# Winchester Model 1887 - MW2



## Droogie

Since we have a lot of CoD: MW2 players on here, I thought I'd make a poll to get a general idea of how CF feels about the Winchesters.  

I'm sure everybody who plays Mw2 knows about these things, and, if you are more of a tactical player like myself, hates them. 

For those of you who don't know about the Model 1887:  Basically it's a shotgun which can be used as your secondary weapon with absolutley soul crushing damage, and nearly the accuary and range of an SMG.  You could argue that you are only safe from them at a sniper's distance.  Adding the steady aim perk requires the user to fire them with very little aim.  If it's shot in the general direction of enemies, you will almost always get a kill, and a lot of times a headshot.  Also you can weild two of them with the akimbo attachment, as you will see in the video.  

here's a couple clips displaying the ridicolous range/damage of the Winchesters 
[YT]RsJm9KlihKA[/YT]
[YT]NyUCbMm1fI4[/YT]

btw, I'm not ranting against Modern Warfare 2.  I really like this game, and because of that, I'd like to see these weapons balanced.


----------



## awildgoose

I've only played this game at my cousins so I don't really know much but, why were they even added?
_Modern_ Warfare....
Do you find them in some sort of secret museum or something? (Yes I know about the thing at the end).
But just watching the videos makes me want them made less powerful and accurate at the very least...


----------



## Droogie

^ Not sure why they're in the game tbh.  I guess as sort of a novelty.  They are pretty sweet guns, but it looks totally ridicolous to somebody sprinting with two of them.


----------



## tlarkin

Well to be honest, if games were realistic, you would go down if you got shot once.  However, I realize that developers need to make the game fun and balanced so that is not the case in a game.

I didn't buy MW2 yet, but those Winchester guns are/were chambered in both 12ga and 10ga, and well if you got shot by a person dual wielding two 12ga shotguns, you would die in one hit.  

Now, I don't think it is even practical for someone to dual wield those guns.  I mean .00 buck has a pretty strong kick and would require both hands for steady aim, .00 Magnum buck or slugs would require even more precision.  They look like novelty weapons in the game.


----------



## Droogie

^ I realize that realistically you probably would die from the distance.  but as you said, the game needs to be balanced.  Few of the guns in the game have realistic attributes, so why should these? 

Also the original 12 gauge 1887 model can't fire smokeless shells, and in the game there is no smoke at all.  So really they aren't realistic.


----------



## Motorcharge

They don't need to be balanced. Every FPS out there has some weapon people consider cheap and CoD has certainly had them in every game thus far.

As for the smoke, like I said before, it's not that significant. Black powder doesn't smoke like you see in the movies. At most it's a small puff, not enough to effect anything so I don't really get why you keep bringing it up. Black powder weapons in general don't smoke that much unless you're talking colonial era flint lock weapons. Theres also no other smoke effect on any other weapon in the game, it's not just specific to the 1887s.

As for dual wielding them, sure its not tactically a good idea, but it would certainly be effective. 1887s don't have much kick to em. They're small and were designed to be able to be fired one handed from a horse.

Shotguns in CoD are the only weapons that have ever been really unrealistic, it's about time that they are.


----------



## Droogie

uk80glue said:


> Every FPS out there has some weapon people consider cheap and CoD has certainly had them in every game thus far.


So what! Just because all the other CoD's have over-powered weapons, that doesn't justifty having one in Mw2.  



uk80glue said:


> As for the smoke, like I said before, it's not that significant. Black powder doesn't smoke like you see in the movies. At most it's a small puff, not enough to effect anything so I don't really get why you keep bringing it up.



I was simply using this as a counter-arguement for your "they have realistic range" arguement.  I don't think they should add smoke to the guns, I'm just telling you that in game, these guns ARE NOT realistic.  

My aim here isn't for realism.  It's for balance!  Shotguns in VIDEO GAMES are close range weapons.  You should not be able to kill somebody at a medium distance with shotgun in a video game.



uk80glue said:


> Shotguns in CoD are the only weapons that have ever been really unrealistic, it's about time that they are.



I couldn't disagree more.  A number of guns in the CoD series have been unrealistc.  Almost all of the AR's have too little recoil.  The sniper rifles have too much mobility and not enough damage.  The range of some of the SMG's is totally unrealistic.  The MP40 in WaW, need I say more about that?  A ton of the guns use magazines that aren't compatible with their respective guns (judging by the amout of rounds in the mags).  Also the fact that almost ANY weapon can be suppressed.  But I don't care about any of these things, again balance is more important than realism in most video games.


----------



## diduknowthat

I can tell you it's annoying as hell to get killed by snipers running around wielding that gun in akimbo. I've been killed countless times by them and it's pretty darn annoying.


----------



## Droogie

diduknowthat said:


> I can tell you it's annoying as hell to get killed by snipers running around wielding that gun in akimbo. I've been killed countless times by them and it's pretty darn annoying.



the worst for me is somebody using marathon, leight weight, and steady-aim pro, with an SMG as the primary.  They freakin fly around the map, you pretty much have no chance at mid or close range.

The other day I was killed by a guy on the top of a building in Favela.  I was on the ground level!  I was literally sniped by a shotgun.  I came very close to rage quitting.


----------



## Motorcharge

Droogie said:


> So what! Just because all the other CoD's have over-powered weapons, that doesn't justifty having one in Mw2.


Sure it does. Weapons aren't always fair and the games reflect that. Theres no such thing as too effective of a weapon.




Droogie said:


> I was simply using this as a counter-arguement for your "they have realistic range" arguement.  I don't think they should add smoke to the guns, I'm just telling you that in game, these guns ARE NOT realistic.


 But your point is, well, pointless. Not having smoke makes them unrealistic? NO gun in the game smokes, no gun in any of the games have smoked. Just like none of the Machine Guns barrels get hot. I'd assume it's a graphical issue that would be too much of a strain. It's not exactly uncommon for graphics to be toned down in multiplayer modes.



Droogie said:


> My aim here isn't for realism.  It's for balance!  Shotguns in VIDEO GAMES are close range weapons.  You should not be able to kill somebody at a medium distance with shotgun in a video game.


Your aim might not be, but you also didn't develop the game. The CoD series has always been a middle ground for shooters between fantasy and reality. They whole idea is you get the realism of the wars, the weapons, the stories, without the things that detract from the fun for most people like squads, tactics, recoil, negative weapon effect, ect.




