Buyer beware - new AR 10 ammo stats are either bugged or a lie...

[Ezz777]

So i did some testing in line with flinter's 4-8 rifle testing... https://youtu.be/MB61-0U00gU

And became very obvious pretty quickly is that the ammo stats are either wrong or deliberately inflated.

Some backstory - the discussion around the new 0.308 has been going all over the place (should it be better or worse than the 30-06 yada yada - not really what this is about). One facet which had me curious was the published poly ammo stats being 42 pen - 13 exp (c.f. 40-11 for the M1 and 42-14 for the 0.300). The expectation therefore would be that the 0.308 would perform much closer to the 0.300 than it would to the M1 however this is simply not the case. Unless of course there are hidden stats or there is a bug...

I repeated the testing as close as i could to flinter's methodology (75m double lung on female browns) and what quickly became apparent was that the 0.308 and M1 were performing almost the same, while the 0.300 was in another league. If we looked at just the class ranges this would be expected, however as mentioned earlier, if we looked at the ammo stats in game we'd expect the 0.308 to be almost on par with the 0.300 - NOT the M1.

For those curious i can post screen shots of each harvest but the averages were 63.89 QK (n=3) for the M1, 66.48 (n=4) for the 0.308 and 100 (n=2 - i didn't see the point in testing further) for the 0.300.

The main take home to me is firstly that you shouldn't expect the new 'meta' rifle to be leagues ahead of your existing 4-8 rifle as its stats would imply - eg vs M1 or 0.303 (not tested but assumed to perform similarly). In other words don't believe the ammo stats that we are shown in game. There is clearly something else going on here. Hidden stats or a bug, hopefully everyone can make a better judgment on whether they want the new weapons pack as a result.

Happy hunting!

[Ezz777]

Did an extra test with the 454 as that didn't seem to be performing as per its ammo (100 pen 23 exp). You'd expect it to drop things faster than the above set of rifles but nope - around 75% QK. So marginally faster than the two 4-8 rifles but notably slower than the 0.300 (only 14 expansion).

[Ninjafroggie]

ammo stats dont take into account some things that really do matter, like muzzle velocity. The stats only account for how good the bullet is at pen and expansion, but how hard it actually hits is HIGHLY influenced by things like range, muzzle velocity, velocity drop-off, etc. Try using the .50 caplock with miniball, which has godly ammo stats, at 75m vs a bear. Then try again at 200m. You'll notice a WORLD of difference. At 75m a miniball will drop a bear on the spot, but at 200m it'll run a good long while before dying, or you may even fail the pen deep enough to get a vital at all, assuming you even hit. The penetration stat determines how good the round is at cutting into flesh and punching through bone, while the expansion stat describes how wide of a wound channel it makes. The stats of the ammo ONLY describe how the ammo performs against flesh and bone when it hits, it does NOT account for the energy behind the hit, which makes a HUGE difference in what the round actually does to the target animal.

The .454 pistol round suffers from the same problem as the miniball, it has SEVERE drop-off in effect at longer ranges due to the round's shape and muzzle velocity. Try using that .454 at 25m and you'll see a huge difference.

Now, with the new .308, even though the stats say it's almost the same as the .300, keep in mind that the AR fires an intermediate round and the .300 is a magnum round, meaning way more powder, and thus shot velocity, behind the bullet...which is why, despite the rounds having similar size and stats, one is rated 4-8 and the other 7-9. If both rounds are just as good as the other at cutting through flesh (the pentration stat), but one is going way faster AND making a wider wound channel, then of course that round is going to go deeper and do a ton more damage, simply because it's carrying more energy behind it when it hits. Heck, the stats say the 6.5mm is basically worthless, because even though it has great pen, the expansion rating sucks balls, but the 6.5 has EXCELLENT energy retention, so at 400m it actually outperforms some other 4-8 guns with better stats simply because the 'better' rounds have lost too much energy at that range to go much more than skin deep.

