S21 should be more powerful

Yeah this is why I went on about balancing each weapon for its role, devs could easily increase DMR power, but this also has something to do with the perks for it in the skill tree, the automatic gun damage perks are just easier to reach, have more useful perks on their way and automatic guns in this game perform far more consistently than single fire weapons, which suck until you reach the PvG which has a huge jump in power and is the strongest weapon in the game in terms of reliable and sustained damage at any range.


I agree with you idea of balancing the DMRs, as it is today there is no reason to use them.
To much recoil with to little damage and to small magazines dont make for great gameplay when trying to hit small components on moving targets.

Either they should change the damage from the DMRs or give it a special class of ammo.


Explosive rounds for DMR’s would be cool. It could be more rare, but give it a nice edge in combat.

From my experience I can say that the exp explosive rounds (9mm, .44, .50) aren’t really worth the uranium.

The DMR’s use 7.62. So use the exp shock rounds for them. That’s funny.

I’m not talking about experimental rounds, I’m talking specific DMR ammo that would be programmed in, sorry for any confusion.

I’d be all in if the S21 (M14) and also the Kotenok (SVD) get a buff to better bridge the gap between assault rifles (mainly the AG4/G3) and the two hunting rifles.
They definitely need less recoil to better stay on target and get more precision plus a tad more damage to at least one shot Runners when hit in the fuel cell.

My 2 Ct.


Same. If you can’t one shot a prototype runner with a hit to its fuel cell with armor piercing ammo, you’ve got an issue.

Mmh I disagree.
Both are weapon pack weapons.
That means that you have them right from the beginning on in your plundra, which I don’t like. Ok, maybe there is a lack of ammo at the beginning.
But as new player you shouldn’t be able to one-shot your first enemies. That would destroy the immersion even more in the beginning.

But I agree that a 5c S21 or Kotenok should be much stronger than the actual versions.

Can’t the 1c Meusser one-shot prototype Runner fuel tanks too? You can get that very early from that hunter side mission.

I even don’t know anymore if I ever used a 1c meusser.

Here are some users who already compared the calibers in real life. I’m not sure, but I think that it’s stronger than 7.62 in general.
Mind that the .243 ammo is more rare than 7.62 and that the capacity of the magazines are very small for the hunting rifles, so it would be ok.

The 1c Meusser can indeed 1 shot the Proto runner fuel cells but The Hunter side mission gives you a 2c Meusser, you get the 1c Meusser from a side mission just after the first farm.

1 Like

.243 has a better velocity but .308 (which is very similar to both DMRs’ 7.62) is about 40-50% more powerful.

I think that putting the DLC guns directly into your Plundra from that start is silly anyway, makes no sense that these foreign weapons appear from thin air.

And I agree that the ubiquitous 7.62 shouldn’t be as powerful as the rarer .243/.270. That’s why I think the DMRs should’ve been given unique middle ground ammo, to bridge the gap between the assault rifles and hunting rifles. But I seriously doubt they’re gonna do that at this point.

Actually the bridge is the amount of ammo per clip and in total.

Well, the chickens are coming home to roost here when it comes to the DMR’s, mostly due to their oops in game design with the 7.62x51 cartridge.

They made the classic blunder of assuming 7.62x51 is generally the same as 7.62x39 and it’s absolutely not true. So when they introduced the DMR’s things got weird.

The base problem with anything chambered in 7.62x51 in this game is it’s under powered. In game it hits as hard as a 30-30 Winchester at best. I know the game developers are thinking that the AK 4 is an “assault rifle” and it should perform on par with the AK 5, but the AK 5 is actually a “battle rifle”. That’s a big deal, and they perform much differently.

Here’s how to fix it:

The Kalashnikov gets its own 7.62x39 ammo and damage is nerfed by a little bit. Maybe they can bring in the RPK in a future weapons pack?
Anything chambered in 7.62x51 gets a damage boost.
The AK4, MAG, and M60 get more severe recoil to compensate for the increased power, maybe ammo is heavier too.

Once that happens the M21 and the SVD will start to feel right.

1 Like

Sorry to necro this, but…

Well, so I bought the 2nd US weapon pack during the Steam wintersale because what could possibly go wrong…

…but what can I say other than…

I’m totally underwhelmed of the S21 !!

I still can not oneshoot a prototype runner with a hit in the fuel tank not even at point blank range.

Maybe futher testing is needed when I finally get my hands on a 5* version but for now I’d never consider carrying a S21 over my Älgstudsare to fill the spot of a “light” and silenced sniper rifle. Btw the same applies to the Kotenok…

So I guess it’s no “old memories” for me, thinking of DayZ Mod and the M14 wit red dot sight… sigh …or even a DMR…

I think that was the last weapon DLC i bought…

My 2 Ct. ymmv though

The S21 5* version can with one shot destroy a runner, but only prototypes, 2 shots for Military and Fnix versions.
But yeh its a very weak rifle, altough still better than the Kotenok.

