so just throwing this out there after a quick look, but i'm wondering if the heavy barrel changes now favor the use of the compensator over the heavy barrel for carbines with a higher horizontal recoil. as an example, the heavy barreled M4 and M16A4 now have basically identical moving ADS spreads with the heavy barrel (.4675 vs. .46
. however, the non-heavy barrel M4 with ergo has a moving spread of .55, while the M16A4 has a much higher moving spread of .6 with the ergo.
effectively, the bonus to aimed accuracy for the heavy barrel is about .09 degrees of spread for the M4, but .12 for the M16A4. assuming that recoil is uniform (for simplicity), the effective bonus to horizontal deviation for the second and third rounds using the compensator on the M4 is now about .0675, though the bonus to worst-case behavior is actually about .1 degrees. while there is a spread penalty and the first shot is less accurate, the compensator is very close in terms of efficiency on the second and third round to the heavy barrel for moving fire. this is even more pronounced if the moving spread is still effectively halved due to ADS speed, meaning the bonus to moving ADS spread is really only about .045 from the heavy barrel. therefore, it seems like compensators may be a better choice for some carbines since they aren't much good outside 40m, derive much of their benefit from moving accuracy, and the compensator helps hipfire as well as aimed fire. with assault rifles, however, the heavy barrel looks to be the even more dominant choice for the majority of them.
am i missing something here? i am not sure how the new .67 multiplier interacts with the other multipliers for determining moving accuracy, but if it's the same way that it seems to have always been i think my numbers are on. if i'm incorrect please let me know.