TLDR: there's hidden stats that highly affect how ammo performs, and they become especially apparent when targeting animals at the higher end of a round's class range (for example shooting class 7 bears with a 4-8 round), and at longer shot ranges. It's not a bug or a lie

[Ezz777]

Not sure you read the methodology. Tests were done at 75m. Drop in performance clearly should not be happening for the rifles.

And yes the point is that these hidden stats effectively make judging something based on the ammo impossible. As in the case of the 308, those ammo stats are clearly not representative of what happens in game - ie they are bugged or a lie.

To expand on this, hidden stats for balancing are a very poor design. They effectively make the published stats pretty worthless - as had been shown. If that is the intention of the developer then so be it - it means they lied about the capability of the round. If they were not intentional, then again, they must be bugged.

And fwiw the 454 struggles regardless of range. Handgun stats are also effectively a lie. They are simply not comparable with rifle stats. Again likely due to the hidden stats.

The solution is obviously to remove the hidden stats so the published stats make sense, OR publish them so the player knows what he's actually getting.

Also feel free to do a test with the 6.5mm at 400m. Maybe test it against the m1 or 308. Making your test repeatable obviously matters but i'll leave that to you.

[Leadmagnet]

I wonder what and when the .454 changed. The hard cast ammo in the .454 had pretty good performance as long as you could hit vitals and were shooting within effective pistol range. Well...that was before I started over and didn't bother with pistols. What animal were you using for a target and what range?

As far as pistol stats not comparable to rifle stats...they shouldn't be.

[Ninjafroggie]

Originally posted by Anarchist Jurisdictor:

Thanks for confirming what I suspected, which is that the new weapon pack was cosmetic at best and the ARs are ignorable.

meh, this guy's whining aside, the .308 is a REALLY good 4-8. I dont see myself going back to the m1 except when I feel like some variety

[Ezz777]

Originally posted by Leadmagnet:

I wonder what and when the .454 changed. The hard cast ammo in the .454 had pretty good performance as long as you could hit vitals and were shooting within effective pistol range. Well...that was before I started over and didn't bother with pistols. What animal were you using for a target and what range?

As far as pistol stats not comparable to rifle stats...they shouldn't be.

Unclear when the 454 was changed. I didn't do much testing prior to end of 2021. And yeah, pen is superb. The issue is the expansion. In theory it has considerably better expansion than the rifles being tested and therefore should drop things faster - if expansion operates in the way we think it does. The only rather grasping explanation is that somehow they model overpenetration.

As to range, the initial shot was at 75m in line with the rifle testing and i took a second shot at 50m which also failed the 100% QK. Noting at shorter range it achieved slightly better QK however i didn't repeat either so grain of salt on that. Certainly puts the overpenetration theory in doubt.

Originally posted by Anarchist Jurisdictor:

Thanks for confirming what I suspected, which is that the new weapon pack was cosmetic at best and the ARs are ignorable.

Yeah but cosmetically they are nice - subjective of course. I much prefer the scope on the AR10 to the m1 - that just looked crap if you ask me. About the only downside to the AR10 is the iron sights and sound. Not a fan of either and preferred both on the m1. Naturally subjective etc. etc..

Originally posted by Ninjafroggie:

Originally posted by Anarchist Jurisdictor:

Thanks for confirming what I suspected, which is that the new weapon pack was cosmetic at best and the ARs are ignorable.

meh, this guy's whining aside, the .308 is a REALLY good 4-8. I dont see myself going back to the m1 except when I feel like some variety

Yeah and don't get me wrong, it's a great rifle - it just doesn't perform as well as it should if the ammo stats are to be believed.

[Leadmagnet]

You use the hard cast or the hollow point? It's just curiosity on my part really (don't have hard cast unlocked yet). What I remember is the hard cast being really good....but it's been a long time (and a restart) since I've used it (Maybe it has changed or maybe I just aren't remembering things right...I don't know.)

What I have learned is that terminal ballistics aren't modeled really and all of the range, penetration, etc. numbers are all made up. Nothing makes sense as to how the numbers and actual performance work.

