authentic) magazine size. People already shy away from bolt action rifles with only 5 rounds in the magazine (recall the shit storm over the M40 ammo reduction in BF4), why would an SLR fare any better?