[CheezeyWeezey (old)]

I'm so glad that someone finally made information like this available. It's really great to be able to compare the guns.

One thing to mention, which is not the fault of taggedzi, is that the accuracy numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. What I mean by this is that better accuracy measurements don't necessarily mean better gun hits in game. For example, the UMP got a very good accuracy rating as well as the Negev. This is because each of these two guns have very controllable spreads. This concept is about to get complicated, so I'll make up a numbering system. We'll call the system "stages of spread"

(these measurements are estimated, and assume a distance of ±20 feet from target without a laser/silencer)
Stage 1: very close grouping (shots within one/two inches of each other - ex. beretta or first two LR300 shots)
Stage 2: pretty close grouping; maybe 5 or so inches apart
Stage 3: average grouping; 8-10 inches
Stage 5: bad grouping; shots over a foot apart
Stage 6: wild groupings; shots very very far apart

Guns like the LR300 or M4 go through these stages of spread fairly quickly when the fire button is depressed for several seconds. However, if the gun is fired in controlled bursts (2-3 shots), the spread remains within Stage 1 and Stage 2. On guns like the UMP or Negev, the shot groupings start out around stage 3, but do not worsen at the same rate that an LR300 or M4 will. If you fire a UMP at a target in controlled bursts, and then an LR300 at a target in controlled bursts, the LR300 will be significantly more accurate.

My point here is that while the numerical accuracy measurements that taggedzi provides are helpful, they can't possibly take into factor the way that a skilled UrT player will fire a gun; in small, controlled bursts.

[haternet (old)]

As someone new to the game, I appreciate the effort.

Of course, I'd prefer it if the devs would release the weapon data. Not code, necessarily, just numbers: damage, ROF, spread, reload time, movement penalty, the effects of attachments, etc. I know I'm not the only one who likes to make informed decisions. Those who disagree might argue that I should inform myself through playtesting, and at one time I'd have agreed with that; but I no longer foster a sense of wonder when I game, so keeping these things a mystery and forcing people like me to speculate -- and people like the OP to attempt more than speculation -- is only annoying to me at this point.

I'm not whining @ the devs, who deserve nothing but <3. But I remember for example in ET when players used to speculate if there were some subtle differences between the Thompson and the MP40. Of course players ran tests like the OP here, and the weapons appeared identical; yet many players shot consistently different accuracies with each. It was great when the devs released the gamecode and we could end the speculation once and for all: the numbers for the two weaps were in fact identical, unlike in RTCW. Differences could finally be attributed to something else (e.g., the added stress/focus that comes with attacking vs defending; or perhaps subtle psychological effects of the different models and/or sounds). The game wasn't made more shallow by these revelations (as some devs might fear) -- it was deepened.

Anyway, I thank the OP, and I hope one day the numbers will be released. I don't think there's any compelling reason to keep them secret. (If they've already been released, then consider my face red and please point me to them!)

[Gagoyu]

Just for clarification, the PSG does 100% damage in the helmet, not 63%. I do it plenty of times, trust me or test it again.

[Mr.Goldfish (old)]

Interesting the G36 is most accurate with silencer and scope. Define how the percentage works though. Should have been measured in Minutes of Arc.

[Mr.Goldfish (old)]

You should have done it without a scope also. So people can know which is better for no scoping.

[Gagoyu]

In snipers unscope is so bad it's pretty worthless as far as accuracy is concerned. You'd better count on "luck"