I'm still kinda wondering if the .22H was ever tweaked as far as performance. I never bothered getting it because of the crazy pricing for the rifle and ammo.

[Ezz777]

Hard cast.

And fwiw apparently the 22h is pretty good now. I don't have Mississippi so cant give you much from a testing perspective.

[Ezz777]

Originally posted by TheMarcosianOne:

I hope they haven't nerfed the .454 since I last used it but I had no trouble dropping class 5 and up if I shot within 100m. Trying to shoot at longer ranges with it did make a considerable difference though in terms of dropping power.

If you've used it in the last few months, then you'll see no difference. As noted above, i can't speak to what it was years ago.

And further, it still drops things, it's just that it doesn't do so anywhere near as quickly as its ammo stats suggest.

[Ninjafroggie]

Originally posted by Ezz777:

Originally posted by TheMarcosianOne:

I hope they haven't nerfed the .454 since I last used it but I had no trouble dropping class 5 and up if I shot within 100m. Trying to shoot at longer ranges with it did make a considerable difference though in terms of dropping power.

If you've used it in the last few months, then you'll see no difference. As noted above, i can't speak to what it was years ago.

And further, it still drops things, it's just that it doesn't do so anywhere near as quickly as its ammo stats suggest.

it's a pistol bullet. Aside from the fact that all guns struggle to kill things quickly at the upper end of their class range without a heart or brain hit, pistol bullets start with lower muzzle velocity than most rifles and lose velocity much faster, both due to the shape of the bullet and the much lower initial energy.

Think about things this way, imagine shooting someone with a BB gun...it'll hurt, and might break the skin, and it'll definitely leave a nasty welt at least. Now imagine throwing the BB at someone...it won't do squat to them. Now, the BB is still the same size, same shape, still just as good (well, bad really) at breaking the skin, and still makes the same size hole (or welt), but that difference in energy behind the shot is what makes all the difference between someone being mildly annoyed at you and them hopping around in pain. The ability of the BB to cut through flesh (the penetration rating) doesnt change, nor does the width of any wound it makes (the expansion rating). What DOES change is the energy behind the hit, which is what makes all the difference.

The values arent inaccurate or bugged, you just need to remember that those stat values ONLY apply to the shape and width of the bullet itself, they do NOT reflect what the round will actually do to the target, because what the round actually does is HEAVILY dependent on the energy the bullet is carrying when it hits (which is determined by initial muzzle velocity, range, and the mass of the bullet itself) AND on what you're hitting. A BB gun won't seriously hurt a human, but it'll sure as heck kill a squirrel. That's an extreme example, but it shows how the size of the thing being shot matters, and when you're using a round at the upper limit of its abilities and effectiveness you simply arent going to get the same effect as one that's been specifically designed for game that large. Comparing the .308 round at 4-8 against the .300 round at 7-9 on a class 7 animal is an apples to oranges comparison. So is comparing a pistol round to a rifle round. Like I said, the stats for the ammo in game ONLY reflect the round's shape and size, what that round actually does when it hits something is mostly determined by the level of energy behind it, which varies WILDLY between guns, so even ammo with the same or nearly the same stats can perform very differently, especially against game at the upper end of its ratings and/or at longer ranges for the weapon being used.

If you want an actual comparison, you need to test like against like, meaning comparing a 4-8 rifle against other 4-8 rifles at both short(ish) and long ranges. Now, when you look at the stats of the .308 round vs. the stats of the m1 round, you would *expect* the .308 round to *slightly* outperform the m1 at short range, which is EXACTLY what your testing showed. At long range, the two rounds may perform very differently based on round mass and muzzle velocity, which are not given to us in game. That .300 round may be very slightly smaller in diameter (effectively the same size) than the .308 round, and be just as effective at cutting through flesh, but it's packing WAY more muzzle velocity from the much larger powder charge, AND the bullet itself is longer, and thus heavier, than the .308 intermediate round. That means it's packing WAY more energy on impact, which is why it performs so much better, particularly vs larger game, despite having the same stats.