Droogie said:


> I couldn't disagree more.  A number of guns in the CoD series have been unrealistc.  Almost all of the AR's have too little recoil.  The sniper rifles have too much mobility and not enough damage.  The range of some of the SMG's is totally unrealistic.  The MP40 in WaW, need I say more about that?  Also the fact that almost ANY weapon can be suppressed.  But I don't care about any of these things, again balance is more important than realism in most video games.


See above. They're both. They've always been realistic in art, ammo, distance, damage (relative to one another), range (except the shotguns), ect
See above for the negative weapon effects. They're toned down for playability.

SMG ranges are fine, look up the actual ranges on em. Nothing wrong with the MP40 in WaW either, they have a range of up to 200m.

As for the suppressors, not every weapon can use them, not even close. None of the shotguns or machine guns can, and most the weapons that do have them would be able to anyway.

If balance is more important then why play a series thats never been about balance?


----------



## diduknowthat

uk80glue said:


> Sure it does. Weapons aren't always fair and the games reflect that. Theres no such thing as too effective of a weapon.


Yeah they're is, if a single weapon is too effective and can only be unlocked by high level players it will ruin the balance multiplayer games.



uk80glue said:


> But your point is, well, pointless. Not having smoke makes them unrealistic? NO gun in the game smokes, no gun in any of the games have smoked. Just like none of the Machine Guns barrels get hot. I'd assume it's a graphical issue that would be too much of a strain. It's not exactly uncommon for graphics to be toned down in multiplayer modes.



A lot of games have smoking machine gun barrels for mounted machine guns, Crysis, Far Cry 2, BF2 etc.



uk80glue said:


> Your aim might not be, but you also didn't develop the game. The CoD series has always been a middle ground for shooters between fantasy and reality. They whole idea is you get the realism of the wars, the weapons, the stories, without the things that detract from the fun for most people like squads, tactics, recoil, negative weapon effect, ect.



That is true, especially with the hard core mode. But the point is that this gun is WAY too over powered.


----------



## Motorcharge

diduknowthat said:


> Yeah they're is, if a single weapon is too effective and can only be unlocked by high level players it will ruin the balance multiplayer games.


Like I've been saying, the series isn't, and has never been about balance. Sure, it's balanced to an extent, and the balance with the 1887s is that you don't get them from the start.





diduknowthat said:


> A lot of games have smoking machine gun barrels for mounted machine guns, Crysis, Far Cry 2, BF2 etc.


Never said otherwise. My point was that CoD doesn't and hasn't used those effects, at least not on the weapons you carry around.




diduknowthat said:


> That is true, especially with the hard core mode. But the point is that this gun is WAY too over powered.


It's not over powered, it's realistic. They've got a muzzle velocity of about 1600 feet per second, tell me that wouldn't kill you from a few yards away.


----------



## diduknowthat

uk80glue said:


> Like I've been saying, the series isn't, and has never been about balance. Sure, it's balanced to an extent, and the balance with the 1887s is that you don't get them from the start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said otherwise. My point was that CoD doesn't and hasn't used those effects, at least not on the weapons you carry around.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not over powered, it's realistic. They've got a muzzle velocity of about 1600 feet per second, tell me that wouldn't kill you from a few yards away.



But realism often ruins games. The whole point of games is to offer entertainment. If they wanted to make everything realistic, every game would be hardcore, because there's no way in hell that you can get shot anywhere on your body that's unprotected and continue to run around and shooting/stabbing people.


----------



## Motorcharge

diduknowthat said:


> But realism often ruins games. The whole point of games is to offer entertainment. If they wanted to make everything realistic, every game would be hardcore, because there's no way in hell that you can get shot anywhere on your body that's unprotected and continue to run around and shooting/stabbing people.


If thats not your preference, then thats not your preference, but thats like buying Rainbow Six if you don't like tactical games then complaining about how the game was made.

Just because realism in a game isn't something you prefer doesn't make it wrong.

Of course not, which is why it's not a simulator or a tactical shooter, but it's also not like Halo or Unreal Tournament. Like I said, it's supposed to be a realistic to an extent and the realism of the 1887 fits in with the other realistic aspects of the game.


----------



## Droogie

uk80glue said:


> Sure it does. Weapons aren't always fair and the games reflect that. Theres no such thing as too effective of a weapon.



There most certainly is.  How about a gun that is a one hit kill at any range with perfect accuracy?  Would that not be too effective? 



uk80glue said:


> But your point is, well, pointless. Not having smoke makes them unrealistic? NO gun in the game smokes, no gun in any of the games have smoked. Just like none of the Machine Guns barrels get hot. I'd assume it's a graphical issue that would be too much of a strain. It's not exactly uncommon for graphics to be toned down in multiplayer modes.



Forget the damn smoke.   The only reason I brought that up, is because you were saying the guns are realistic.  I don't want smoke to be added to the game, nor did I ever.  



uk80glue said:


> Your aim might not be, but you also didn't develop the game. The CoD series has always been a middle ground for shooters between fantasy and reality. They whole idea is you get the realism of the wars, the weapons, the stories, without the things that detract from the fun for most people like squads, tactics, recoil, negative weapon effect, ect.



Well said, and I agree.  I never said that they should make the game more realistic.  Just balanced.



uk80glue said:


> See above. They're both. They've always been realistic in art, ammo, distance, damage (relative to one another), range (except the shotguns), ect
> See above for the negative weapon effects. They're toned down for playability.



In damage and size? no.  The Intervention and Barret .50 cal both weight close to 30 pounds with their scopes (maybe even more for the Barret).  There's no way you would have the kind of mobility that you see in CoD.  Also a round from either one of the snipers would more than likely kill you.  The .50 cal for sure, I mean you can mean to tell me that hitting somebody in the stomach with the .50 cal would only injure them.  (without stopping power you can get hit markers below the chest).  I completely understand they've modify them to make the game more playable, again I'm not arguing for realism here.  I believe there are a few weapons that have clip sizes that aren't applicable to their respective guns, I forget which ones in specific though.  



uk80glue said:


> Nothing wrong with the MP40 in WaW



Dude, the thing has the stopping power of a modern day assault rifle.  You mean to tell me that an SMG with a 9mm round should have that kind of stopping power?  Even the people who love WaW will tell you the MP40 is OP.  You shouldn't be able to kill somebody across map with an SMG.



uk80glue said:


> If balance is more important then why play a series thats never been about balance?



