i find sniping easier and i no scope. i am making a montage... expect a post from me soon. but anyone can spam shots with the barrett
well, ya its more satisfying with te interventin but barrett lets u hav mor control over ur weapon. for ex the intervention is bolt action, so everytime u shoot and pull back the bolt, ur accuracy goes bak 2 normal but with the barrett u hav 2 wait urself so its not anyone can rapidly fire with a semi-auto rifle, in fact i think its harder to shoot bc u hav to do a lot urself and the gun doesnt do it for u then again, just my opinion. but dont get me wrong i luv the intervention. actually, did u know intervention has more sway? thats not an opinion, its a fact inter has faster sway and a larger sway area
Before Spoiler After Spoiler Bolded text equals a fix, you can thank me later; for editing your post so it is both legible, and error free. OT: I belive that the Intervention is better, because it is more accurate; and therefore, has a better ability to kill with one shot at range. //Edit: it has just appered to me that your username implies that you are either A) A very un-edjucated black man, or B) A 10 year old trailer trash white kid who thinks he is cool enough to resort to being very racist without uttering a single word. -Either way, go to school and learn to spell; because it is, in fact, very important.
for some reason, i find that i suck with the barrett. i pick them up/occasionally use them all the time. idk, but i shoot people in the same places with the barrett and it never kills. and im very experienced with both weapons, red tiger on the barrett 50 cal and fall on the intervention. so i can safely say that the .50 cal doesnt 1 shot as much. also, im picking up the WA2000 as my coldblooded sniper.
WA200 is a great gun, 'specially for search... Oh man he's a badboy when he's silenced. But the barrett is fun to use, less rewarding... HOWEVER I like that "umph" it has when you fire it... The type of vibration in the controller mixed with the sound, OOMMMGGG. The intervention's sound isn't as satisfying... COD4's m40a3 and R700 were way good
Well, i have never heard THAT saying, but i do beleive that when you get a kill with the intervention you just feel...satisfied. Wiith the barret yes it is no doubt a better sniper rifle because of its speed and clip size. But that feeling when you get a kill, just isn't there.
You owned that guy. Soooo bad. I like both guns, I think they're both good; but I also think the Barrett is better for larger and more open maps (Wasteland and Afghan for example) where you need to take on multiple enemies at once. The Intervention is better for smaller and tighter maps (Underpass and Rundown for example), where most of the time you only take on one enemy at a time. Both guns are good, but for different things.
Im sure my take on this won't really have much of an effect, but whatever. I started out using the Barret all the time, purely because I looked at the statistics and the only difference I saw was that the Barret shot faster; So I went with it. And for a while I stuck with it, until one day after two months or so of the the Barret, I picked up an Intervention. Killed 2 people, and it became my favorite sniper on the spot, no joke. I think the three things that make the Intervention better (for myself that is) is 1: The recoil is SO much less than the Barret's, 2: It's not as obnoxious and loud, and 3: It seems so many times that I completely miss someone, it'll give me the kill anyways. Like the bullets correct themselves. So the way I see it, yes the Barret takes a ton more skill, but that doesn't necessarily make it better. I stick with intervention.
First off, quick scoping is so much fun. When I play games my main goal is to have fun. When I get bored of the overpowered assault rifles I play ffa with my sniper. Now, there are situations where you are forced to quickscope, how does this make me have no life? I'm really confused how you came to that conclusion. I'm just going to go ahead and jump to the conclusion that you got sniped one to many times, and vented a little anger right there. What the **** do I get out of quick scoping? A good kill lol... Play the game properly? Quick scoping is insanely fun, I have no idea why you would say it's an improper way to play. It's also a lot more difficult to use than an assault rifle that has no recoil and auto aim. So I really don't see what your problem is with it. Maybe your under the impression that no scopes are accurate in this game? They're not. They're horribly, horribly inaccurate. You can't consistently no scope something in this game that's farther from you than a knife. I'm not a detriment to the team when I quick scope. I always go positive and place in almost every FFA. It's not like I'm always quick scoping, I just do it when it makes more sense.
I prefer the Barrett .50cal. I've fallen in love with it since CoD4. The .50cal is the only sniper rifle I use. I mean, it shoots freaking .50 caliber rounds, one shot should blow a person up. In CoD:MW2, IW make the .50cal seem like a lesser weapon than the intervention. The intervention is newer weapon than the .50cal anyway...