[Ezz777]

You make vague reference to the classes but it's clear you haven't really delved into the stats that are presented in game. It seems you're more trying to apply RL concepts to the game - which while very interesting - is largely irrelevant and not what this is about. We're talking about the game itself.

You see in game each ammo has a figure which pertains to penetration and expansion (as well as other things like effective range etc.). These stats *should* therefore give players an idea of how the various ammo will perform, how it compares, how effective it will be etc..

However as discussed, the game is either using bugged figures or they are a lie due to some hidden stats.

For instance the 0.300 round has 42-14. The 0.308 has 42-13. The m1 has 40-11. These aren't apples nor oranges - just the in game ammo stats. You would expect therefore that the 308 would perform very similarly to the 300 and considerably better than the m1 (14 vs 13 vs 11 - all have the pen for the testing involved). This is pretty straight forward and what *should* happen. However as has been covered, this simply does bear out in game.

Similarly we are presented with handgun ammo with 100-23. Again this should drastically outperform the aforementioned rifle ammo in its ability to take things down quickly. But it simply doesn't. Again pointing to the core of this, that the ammo stats are either bugged or a lie.

[Ninjafroggie]

Originally posted by Ezz777:

You make vague reference to the classes but it's clear you haven't really delved into the stats that are presented in game. It seems you're more trying to apply RL concepts to the game - which while very interesting - is not what this is about. We're talking about the game itself.

You see in game each ammo has a figure which pertains to penetration and expansion (as well as other things like effective range etc.). These stats *should* therefore give players an idea of how the various ammo will perform, how it compares, how effective it will be etc..

However as discussed, the game is either using bugged figures or they are a lie due to some hidden stats.

For instance the 0.300 round has 42-14. The 0.308 has 42-13. The m1 has 40-11. These aren't apples nor oranges - just the in game ammo stats. You would expect therefore that the 308 would perform very similarly to the 300 and considerably better than the m1 (14 vs 13 vs 11 - all have the pen for the testing involved). This is pretty straight forward and what *should* happen. However as has been covered, this simply does bear out in game.

Similarly we are presented with handgun ammo with 100-23. Again this should drastically outperform the aforementioned rifle ammo in its ability to take things down quickly. But it simply doesn't. Again pointing to the core of this, that the ammo stats are either bugged or a lie.

You don't seem to grasp the concept that those stats are NOT about what the bullet does. The only thing those stats tell you is how good the round is at converting impact energy into wound depth (the penetration rating), and how wide a wound channel the round makes along that penetration (the expansion rating). It does not tell you a THING about how much energy the bullet is carrying when it hits at a given range, and that energy on impact is what matters, because the more energy it has, the deeper it'll go. How quickly something dies when hit (assuming same hit location) is determined by a combination of both how deeply the round goes, and how wide the wound is along that depth. Obviously, more of both is better. The stats tell you that the .308 round is just as good at converting energy into depth as the .300 round, and that the .308 makes a slightly smaller hole, but the stats do NOT tell you anything about how much energy the bullet is working with on impact to convert into wound depth. The .300 round packs WAY more energy, and thus performs way better vs larger game, because even though it converts energy into wound depth at the same ratio as the .308 round (that 42 pen rating), it's working with far more energy on impact to do so, and so is going to go much deeper and do way more damage, particularly to larger game. Yes, this information about muzzle velocity and round weight, which are what determines energy, is hidden from the player, but it IS in the game, and it matters a LOT. That's why, even though the pistol round has way better stats than the rifle rounds, it actually performs worse, because it's simply packing far less energy on impact. The values are not wrong, nor are they bugged, it's simply a matter of the stats not meaning what you think they do, or should.