Because they have made a game that is damn close to being balanced.  So why not tweak it a bit, to make it almost perfectly balanced?

I think more or less we both agree on most things.  But bottom line is, you don't want to see the models patched, and I can't understand why.


----------



## diduknowthat

uk80glue said:


> If thats not your preference, then thats not your preference, but thats like buying Rainbow Six if you don't like tactical games then complaining about how the game was made.
> 
> Just because realism in a game isn't something you prefer doesn't make it wrong.
> 
> Of course not, which is why it's not a simulator or a tactical shooter, but it's also not like Halo or Unreal Tournament. Like I said, it's supposed to be a realistic to an extent and the realism of the 1887 fits in with the other realistic aspects of the game.



But the fact is that only higher level people have access to this gun. All other higher level guns aren't this over powered.


----------



## Motorcharge

Droogie said:


> There most certainly is.  How about a gun that is a one hit kill at any range with perfect accuracy?  Would that not be too effective?


When that gun exists and they decide to stick it in a game, let me know.




Droogie said:


> Well said, and I agree.  I never said that they should make the game more realistic.  Just balanced.


No it doesn't. If every weapon is the same then whats the point?





Droogie said:


> In damage and size? no.  The Intervention and Barret .50 cal both weight close to 30 pounds with their scopes (maybe even more for the Barret).  There's no way you would have the kind of mobility that you see in CoD.  Also a round from either one of the snipers would more than likely kill you.  The .50 cal for sure, I mean you can mean to tell me that hitting somebody in the stomach with the .50 cal would only injure them.  (without stopping power you can get hit markers below the chest).  I completely understand they've modify them to make the game more playable, again I'm not arguing for realism here.  I believe there are a few weapons that have clip sizes that aren't applicable to their respective guns, I forget which ones in specific though.


I said in damage relative to one another. Yes, it would absolutely kill you, and thats one of the many reasons I only play hardcore, where it does kill in one hit the vast majority of the time.

Like I said before, and you agreed, they tone down the negative effects for playability. As for the clips, it's a non issue really. Just because clip sizes don't match the factory clips really doesn't mean anything. Theres all kinds of aftermarket clips that hold more ammo.




Droogie said:


> Dude, the thing has the stopping power of a modern day assault rifle.  You mean to tell me that an SMG with a 9mm round should have that kind of stopping power?  Even the people who love WaW will tell you the MP40 is OP.  You shouldn't be able to kill somebody across map with an SMG.


Shoot someone with one and see if they keep going. 
Quite honestly I can't really say for WaW, I didn't play it all that much because it sucked as much as 3 did. I never saw anything ridiculous with the mp40 when I played though.




Droogie said:


> Because they have made a game that is damn close to being balanced.  So why not tweak it a bit, to make it almost perfectly balanced?


Why tone down the realism because a few people are annoyed at getting killed with a realistic weapon?



Droogie said:


> I think more or less we both agree on most things.  But bottom line is, you don't want to see the models patched, and I can't understand why.



Because theres no reason to. It's a powerful, realistic weapon that can't be used until a high level.


----------



## Motorcharge

diduknowthat said:


> But the fact is that only higher level people have access to this gun. All other higher level guns aren't this over powered.



And the other high level guns are as effective in game as in real life, so whats your point?


----------



## Shane

They need to be balanced out...way too powerfull imo,and still they need to fix the claymore issue!


----------



## diduknowthat

uk80glue said:


> And the other high level guns are as effective in game as in real life, so whats your point?



Because higher level shouldn't = better gun. You can see that in all other successful unlocking games. Take a look at BF2, higher level guns are different, but not necessarily better than the starter guns. If you offer better guns to people who plays more, you'll just ruin the experience for starters and kill the fan base for the game.



Nevakonaza said:


> They need to be balanced out...way too powerfull imo,and still they need to fix the claymore issue!



what's the claymore issue?


----------



## Motorcharge

diduknowthat said:


> Because higher level shouldn't = better gun. You can see that in all other successful unlocking games. Take a look at BF2, higher level guns are different, but not necessarily better than the starter guns. If you offer better guns to people who plays more, you'll just ruin the experience for starters and kill the fan base for the game.



If you have the same level equipment no matter what, then whats the incentive to level and play? Why even have a ranking system?

It doesn't ruin anything for new players, it gives you a goal to work towards and makes you want to play more to unlock better items.

Counter Strike is that way--->


----------



## diduknowthat

uk80glue said:


> If you have the same level equipment no matter what, then whats the incentive to level and play? Why even have a ranking system?
> 
> It doesn't ruin anything for new players, it gives you a goal to work towards and makes you want to play more to unlock better items.
> 
> Counter Strike is that way--->



Counter Strike doesn't have a ranking system...(?) What?

And the incentive is to unlock _more/different_ guns, not necessarily _better_ guns. An incentive doesn't really work when you're constantly getting killed by shot guns from like 100 feet away.


----------



## Motorcharge

diduknowthat said:


> Counter Strike doesn't have a ranking system...(?) What?


Exactly my point, what you described is pretty much CS.



diduknowthat said:


> And the incentive is to unlock _more/different_ guns, not necessarily _better_ guns. An incentive doesn't really work when you're constantly getting killed by shot guns from like 100 feet away.


Who wants more of the same? In almost every game where you unlock weapons the higher level weapons are more effective.

Go shoot at someone from 100 feet with a 12 gauge and see what it does. The entire point of a shotgun is ease of use, thats why they're recommended for home defense and the like, you're almost guaranteed to hit, even at medium ranges. Average shotgun penetration at 45 yards is around 58%.


----------



## ellanky

I say balance them because its freakin' annoying!


----------



## diduknowthat

uk80glue said:


> Exactly my point, what you described is pretty much CS.
> 
> Who wants more of the same? In almost every game where you unlock weapons the higher level weapons are more effective.
> 
> Go shoot at someone from 100 feet with a 12 gauge and see what it does. The entire point of a shotgun is ease of use, thats why they're recommended for home defense and the like, you're almost guaranteed to hit, even at medium ranges. Average shotgun penetration at 45 yards is around 58%.



