5.56 damage output

[The Dad]

Why is it so bad?

[PepperBelly]

Good question.

The entire damage model and body armor system needs to be completely reworked. It bothers me how after all this time, this is still an issue.

[The Dad]

Originally posted by PepperBelly:

Good question.

The entire damage model and body armor system needs to be completely reworked. It bothers me how after all this time, this is still an issue.

yea I don't understand why is it like this as 5.56 is standard issue for most NATO Ars

[NathaN]

lol theres another thread about 5.56 being way overpowered

[Azrad Al'Azif]

Some guys pick the smallest caliber, shoot at an amored guy and got difficulties to kill him.
Then they come here and demand a body armor rework. Seriously?

[The Dad]

Originally posted by Azrad Al'Azif:

Some guys pick the smallest caliber, shoot at an amored guy and got difficulties to kill him.
Then they come here and demand a body armor rework. Seriously?

Smallest caliber.... son do you even rifle.

[The Dad]

Originally posted by NathaN:

lol theres another thread about 5.56 being way overpowered

Really? link pls

[Hoxer]

The question is not why NATO uses 5.56, the question is why BIS does. The reason NATO uses peas like this is because NATO wants to incapacitate the enemy before killing him.

In Arma though you'd just like to kill your enemy.

[Azrad Al'Azif]

Originally posted by Nickolas the Clown (Jared 160th):

Originally posted by Azrad Al'Azif:

Some guys pick the smallest caliber, shoot at an amored guy and got difficulties to kill him.
Then they come here and demand a body armor rework. Seriously?

Smallest caliber.... son do you even rifle.

Sorry. I thought 5.56 was the smallest rifle caliber in Arma 3.

[Outlaw187]

Bad? You know how easy it is to stay on target with a 5.56? If you can't get a kill with it practice more. EZ

[[AUT] Rurdo]

All nubs.

Every weapon has its Pros and Cons.
It depends on how the rest of the team is equipped, what you are planning to do and the range you are shooting at. You should at least practice with Katiba and some Mid-far shooting rifle.

[PepperBelly]

Originally posted by OutlawX187:

Bad? You know how easy it is to stay on target with a 5.56? If you can't get a kill with it practice more. EZ

Has nothing to do with being bad. 5.56 simply isn't represented very well. I shouldn't need to put a dozen rounds center mass for it to finally drop the guy. It's even worse when the enemy returns accurate fire immediately after flinching and absorbing rounds. Makes no sense.

The fact is, the way armor is done in this game isn't entirely accurate, and with the odd hitboxes and damage model, gives this sense of bullet spongy-ness. It basically goes with the idea that the bigger the round, the fewer shots needed to kill, when in all actuality, shot placement dictates quick and efficient kills.

[The Dad]

Originally posted by AUT Rurdo:

All nubs.

Every weapon has its Pros and Cons.
It depends on how the rest of the team is equipped, what you are planning to do and the range you are shooting at. You should at least practice with Katiba and some Mid-far shooting rifle.

Play KOTH put rounds down range at target, hit target, Target turns and hits me once with Navid 9.3 while running..... GG

[SgtNickFury]

All this kills were done with this rifle, SPAR-16.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=723019674
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=705299448
No problem with headshots, or three to the right part of their body for a kill. You just need some more marksmanship training, to increase your skill with it.

[Vitdom]

In reality 5.56 mm caliber rifles are superior to 7.62 mm in the way that it wounds the enemy without killing them so often. This will cause an opponent to care for their wounded rather than fight you. In a macro and post-conflict analysis, this will also bring increased health-care and support costs upon the opposing nation in the long-term. 5.56 mm weapons act as a deterrent in large deployments, while 6.5 / 7.62 mm and above are more effective in neutralizing foes but the weapons are heavier. A national-defense military organization would benefit a lot on using 5.56 mm in conventional warfare, although must resort to higher calibers in certain situations too. But that requires purchasing many different types of rifles, which increase the costs.

[El Berl]

Originally posted by Vitdom:

In reality 5.56 mm caliber rifles are superior to 7.62 mm in the way that it wounds the enemy without killing them so often. This will cause an opponent to care for their wounded rather than fight you. In a macro and post-conflict analysis, this will also bring increased health-care and support costs upon the opposing nation in the long-term. 5.56 mm weapons act as a deterrent in large deployments, while 6.5 / 7.62 mm and above are more effective in neutralizing foes but the weapons are heavier. A national-defense military organization would benefit a lot on using 5.56 mm in conventional warfare, although must resort to higher calibers in certain situations too. But that requires purchasing many different types of rifles, which increase the costs.

This is fully incorrect, and does not consider the myriad different cartridges that exist in the two calibers. A well-designed load in 5.56x45mm, like the 75-grain TAP or some 72-90 grain PRL sintered tungsten projectiles, will be significantly more lethal than a non-expanding, non-fragmenting 7.62x51mm. However, if both calibers' entries follow similar design concepts, the 7.62x51mm will generally have an edge due to advantages in muzzle velocity, projectile mass, and energy retention.

Considering that any specific cartridges of 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm, outside of select mods like RHS, Dagger, VETERAN, and SABRE, are generally not present in Arma, one must entertain what rounds Arma actually simulates in the basic simulation. According to my sources, these are the 55-grain M193 for 5.56x45mm, and the lead-core 7.62x51mm M80 Ball. Both of these rounds use a lead core, but M193 is well known for providing excellent fragmentation at higher velocities. M80 is not. This is a wounding mechanism that the 5.56x45mm has, and the 7.62x51mm does not. Ergo, the M193 should, in spite of being less than half the weight of the 7.62x51mm projectile, produce a more destructive wound channel with more room for error with regards to shot placement. This effect would be vastly more pronounced if I were to switch M193 out for an exotic like the 100-grain Black Hills Open-Tip-Match (which is found in SABRE presently as the Grade-10 Match cartridge for 5.56) with a tungsten fragmenting core. This round at closer ranges will dramatically exceed M80 in terms of terminal ballistics, but simply does not have the range (due to low velocity and resulting flatness) to match the 7.62x51mm's ability to reliably dish out damage at several hundred meters. After all, the BH OTM had a maximum range of 200 meters, at most.

The advantage of most 7.62x51mm is that they are more effective than most 5.56x45mm at 400 or 500 or 600 meters. A 5.56x45mm load can easily be more lethal than a less purpose-designed 7.62x51mm load, while the opposite can also be true with different loads in mind.

For a short summary, there is far more nuance in reality than what you have described. For further reading, I recommend consulting the ballistics studies conducted by the FBI in the 1980s, as well as the AR15.com ammo oracle.