And no you are right, M14, other variants and same tier weapons are usually good in most videogames (and real life).
Its just here that rifles and snipers are really bad ( not counting 50.cal).

Right at a year later, and still the same deal. At this point, the issue of ammunition type and damage output for the VASTLY DIFFERENT 7.62mm weapons in the game has been beaten to death time and time again, but good grief, it needs to keep getting beaten until something changes some…or until the game is dead. One or the other.

As has been pointed out, over and over, in numerous different threads I’ve seen in just the few days I’ve browsed, we’ve got weapons that share ammo that simply should not…but, logistically, that’s okay—IF the weapons have different damage stats, and other characteristics (recoil) to make them more like their real-life selves…better yet, to balance them against one another and give them each some place in the game.

The AI-76, using the generic 7.62mm ammo in the game, and featuring a base magazine capacity of 30 rounds…clearly represents the (7.62x39mm) AK-47 or an equivalent relative. A true assault rifle, using a true intermediate power cartridge. Top magazine upgrade goes to 45 rounds. Top magazine Augmentation, 90 rounds.

The AG4, again using the same generic 7.62mm ammo in the game, but featuring a base magazine capacity of only 20 rounds…clearly represents the (7.62x51mm NATO) AG4, the Swedish service version of the German HK G3. Not an assault rifle. A battle rifle, using a full-power rifle cartridge…not an intermediate power cartridge. Top magazine goes to 35 rounds, last I checked. Top magazine augmentation, 70 rounds.

A couple of updates back, I did some extensive testing of the AG4 and the AI76. Same range, same target type/class. The two rifles did roughly the same damage, and the AG4 did not appear to be more accurate or more effective at range…barely worth putting a scope on. If anything, the AI76 had a higher chance to one-shot Runners hit in the fuel tank, while the AG4 had a lower chance. Pretty damning test. Like the AG4 has absolutely nothing going for it, no place in the player’s arsenal once they have an AI76. For ultimate fairness, I did not test the AG4’s experimental variant. I looked solely at Purple/4C and Gold/5C versions of each gun. The only thing the AG4 has going for it, is that it CAN mount 1-4x and 4-8x scopes…BUT, without better accuracy and damage, the scopes are almost unwarranted.

I also tested the S21 and the Kotenok, as well as the KVM 59, N60, and the PM-71. I even looked at the Vintovka 1891, but with the (7.62x54mmR) Mosin-Nagant being the only bolt-action it was compared instead to the other bolt-action rifles in the game, and proved itself well—as it should, in my opinion, in terms of power.

The S21 and the Kotenok have base magazine capacities of ten rounds, with top magazines of 18, top magazine augmentations of 36. While the S21 represents the (7.62x51mm NATO) M21, the accurized/sniperized variant of the M14, the Kotenok represents the (7.62x54mmR) SVD. My testing suggested, again, that the damage between the S21 and the Kotenok was roughly the same—and, worse yet, not significantly better than the damage output for each individual shot from the AI76 and the AG4. If anything, the S21 tended towards more damage than the Kotenok by a tiny margin. That is absolutely disgraceful.

The belt-fed MGs were tougher to test using the same means, considering they’re full-auto-only—but I tried that at the time as well. The KVM 59 represents the (7.62x51mm NATO) KSP 58, the Swedish service version of the FN MAG, otherwise known within US service as the M240. The N60 represents, of course, the (7.62x51mm NATO) M60. The PM-71 represents the Soviet (7.62x54mmR) PKM. Base capacity for all of these is 50, top magazine 250, top magazine augmentation 500. The KVM measured out to be the weakest of the three, by a tiny margin from the N60 which ranked in the middle. The PM-71, despite the crazy stat card suggesting it has absolutely incredibly power, actually is not as far ahead of the other two belt-feds as it might seem at a glance. The PM71 does have the advantage, and it is considerable, but not by as huge a margin as the stat card in a player’s inventory will suggest.

Overall, my findings were this; comparatively speaking, either the AI76 is overpowered, or everything else is underpowered. Take your pick. It is as simple as that. The AI76 could be nerfed by a large margin, would be one solution…or everything else could be buffed, instead…or, perhaps best for balance, the AI76 could be nerfed slightly, others could be buffed slightly, and still others could remain where they are.

Logistically speaking, hey, cool, generic 7.62mm. I don’t have a problem with that. I won’t bother arguing that it is necessary to add more different ammo types to the game If it were necessary, it would be “7.62 Light” and “7.62 Heavy” and not anything more complicated than that. But I will most definitely join the crusade when it comes to rebalancing the damage per shot for the whole range of 7.62mm weapons. Not just to improve the S21 and the Kotenok, which need it, but also the AG4 which needs it desperately, and the belt-feds that have been around the longest as well.