Oh my god that's not the point. I don't care how realistic it is. Do you think it's realistic in COD to take a bullet from a Barret in the legs and keep on going? That thing will fricken tear your leg off. The point is game play, if you want realism go to a shooting range or something.


----------



## ScottALot

I don't even have the game, but when I play at my friends house and use the sniper rifle, Winchester, and/or assault rifles, I own EVERYONE. I think that's a sign of something wrong in the game if _I_ can do this. I mean on MW1, I was pretty bad to begin with, but I got to a respectable skill level with the sniper. But in MW2, I'm just racking up kills, getting to 25 on my first day playing.


----------



## JlCollins005

you can practically snipe with these shotguns i used them on the first prestige, and then started getting people using them on me, and i realized that them guns can make some1 that doesnt know how to play the game average 20 kills a game easily. i use the spaz, i would liek to see them nerf these guns take a way akimbo or something


----------



## ScottALot

I'm not saying "I kill people with the guns"

I'm saying I get montage quality stuff like every game... it's EASY


----------



## awildgoose

diduknowthat said:


> But realism often ruins games. The whole point of games is to offer entertainment. If they wanted to make everything realistic, every game would be hardcore, because there's no way in hell that you can get shot anywhere on your body that's unprotected and continue to run around and shooting/stabbing people.



To me (personally) I like realism in games, I mean, you can't have a perfectly realistic game otherwise once you die, that's it, you have to start again or something I don't know, but you know, bullet drop, wind effect etc etc. And not a health system where you come back to full health within second, the best health system is in AA3 where it actually depends where you get hit, if you get hit in a major artery you actually start bleeding and need someone to fix it and if you get shot in the legs you limp etc.

There are many accounts of people getting shot and still fighting, read the book (not watch the movie) _Black Hawk Down_ some people get shot 5 times and still fight. Adrenaline can make you go very far in combat. 



Droogie said:


> Dude, the thing has the stopping power of a modern day assault rifle.  You mean to tell me that an SMG with a 9mm round should have that kind of stopping power?  Even the people who love WaW will tell you the MP40 is OP.  You shouldn't be able to kill somebody across map with an SMG.



Ok don't know about the last part (never done WaW online) so I'm only going to comment on the first part.
A 9mm round is a bigger round than what m4/16's and most other guns that use that type of bullet (if my understanding is correct) since they use .22 caliber bullets (5.56mm). So essentially, yes they can have that type of stopping power.

ANYWAY from what I have seen of these guns, they should just be taken out, I mean, how many of them in the world would there be anyway?
It's supposed to be "Modern" Warfare. So in the game, how far do these things go?


----------



## Motorcharge

m4/m16 is actually a .223. It's slightly smaller than a 9mm but the round itself it larger, the impact behind an m4 or m16 is much higher than any 9mm. Mp40 has a muzzle velocity of ~1247 fps where the m4 has a muzzle velocity of ~2000 fps.

Theres thousands of them. They were made from 1887 through the 1920s and various companies still manufacturer them today. Reproduction 1887s are actually pretty popular and very effective. A lot of the guns in game are fairly old designs.


----------



## awildgoose

uk80glue said:


> m4/m16 is actually a .223. It's slightly smaller than a 9mm but the round itself it larger, the impact behind an m4 or m16 is much higher than any 9mm. Mp40 has a muzzle velocity of ~1247 fps where the m4 has a muzzle velocity of ~2000 fps.



Ah ok, yea the .22 thing got lost through converting lol, because (this is just what I've been told) a caliber is using the imperial system, like a .22 is a 22th of a inch or something?

Well it certainly is faster coming out of the muzzle lol, oh and I just remembered something I saw on one of them channels that tel you stuff lol. That the rounds used in m4/16's when they enter the body, because the back is heavier it breaks in two and causes more damage? I can see how that could have more stopping power, but 9mm rounds are still bigger and heavier I guess... I don't know, I'm just saying, but they do come out slower. 



> Theres thousands of them. They were made from 1887 through the 1920s and various companies still manufacturer them today. Reproduction 1887s are actually pretty popular and very effective. A lot of the guns in game are fairly old designs.



Ah ok, but would they still be usable? I mean, should they have been added into the game in the first place since they are fairly old?


----------



## Droogie

awildgoose said:


> A 9mm round is a bigger round than what m4/16's and most other guns that use that type of bullet (if my understanding is correct) since they use .22 caliber bullets (5.56mm). So essentially, yes they can have that type of stopping power.



wrong.  







the first bullet in the picture is the 9x19mm Parabellum, which the MP40 uses.  the fifth one from the right is the 5.56x45mm, which is the round an M16 uses.  

The 9mm may have an larger diameter, but it has no where near the stopping power of a 5.56mm bullet.

EDIT:  looks like I was beat to it


----------



## Motorcharge

awildgoose said:


> Ah ok, but would they still be usable? I mean, should they have been added into the game in the first place since they are fairly old?


Absolutely still usable. They use a .12 gauge shotgun shell like most other shotguns do. I have an original from 1890 (fires .12 gauge shells, but only black powder as opposed to newer smokeless) and a newer one and I use both quite often.

M16 and ak47 are both 50+ year old designs. The RPD has been around since WWII, m21 has been around since 1969, wa2000 has been around since the 70s, Dragunov has been around since 1958, .44 magnum has been around since 1950,  the m79 (thumper) has been in use since 1961, and the RPG has as well.


----------



## awildgoose

Droogie said:


> wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the first bullet in the picture is the 9x19mm Parabellum, which the MP40 uses.  the fifth one from the right is the 5.56x45mm, which is the round an M16 uses.
> 
> The 9mm may have an larger diameter, but it has no where near the stopping power of a 5.56mm bullet.
> 
> EDIT:  looks like I was beat to it



Ook, I was just going by the size lol. I've only fired a couple of .22's and a .224 and a 12 gauge so I didn't really know the actual size of the 9mm just guessing.
Looks like I was wrong. What's the 3rd from the left? 7.62 or something or rather?

But still these Winchester's, should they have been added into the game?


----------



## Motorcharge

I'm not 100% on how the sizing works (math has never been one of my strong points lol), but you can see how big a .223 is compared to a 9mm above, and heres a .22 in comparison.