Personally I find the Intervention to be the better of the two. When I first played this game my nephew (who got the game before me) said that the Intervention was lame. So I decided against using it and played with the 50.cal up. The longer I played with it the worse I seemed to get so, I decided to use the Intervention, which I loved. Game after game I would just rip it up. I find that although it is a bolt-action. It isn't much more of a challenge to stop a team rush than it is with the 50.cal. It also has less recoil, which is what annoyed me with the 50.cal the most when I used it. So in my opinion: Intervention>50.cal
The Barrett .50cal should be better than the intervention. The only thing the Intervention has over the .50cal is accuracy, since its a bolt action weapon. Its not like the intervention shoots .50 caliber rounds, so why is it more likely to kill enemies with one shot than the .50cal? In reality, the Barrett M107 .50cal sniper rifle doesn't have the kind of recoil it has in CoD:MW2.
To be frank; the accuracy boost is not due to the fact that the rifle is of bolt action, but because it is the most advanced weapon system in the world. A trained sniper can hit anything on anyone from any distance. Also, if you shoulder fire the .50 at 10 rounds in 20 seconds, you would probably bust your shoulder and it would have about the same amount of recoil.
1. The intervention cannot hit "anything" at "any" distance. There is a limit, supposedly 2,500 yards. 2. Even a trained sniper can't hit "anything" on "anyone" at "any" distance. When taking account all the variables that comes with sniping (temperature, wind, moisture in the air, etc), even an advanced sniper rifle like the intervention cant pull off shots on targets at ranges beyond 2,500 yards, especially if they're moving targets. Its not the rifle that kills, its the bullet. 3. It is the fact thats its a bolt action that makes it accurate, the added technological features just makes it better. If the M107 had all the features that the Invention has, then it too would be as equally as accurate as the intervention. My problem is that in MW2, it seems like the intervention is the ultimate rifle, high accuracy, high ranges, near 100% one shot kills no matter what the circumstances are. The Barrett .50cal shoots .50 caliber rounds, any soft target hit by a .50 caliber round should go down with one shot. So why doesn't it have near 100% one shot kills? One last thing, I've seen a Barrett M107 .50cal being shot in rapid fire on the military channel, and there was no evidence of the rifle recoiling all over the place like it does in MW2... I mean the wepaon was designed to reduce its own recoil. The barrel was designed to reduce recoil. As the weapon is fired, the barrel moves inside the gun onto springs and moves back into place without disrupting accuracy. Even its weight and muzzle break reduces its recoil. So WHY is the recoil in MW2 so freaking ridiculous!?
The 50. cal thing is a bit of a misconception. The round is a higher caliber, so generally it is a greater weight. This generally means it's momentum will be greater, and the damage done also. But the damage a bullet does is not solely down to it's speed or it's momentum, there are obviously other factors otherwise the grade (material) and shape wouldn't even matter, and they obviously do. And yea the 50. cal would have a lot more recoil. You wouldn't be able to fire it while running, but then you probably wouldnt be able to fire the intervention either.
Snipers in general are not meant to be used while on the move... Acog scope anyone? That's as good as it'll get if you want to be mobile, close to battle, and stay alive... Snipers are generally in buildings, grassy hills, etc; shooting targets that are major threats to infantry advancement, and other snipers.
We already know what snipers do... We're talking about how over-rated the Intervention is compared to the Barrett. IMO, i think that the Barrett is suppose to be able to shoot one shot kills, no matter the circumstances, but yet the Interventions tops the .50 cal in almost everyway. Im calling for a fix. The actual weapon does not recoil like the one in MW2, unless a person was to fire it standing. The Barrett .50cal actually has very little recoil and was designed in every way to reduce its recoil. The damn Coast Guard uses it to shoot out from helicoptors to stop smuggler's/terrorist's boats!
The 50.cal is an anti-material rifle. It's designed to be sluggish, and cause messy irrepairable damage, usually to vehicles and aircraft. It should be difficult to maneuver and hard to operate under strained conditions. And you are still falling into the misconception that because the bullet is big, it is more likely to cause a critical wound. The 50.cal is more like a stone, with the intervention compairable to a spear. Accurate, streamlined and efficient.