Again, penetration rating is ONLY a measure of how good the round is at converting energy into wound depth, and expansion rating is ONLY a measure of how wide a hole the round makes along that depth. It's the energy on impact that makes the difference in how they perform, and that stat is hidden from us, but it IS there and it is fairly accurate to the real world. It's a simple fact that if two rounds are both just as good at converting energy into depth, then the one packing more energy is going to go deeper, and that means it's going to make a much longer hole that bleeds, thus killing faster. The round with less energy would have to make a WAY wider hole just to match the high energy round for lethality. That's why shotgun slugs are so deadly at short range...they dont have much velocity, but they're REALLY heavy, which means quite a lot of energy, and they make a VERY wide hole. At long range they suck, because they lose a lot of their energy along the way due to slowing down much faster than a rifle bullet, and it doesnt really matter if they make a wide hole if there isnt enough energy to punch much beyond skin deep.

[Ezz777]

Perhaps it wasn't clear enough earlier, but if you start anything with 'but IRL...', then it's not going to be worth discussing. We're talking in game. Not your dad's BB gun.

Anyway we're going in circles here. You agree that the in game stats are not right due to some hidden stats. This is fine. And it completely aligns with the point of this - that the stats presented in game are either bugged or a lie.

The whole point of this was to help people know in advance that despite the 308 ammo looking excellent on paper, comparable to the 0.300 and a notable step up from the m1 - it simply isn't the case. The reason as has been repeated ad nausem at this point, is that they are either bugged or a lie. To determine whether it's a bug or a lie entirely comes down to whether this was intentional on the part of the devs or not.

[Ninjafroggie]

Originally posted by Ezz777:

Perhaps it wasn't clear enough earlier, but if you start anything with 'but IRL...', then it's not going to be worth discussing. We're talking in game. Not your dad's BB gun.

Anyway we're going in circles here. You agree that the in game stats are not right due to some hidden stats. This is fine. And it completely aligns with the point of this - that the stats presented in game are either bugged or a lie.

The whole point of this was to help people know in advance that despite the 308 ammo looking excellent on paper, comparable to the 0.300 and a notable step up from the m1 - it simply isn't the case. The reason as has been repeated ad nausem at this point, is that they are either bugged or a lie. To determine whether it's a bug or a lie entirely comes down to whether this was intentional on the part of the devs or not.

Again, you are simply refusing to acknowledge that the whole pretense of your argument is based on incorrect assumptions about what those stats mean. They are not bugged, and they are not wrong or a lie, they just simply do not tell you the whole story to determine what that round will actually do when it hits something.

Take the .30-06 round for example, the same bullet goes in both the m1 and the bolt action, but they perform differently on impact. The bolt action .30-06 will slightly outperform the m1 vs large game, despite using the exact same bullet, because the gun itself imparts more energy into the round when fired, because the m1 uses part of the firing energy to cycle, whereas the bolt action does not. Nowhere in the game does it tell the player this, but it IS there, and it IS accurate to real world.

The fact that the .300 and .308 have similar stats does NOT mean they will, or even should, perform similarly to each other, because those stats do NOT tell you anything about the energy of the round on hit, and that energy makes an enormous difference in actual effect of the round. It is neither a bug or a lie, it's simply incomplete information, which is only enough info to compare like vs. like, meaning weapons of the same type and class. The stats say the 4-8 round on the .308 should slightly outperform the 4-8 m1, and your testing confirms this to be true. But when you throw in the .300 magnum, a class 7-9, now you're comparing apples to oranges because you're dealing with a whole different level of energy in the round on impact, so even if the stats are similar, the actual performance is WAY different. There's nothing bugged or dishonest about it.

[Ezz777]

Interesting you mention the 30.06. The only test i have seen was of a single shot which as i'm sure you'd appreciate is fairly meaningless. If you've done more testing i'd love to see your data. Suffice to say my testing very quickly showed that QK values can vary considerably even for as close to identical animals as testing allowed. Both the m1 and 308 had over 6% QK ranges (60-66.11 for the M1 and 62.22-68.89 for the 308).

Also, just a tip, going on about how the ammo stats do NOT indicate how something will perform is just reinforcing my point. That's the entire issue to begin with. :)