----------



## awildgoose

uk80glue said:


> Absolutely still usable. They use a .12 gauge shotgun shell like most other shotguns do. I have an original from 1890 (fires .12 gauge shells, but only black powder as opposed to newer smokeless) and a newer one and I use both quite often.
> 
> M16 and ak47 are both 50+ year old designs. The RPD has been around since WWII, m21 has been around since 1969, wa2000 has been around since the 70s, Dragunov has been around since 1958, .44 magnum has been around since 1950,  the m79 (thumper) has been in use since 1961, and the RPG has as well.



But all those guns are still in production (well not the ak-47 that has been replaced by the 101's - little known fact) well I think most of them are at least or have been made lately. 
Do these Winchester's still get made (the ones we are talking about)?
And still why were they even added?


----------



## Droogie

So.  I turned my xbox off just a few minutes ago mid game.  Why? well first of all because of all the private match glitching bull shit going on in XBL I can't find a half way decent domination game, secondly, after I finally found a game.  Guess what I died from about 8 times, THE DAMN WINCHESTERS!!!

AHHHHH RAGE QUIT!!!!!!!!!!1


----------



## Motorcharge

awildgoose said:


> But all those guns are still in production (well not the ak-47 that has been replaced by the 101's - little known fact) well I think most of them are at least or have been made lately.
> Do these Winchester's still get made (the ones we are talking about)?
> And still why were they even added?



The 1887 went out of production in 1920, but over the last 20 years or so several companies have started remanufacturing them and they have become very popular. The new ones are all reproductions and Winchester hasn't made them since 1920, but that really doesn't mean much and is pretty common as far as firearms go. Actually, one of the 3 companies making them today are out of Australia, company called ADI Limited.

As for why they put them in, I'd assume due to their popularity. They've become really popular over the last few years. They're very easy to shoot and very reliable. CoD 4 had some older weapons as well, including the mp44.


----------



## Motorcharge

Droogie said:


> So.  I turned my xbox off just a few minutes ago mid game.  Why? well first of all because of all the private match glitching bull shit going on in XBL I can't find a half way decent domination game, secondly, after I finally found a game.  Guess what I died from about 8 times, THE DAMN WINCHESTERS!!!
> 
> AHHHHH RAGE QUIT!!!!!!!!!!1
















This is why dedicated servers were such a huge deal. Put it up to the people who ran the server to allow certain stuff instead of having to have one set of settings appeal to everyone. I'd rather see them simply add dedicated servers (this would boost PC sales a ton) and let people run servers without stuff they feel is over powered.


----------



## Droogie

^ Yea, I do actually like matchmaking.  But there are currently 2 or 3 glitches (I've literally lost count..sigh) going on right now for the 360. One which somehow allows private games to be connected to through to matchmaking system, which means all stats count.  Another is some kind of infinite ammo/auto-reload glitch.  All of them combined with the Winchesters are forcing me to RAGE!

But yea, I couldn't really imagine playing the PC version without dedi servers though.  That's what PC gaming is made for!


----------



## Motorcharge

You could realistically have dedicated servers on consoles too, even if they were rented through xbox live or the playstation network. Theres very little difference between consoles and PCs now anyway.

I could definitely see glitches like that being retarded with it.


----------



## Droogie

uk80glue said:


> You could realistically have dedicated servers on consoles too, even if they were rented through xbox live or the playstation network. Theres very little difference between consoles and PCs now anyway.
> 
> I could definitely see glitches like that being retarded with it.



Yea but it just wouldn't be the same.  The whole thing with PC's is the customization and modding and what not.  That would be a rather difficult to accomplish with consoles.


----------



## Motorcharge

Modding sure, but customized servers aren't a stretch at all. Wouldn't take much and the added revenue from renting servers they're already using would more than cover it I'd imagine.


----------



## Droogie

uk80glue said:


> but customized servers aren't a stretch at all.



I know.  I've played games with servers before, on Xbox.


----------



## Aastii

I said leave it as it is.

you do realise that you can use them too right, so it is ofcourse completely balanced, it isn't like they have the advantage of having the gun and you don't, and if you then can't kill people with them then it proves that it isn't the gun that are overpowered, it is you that sucks at killing people, so you can't complain.

It is just another obstacle to overcome; in CoD4 p90 was overpowered, in CoD:WaW ptrs was, but people got over it and carried on; you get rid of these and some other gun will then be overpowered and you will still get people crying about it, IW are in a lose lose situation and they proved they don't care about the player so aren't going to start making fixes now; less work for them, same outcome


----------



## Droogie

Aastii said:


> I said leave it as it is.
> 
> you do realise that you can use them too right, so it is ofcourse completely balanced, it isn't like they have the advantage of having the gun and you don't, and if you then can't kill people with them then it proves that it isn't the gun that are overpowered, it is you that sucks at killing people, so you can't complain.
> 
> It is just another obstacle to overcome; in CoD4 p90 was overpowered, in CoD:WaW ptrs was, but people got over it and carried on; you get rid of these and some other gun will then be overpowered and you will still get people crying about it, IW are in a lose lose situation and they proved they don't care about the player so aren't going to start making fixes now; less work for them, same outcome



I disagree.  You can't just call something balanced because everybody has access to it.  With that logic, the only way to make the game truly balanced would be if every single person in every game was either using them or not using them at all.  Not everybody wants to run around with akimbo shotguns, it is after all a MODERN warfare themed game.  But I don't so much have a problem with people using them as sidearms, but I'd say 90% of the users slap them on an SMG class, with marathon, lightweight, and steady aim pro.  So they're basically flying around the damn map lighting people up at ridiculous distances with these things.

Haven't you not even bought the game yet? So how can you make a fair decision on these guns?  Trust me, they're FAR worse than any OP gun in any CoD game.  I think it's ignorant to just say; oh well, there are always OP guns in every game, who cares!  The fact of the matter is, this is really the only one truly overpowered gun in the game.  It's pretty damn balanced otherwise.  It's rumored that the next update is going to tone them down, which has to say something.


----------



## Fatback

IMO people complain to much play it an be happy or don't play it at all 

Also I haven't had any problems with getting killed by the 1887. I played for about 4hours yesterday and didn't get killed by them once. I also could never kill anybody when I picked them up. Even shooting from point blank I still got killed every time.


----------



## Motorcharge

So what you're saying is it's really only overpowered with certain perks, which means theres really no reason do anything to the weapon itself.


