M14 handling is terrible

[Walter White]

Compare it to the L1A1 and M1 garand. The m14 feels like it wants to punch you in the nose after each shot. Maybe its the awkward ironsights or the visual recoil, but compare it to the other battle rifles and youll see that its way behind. Follow up shots on moving targets are impossible.

The gun seriously needs less horizontal recoil. Vertifical recoil is ok, it could be lighter but the main issue is how much the sights rock to the left or right after each shot. Considering how the other big boi rifles handle much better, the m14 needs love. Especially since m14s are probably going to be standard issue for the first 3 years in campaign mode. (in game description says m16a1 was adopted in 68, while campaign starts in 65)

[Tunalemon]

Originally posted by Bill Clinton:

Compare it to the L1A1 and M1 garand. The m14 feels like it wants to punch you in the nose after each shot. Maybe its the awkward ironsights or the visual recoil, but compare it to the other battle rifles and youll see that its way behind. Follow up shots on moving targets are impossible.

While i'm not sure what drawbacks the L1A1 presents versus the M14, the M1 Garand only holds 8 rounds, versus the M14s twenty.
That said, personally i have no problems with the M14's recoil ingame, i think it's mild at worst.

[Tracy]

I love the M14 to death. To the point that it's the rifle I have the most kills with, having ignored the M16A1 for ages. I'm actually kind of indifferent to the L1A1, which I've had worser luck with. Sometimes I'll need to hit a guy three times with the L1A1, when with the M14 it's just 1.

Whilst I'm not so sure about the M1 garand's recoil being better, L1A1's better recoil makes sense because the way its layed out.

Also the M16A1 was adopted in 1968, yet the M16 and XM16E1 were both in use by the US Army and Marines prior. The M16 being the one with the jamming problems and so on. In which case, we may see an M16 but it limited in accessiblity, much like how the ARVN have M16A1s.

[Big Duke]

i love the M14 in game

[Emphyrio]

The recoil on the L1A1 feels way worse to me. M14 doesn't feel unmanageable.

[Walter White]

Originally posted by FsLemonificent:

Originally posted by Bill Clinton:

Compare it to the L1A1 and M1 garand. The m14 feels like it wants to punch you in the nose after each shot. Maybe its the awkward ironsights or the visual recoil, but compare it to the other battle rifles and youll see that its way behind. Follow up shots on moving targets are impossible.

While i'm not sure what drawbacks the L1A1 presents versus the M14, the M1 Garand only holds 8 rounds, versus the M14s twenty.
That said, personally i have no problems with the M14's recoil ingame, i think it's mild at worst.

The L1A1 doesnt really have any downsides compared to the m14, its balanced by the AUS faction as a whole by limiting the close range automatic capabilities of their riflemen.

Garand is just a straight upgrade though. Less recoil horizontally and vertically. M14 definetly has much higher recoil, its noticable if you play a US map and then play ARVN or AUS afterwards.

Originally posted by Kate Micucci:

The recoil on the L1A1 feels way worse to me. M14 doesn't feel unmanageable.

In some ways it is. The L1A1 seems to have more vertical recoil while the M14 has more horizontal recoil. Still, the L1 is better overall because vertical recoil is the bad type while horizontal recoil is the VERY bad type, as vertical kick can be consistently accounted for with enough practice. Ironsights are also clearer on the L1 too because theyre thinner at the tip.

[Rei]

To me, the Garand is only more aesthetically pleasing. The M14 is a great gun, but I feel the opposite way of you, the L1A1 to me feels really weird to use. It feels like a heavy gun you're carrying, but it has quite the kick to it when you fire. Of course, it's much better than it was in the ANZAC CTB (bad memories man) but it still just feels off somehow.

[Big Duke]

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

To me, the Garand is only more aesthetically pleasing. The M14 is a great gun, but I feel the opposite way of you, the L1A1 to me feels really weird to use. It feels like a heavy gun you're carrying, but it has quite the kick to it when you fire. Of course, it's much better than it was in the ANZAC CTB (bad memories man) but it still just feels off somehow.

the FAL feels a bid odd.

[Walter White]

Originally posted by X-BigDukeSix:

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

To me, the Garand is only more aesthetically pleasing. The M14 is a great gun, but I feel the opposite way of you, the L1A1 to me feels really weird to use. It feels like a heavy gun you're carrying, but it has quite the kick to it when you fire. Of course, it's much better than it was in the ANZAC CTB (bad memories man) but it still just feels off somehow.

the FAL feels a bid odd.

Part of it is how the recoil is represented. You can see this in the shooting range, the FAL recoil moves the front sight up by quite a bit but the rear sight barely moves. With the m14, the recoil has a stronger visual effect because the rear sight kicks up by quite a bit as well.

Its part of the reason why the FAL is a lot better when you get used to it because it doesnt throw off your sight picture by having the rear sight bouncing around. But its also deceptively low looking since youd expect the rear sight to move too.