----------



## Droogie

Fatback said:


> IMO people complain to much play it an be happy or don't play it at all
> 
> Also I haven't had any problems with getting killed by the 1887. I played for about 4hours yesterday and didn't get killed by them once. I also could never kill anybody when I picked them up. Even shooting from point blank I still got killed every time.



If you weren't killed by them once, than the people using them sucked big time.  You don't even have to aim, seriously, you just shoot in their general direction and it will often times result in a head shot.  I also find it hard to believe that you weren't able to get any kills with them  

And there is nothing wrong with complaining,  I think sometimes people think they're more mature or something if they just say something like "oh stop complaining, just play the game!"  NO, I will complain, I paid $60 for the damn thing, and not only do these guns totally unbalance the game, but now I can't even get a legitimate domination game, I can't tell you how many times I've been put into never ending ones on Rust.



uk80glue said:


> So what you're saying is it's really only overpowered with certain perks, which means theres really no reason do anything to the weapon itself.



It's overpowered either way, but when people do use those mentioned perks, it just makes it 10 times worse.


----------



## Aastii

Droogie said:


> I disagree.  You can't just call something balanced because everybody has access to it.  With that logic, the only way to make the game truly balanced would be if every single person in every game was either using them or not using them at all.  Not everybody wants to run around with akimbo shotguns, it is after all a MODERN warfare themed game.  But I don't so much have a problem with people using them as sidearms, but I'd say 90% of the users slap them on an SMG class, with marathon, lightweight, and steady aim pro.  So they're basically flying around the damn map lighting people up at ridiculous distances with these things.
> 
> Haven't you not even bought the game yet? So how can you make a fair decision on these guns?  Trust me, they're FAR worse than any OP gun in any CoD game.  I think it's ignorant to just say; oh well, there are always OP guns in every game, who cares!  The fact of the matter is, this is really the only one truly overpowered gun in the game.  It's pretty damn balanced otherwise.  It's rumored that the next update is going to tone them down, which has to say something.



No I haven't bought it yet, but having played it for quite a while on the xbox (at a friends), I know the game and I know the guns you are on about. And they may not be balanced, but my point isn't because everyone can use them they are balanced, my point is ANYONE can use them, so it is fair, it is hardly like you are at a disadvantage becuase you don't have the option to have them, because, like everyone else, you clearly do.



Fatback said:


> IMO people complain to much play it an be happy or don't play it at all



+1, I think that this thread is just the "let droogie rant about sucking at MW2 - thread"  jk ofcourse


----------



## Fatback

Droogie said:


> If you weren't killed by them once, than the people using them sucked big time.  You don't even have to aim, seriously, you just shoot in their general direction and it will often times result in a head shot.  I also find it hard to believe that you weren't able to get any kills with them


Maybe but there wasn't that many people using them in the first place. The few people that were using them never killed me and I easily took them out with my Aug(or whatever gun I was using). Then picked them up(because I am only LV63 so I don't have them myself) and could never kill anybody with them. Also because every time you shoot he spins the guns often results in me getting killed.




Droogie said:


> And there is nothing wrong with complaining,  I think sometimes people think they're more mature or something if they just say something like "oh stop complaining, just play the game!"  NO, I will complain, I paid $60 for the damn thing, and not only do these guns totally unbalance the game, but now I can't even get a legitimate domination game, I can't tell you how many times I've been put into never ending ones on Rust.



There is no such thing as a balanced game not that I have played anyways(expect for the ones where weapons are just for looks and they all have the same damage. Which then it's just boring because if you suck it's no fun to play). There is always going to be a better weapon. It's been proven time and time again and will likely never change.

I only play ground war and TD so I haven't been in one of those glitched private match games. Although I did join a game yesterday on GW and every body was doing a glitch. Where they have unlimited grenade lanuchers, missiles, etc and just keep holding the trigger down shooting them. It was a little annoying but I didn't think anything of it. I just quite and joined a different game.


----------



## Droogie

I understand that every game is going to have SLIGHT imbalance, and obviously there will be guns that are better than others,  but that is no reason not to fix a completely broken gun (the Winchester).  I believe you will see it tweaked in the next patch anyway, which will be great.


----------



## Fatback

I don't really care if they do or don't. They don't bother me and I probably will never use them. Sense we are complaining about MW2 if anything needs to be fixed it's the stinger because it's very irritating getting killed by it from the other side of the map. Or when somebody walks in a room and shoots it and it kills everybody. The stinger should be for vehicles only or make it so you have to at least see you're target.


----------



## Droogie

Fatback said:


> I don't really care if they do or don't. They don't bother me and I probably will never use them. Sense we are complaining about MW2 if anything needs to be fixed it's the stinger because it's very irritating getting killed by it from the other side of the map. Or when somebody walks in a room and shoots it and it kills everybody. The stinger should be for vehicles only or make it so you have to at least see you're target.



the stinger? or the AT4? the singer requires lock on to fire


----------



## Fatback

Droogie said:


> the stinger? or the AT4? the singer requires lock on to fire



Opps I meant the Javelin


----------



## Droogie

Fatback said:


> Opps I meant the Javelin



well at least they fixed the javelin glitch.  but yea, i hate when people randomly fire it and kill like 3 people at your spawn.


----------



## Fatback

Droogie said:


> well at least they fixed the javelin glitch.  but yea, i hate when people randomly fire it and kill like 3 people at your spawn.



Yea it's gets a little irritating after about 3 times in a row. I have played games Where the whole team pulls at a javelin and fires it straight up and kills the whole team at spawn. Oh well what are you going to do.


----------



## Bacon

Why debate about this when its already been decided?

http://www.nextgenupdate.com/forums...-dual-models-1887-shotguns-removed-fixed.html

Its either going to be removed or fixed.

Leaving them as they are isn't an option it seems.


----------



## JlCollins005

the whole argument about well you get them at lvl 67 so you dont see many with them, thats bs, because there are usually atleast 4 people a game or more with them and thats all they use alot wont prestige and continue to use them, i think they should leave the damage take the range a way and take akimbo away


----------



## Shane

I actualy got to use them today,someone died and i picked them up...Anyway i was very far away from the enemy and with those shottys i got him!

Way way too powerfull for the game if i must say!

I dont think they should be removed,But they should lower the distance and damage amount imo....because everyones getting quite high ranked now and the newer players stand no chance realy against these guns.

Noob tubes were a problem at the start,Now its those shottys lol


----------



## JlCollins005

Nevakonaza said:


> I actualy got to use them today,someone died and i picked them up...Anyway i was very far away from the enemy and with those shottys i got him!
> 
> Way way too powerfull for the game if i must say!
> 
> I dont think they should be removed,But they should lower the distance and damage amount imo....because everyones getting quite high ranked now and the newer players stand no chance realy against these guns.



exactly i dont use them, i use the spaz shotgun, the default first one, and it so pleasing to kill people using models with them, but i have picked them up when running low on ammo or like earlier today 5 guys on the other team all using models so i picked them up i went 32-2 or something like that just sprinting with models. also on the map derail in the middle warehouse i was looking out of the window down at the train cars and kill 2 guys with models that way 2. i would be hapy if they took akimbo and some rang away from them or even just akimbo.


----------



## Motorcharge

Bacon said:


> Why debate about this when its already been decided?
> 
> http://www.nextgenupdate.com/forums...-dual-models-1887-shotguns-removed-fixed.html
> 
> Its either going to be removed or fixed.
> 
> Leaving them as they are isn't an option it seems.



3rd hand info from 1 person who works at Infinity Ward. When Activision or Infinity Ward makes a statement about then I'll believe it.

Damn near everyone on that forum said to leave em alone as well.

Also LOL at the guy freaking out about how you couldn't possibly duel wield shotguns.


----------



## Bacon

uk80glue said:


> 3rd hand info from 1 person who works at Infinity Ward. When Activision or Infinity Ward makes a statement about then I'll believe it.



Considering everything he's said so far has come to be, I'd take his word for it.

Also,



			
				fourzerotwo said:
			
		

> Update in Test now: 1887s Balanced. Public "private" Match fix. Infinite Ammo fix. Prestige Hack on PS3 fix. Texture Hack on PC fix.


http://twitter.com/fourzerotwo?utm_source=dm&utm_campaign=dm&utm_medium=email


----------



## JlCollins005

uk80glue said:


> 3rd hand info from 1 person who works at Infinity Ward. When Activision or Infinity Ward makes a statement about then I'll believe it.
> 
> Damn near everyone on that forum said to leave em alone as well.
> 
> Also LOL at the guy freaking out about how you couldn't possibly duel wield shotguns.



he should have said you cant dual wield shotguns and achieve amazing accuracy with them. the models i think if you were to put a scope on them you could practically snipe with them.


----------



## Motorcharge

JlCollins005 said:


> he should have said you cant dual wield shotguns and achieve amazing accuracy with them. the models i think if you were to put a scope on them you could practically snipe with them.



It doesn't take any effort at all to hit someone with a shotgun, even at medium range. Read back through the first few pages of the thread. 12g penetration is still 58% at 45 yards.


----------



## Droogie

Bacon said:


> Considering everything he's said so far has come to be, I'd take his word for it.
> 
> Also,
> 
> 
> http://twitter.com/fourzerotwo?utm_source=dm&utm_campaign=dm&utm_medium=email



HELL YEAH! can't wait till it's released.


----------



## Droogie

uk80glue said:


> It doesn't take any effort at all to hit someone with a shotgun, even at medium range. Read back through the first few pages of the thread. 12g penetration is still 58% at 45 yards.



We also established that balance is more important than realism.  I'm with you when it comes to adding range to the shotguns, I'm really glad they're actually usable now.  But the Winchesters are just out of control, they have considerably more range than any of the other shotguns.


----------



## Motorcharge

Droogie said:


> We also established that balance is more important than realism.  I'm with you when it comes to adding range to the shotguns, I'm really glad they're actually usable now.  But the Winchesters are just out of control, they have considerably more range than any of the other shotguns.



YOU established that, theres still a good amount of people that agree with me about the realism, but I'm done debating that one since we'll obviously never agree on it and they're changing it anyway haha.

My reply to him was about how you could actually do that fine in real life, had nothing to do with the game really.


----------



## Droogie

fair enough.


----------



## Shane

fourzerotwo said:
			
		

> Update in Test now: 1887s Balanced. Public "private" Match fix. Infinite Ammo fix. Prestige Hack on PS3 fix. Texture Hack on PC fix.



Ive not seen this,Not been on the IW forum for a bit....Whens it expected to be in effect? any news of an update?

I cant wait to see them change,Will make alot of difference.


----------



## tlarkin

uk80glue said:


> It doesn't take any effort at all to hit someone with a shotgun, even at medium range. Read back through the first few pages of the thread. 12g penetration is still 58% at 45 yards.



I beg to differ, it does take effort and aim.  Even buck shot at long range doesn't have that much of a spread, unless you are using a very short barrel.  Now like the Taurus Judge which has a very small barrel gets a pretty decent spread but isn't really all that accurate say past 20 yards.


----------



## diduknowthat

Sweet so they're going to fix it huh? That'll make things a bit less frustrating. On the other hand, I picked up a pair of them from someone and damn they're crazy with marathon, lightweight and commando (all pro).


----------



## Motorcharge

tlarkin said:


> I beg to differ, it does take effort and aim.  Even buck shot at long range doesn't have that much of a spread, unless you are using a very short barrel.  Now like the Taurus Judge which has a very small barrel gets a pretty decent spread but isn't really all that accurate say past 20 yards.



Fine, it takes a little effort, but not much more than half ass aiming it. Certainly not impossible to use 2 of em and hit something at decent range.


----------



## Bacon

http://twitter.com/fourzerotwo

PS3 patch is out, and it looks like the xbox 360 and PC will soon be following.


----------



## Shane

Bacon said:


> http://twitter.com/fourzerotwo
> 
> PS3 patch is out, and it looks like the xbox 360 and PC will soon be following.



YES! nice stuff!



> Akimbo 1887s re-balancing,


 :good:

The Akimbo people are not going to like that 

I just want that AK-47....Lvl 70,currently 55 :/


----------



## Droogie

Nevakonaza said:


> YES! nice stuff!
> 
> :good:
> 
> The Akimbo people are not going to like that
> 
> I just want that AK-47....Lvl 70,currently 55 :/



AK is cool, nothing special though.  Pretty much just decent all around.


----------



## WeatherMan

Does anyone else find it scary how much american's know about guns?


----------



## Shane

Droogie said:


> AK is cool, nothing special though.  Pretty much just decent all around.



From youtube clips ive seen of in game footage of the AK,Its recoil isnt too bad which im happy about!...i bet its a bad boy in real life though 



Bootup05 said:


> Does anyone else find it scary how much american's know about guns?



Our american friends have rights to defend their own homes if someone tresspasses i think....where as here,if someone breaks into our home and we smash their head in with a bassball bat or shoot them....we get sent down!


----------



## Bacon

Nevakonaza said:


> Our american friends have rights to defend their own homes if someone tresspasses i think



Just trespassing would be a bit much.. Far as I know we only have the right to shoot someone if its in self defense, meaning your life is in danger and you shot the person to protect yourself.

Granted there is a difference between shooting someone to protect yourself compared to shooting someone to protect yourself then shooting them again even though your life is no longer in danger, otherwise known as assault or murder.

/rant plus I'm bored..lol


----------



## awildgoose

Can I just ask, what is this "Akimbo" people are talking about?


----------



## Motorcharge

awildgoose said:


> Can I just ask, what is this "Akimbo" people are talking about?



Dual wielding.


----------



## Motorcharge

Bootup05 said:


> Does anyone else find it scary how much american's know about guns?



http://www.computerforum.com/165969-if-hobo-asked-use-your-loo-post1379918.html#post1379918


----------



## awildgoose

uk80glue said:


> Dual wielding.



Ah ok.. wait, how does Dual Wielding become Akimbo?


----------



## Motorcharge

Bacon said:


> Just trespassing would be a bit much.. Far as I know we only have the right to shoot someone if its in self defense, meaning your life is in danger and you shot the person to protect yourself.
> 
> Granted there is a difference between shooting someone to protect yourself compared to shooting someone to protect yourself then shooting them again even though your life is no longer in danger, otherwise known as assault or murder.
> 
> /rant plus I'm bored..lol



Self Defense laws vary greatly by state. Theres generally more to it than "feeling threatened".


----------



## Motorcharge

awildgoose said:


> Ah ok.. wait, how does Dual Wielding become Akimbo?



From wikipedia:
Following the success of Quake 2, from 1998 the word was adopted into computer gaming in reference to the dual wielding of two weapons. It was mentioned prior to 1998 in the game Blood, as a power-up called the "Guns Akimbo". For example, in a first person shooter game, the player might choose a "pistols akimbo" option to wield one gun in each hand. In Far Cry Instincts when a player is dual-wielding weapons it is called Akimbo, and in Left 4 Dead there is an achievement for playing a campaign with only dual pistols, called Akimbo Assassin. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars features an experience reward called Akimbo Pistols, which are the only dual wield weapons in the game. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 features dual-wielding pistols and other one handed weapons, with the Akimbo attachment, found on Submachine Guns, Handguns, Machine Pistols and certain shotguns.[2]


----------



## awildgoose

Right... I wonder how they got the name "Akimbo" originally though lol.


----------



## Motorcharge

Looks like they more or less just made it up lol.
Best I can figure is dual wielding looks similar to the original definition.

"Akimbo is a human body position in which the hands are on the hips and the elbows are bowed outward, or bent/bowed in a more general sense."


----------



## awildgoose

Right... it still sounds funny lol.


----------



## Ronan

I've played the game for about a week, and I feel as though the Winchester 1887 and grenade launcher are the only things that need to be balanced.

For the 1887, they should significantly reduce the range of the rifles, but the damage should be kept at the same rate.  Also, seeing as they are antique rifles, shouldn't the accuracy be halved? 

I find the grenade launcher frustrating because it gives the user no handicap.  Sure, there is little ammo, but what's stopping them when they have the Scavenger perk?  Reducing the speed of a player with the Grenade Launcher attachment or reducing the gun's accuracy would make the game more balanced, in my opinion.

$0.02


----------



## Motorcharge

Ronan said:


> For the 1887, they should significantly reduce the range of the rifles, but the damage should be kept at the same rate.  Also, seeing as they are antique rifles, shouldn't the accuracy be halved?



They're shotguns, not rifles and the ones in game are reproduction 1887s that are very popular and still used today, not black powder originals. They're just as accurate as any other 12ga shotgun is.


----------



## Ronan

uk80glue said:


> They're shotguns, not rifles and the ones in game are reproduction 1887s that are very popular and still used today, not black powder originals. They're just as accurate as any other 12ga shotgun is.



Meh, I meant shotguns, I'm just not using the correct terms.

Yes, they're just us accurate as a 12 gauge shotgun... Short-range.


----------



## Motorcharge

Ronan said:


> Meh, I meant shotguns, I'm just not using the correct terms.
> 
> Yes, they're just us accurate as a 12 gauge shotgun... *Short-range*.



Read through the whole thread 
If you think a 12ga wont kill you at the range 1887s do in game go try it with a real one.


----------



## Droogie

muuuuuuuuch better. 

they've been balanced, and seem to have the same range as all of the other shotguns now.


----------



## mw2 m1887 lover

These guns are unlocked at lvl 67 and i think for people working there buts off to reach that lvl deserve something that good


----------



## Pikachuwee

The weapon is pretty badass, I don't really use it as much and it's not as annoying as the FAMAS.


----------



## Matthew1990

Getting to 67 take like a day of gameplay. Really that hard?


----------



## Theblackoutow

Ughhh, this kid is a troll and just dug this stupid thread up.


----------



## Pikachuwee

Theblackoutow said:


> Ughhh, this kid is a troll and just dug this stupid thread up.



Like if his name wasn't obvious enough, lol.


----------



## Aastii

Pikachuwee said:


> Like if his name wasn't obvious enough, lol.



lol exactly. I thought I had seen this thread somewhere before...a good few months back


----------



## Theblackoutow

Yeah, this thread was made around the time I joined.


----------



## ellanky

Theblackoutow said:


> Yeah, this thread was made around the time I joined.



Really?
Wow, you must have alot of time on ya posting so much..


----------



## Aastii

ellanky said:


> Really?
> Wow, you must have alot of time on ya posting so much..



6 posts a day isn't alot reeeeeeaaaaaaaally


----------



## Gooberman

yeah Aastii is at 11.70!!! HOLY crap


----------



## Theblackoutow

So does my friend Gamer1337.


----------