So I’ll argue this;
—The AI-76 damage output should drop a small amount. -2.5~5%?
It should remain the close range king, in comparison to the AG4.
This should also put it more in line with the 5.56 weapons, and the 9x39mm as well. People might start using different weapons more often, accordingly. MIGHT.

—The AG4, conversely, should get a slight buff to damage output. +2.5~5%?
Recoil can get worse, slightly, as a trade-off for greater power, but first-shot accuracy should improve.
Make it worth putting a scope on, give it a place to excel; more effective at longer range than the AI-76, but harder to control up close. If it can’t reliably pop dogs at range, it isn’t right. The experimental version can enjoy this same buff.

—The S21, like the AG4, should get a slight buff to damage. +1.5~3%?
It should also be made compatible with the 1-4x and 4-8x scopes, maybe even the 2x RDS.
No other changes suggested, save for maybe bumping the top magazine upgrade to 20 rounds.
First shot accuracy should be better than the AG4, as the S21 is a marksman’s rifle instead of just a heavy infantry rifle.

—The Kotenok, like the S21 and AG4, should get a slight buff to damage. +2~4%?
It should also be made compatible with the 4-8x scope, and maybe even the 2x RDS.
And, good grief, PLEASE re-do the visual model for this thing! It’s the most horrific rendition of an SVD-like-thing I have EVER seen, in ANY game, EVER—and I’ve played Borderlands titles!
First shot accuracy could be improved, slightly.

—The KVM 59 should also get a slight buff to damage, +3~6%?

—The N60 should get a smaller buff to damage. +2.5~5%?
The rear iron sight should also be fixed on the N60!

—The PM-71 can stay just as it is.

—The Vintovka can also remain as it is.

The numbers for them all could be played with some, but I think the relative differences I’ve presented would be about right. The AI76 drops in power, slightly…everything else moves up slightly, or—at the top-end—remains the same. The AI76 remains the close range king, but the AG4 gains something more of a point to exist. The DMRs get improved, with the AG4 being like one of them but with added close-range functionality… The belt-fed 7.62s get balanced out just a touch better.


Those are great points, and would solve a lot of problems. I love using 5.56 in belt feds cause its so low recoil, but its does nothing currently. I personally support the introduction of heavy and light 7.62 ammo, for things like the S21 and Kotenok it would make loads of sense.

Additionally, i feel likethe .50 bmg could be buffed a bit, especially when using armor penetrating ammo. It doesnt need a huge buff, but penetration could definitely be made a bit more realistic.

As you say, the 5.56mm weapons (KVM 89, AG5, and N16) could also be buffed, and the normal .50 BMG could also be buffed.

The testing I mentioned before, I have now repeated several times. After one update, then the next, etc.

—From this point on, TL;DR…read on if you will, or not…your choice…—

My testing was done on SKIRMISH difficulty. I tested ONLY normal versions of each weapon, not experimentals. I tested Purple/4C and Gold/5C versions of a number of weapons. I tested them “naked” (no attachments), then with different combinations of Purple/4C suppressors/silencers, compensators, magazines/belt boxes, and optics/scopes. Most recent rounds of testing were more carefully controlled, distances kept between 15m and 20m for damage tests—this short range was adhered to, to ensure that I could consistently hit the same spot on each machine…a non-vital part of the leg, not a weakpoint or armored component—“just steel.” Each test began with me checking the machine’s health value using the tech view in the binoculars, to verify the machine was in “mint condition, 100%.” I then took up position, waited for the right moment, and shot the target ONCE. Targets were never alerted before the shot. After the shot, I swapped back to the binoculars and checked the machine’s overall condition again, to determine the damage dealt by the one shot—while taking evasive action to avoid getting shot up, myself. Looking only at Military Class Runners, my results were as follows.

First off, I could not conifm that barrel extensions have ANY positive impact on weapon/ammunition performance. I could not detect any increase to velocity, no change to flight time from “shot fired” to “shot landed” and no change to trajectory/flight path—drop at range seemed to be the same. Testing for this was NOT done at 15m, but out to about 600m. These findings are not conclusive, as I did not yet test against armor. I don’t use the barrel extensions anyway, so they haven’t gotten the same testing priority as the other stuff. I DO intend to get extensions out of storage and test them again.

Worse than finding no positive impact, my testing actually suggested that barrel extensions cause damage to vary more wildly, with a larger number of “low damage rolls” coming up—so a downward trend in terms of damage output!

As for compensators, scopes, and magazines, there is NO consequence for using them in terms of damage penalties. There was a rumor mentioned in another thread that the 2x RDS had a damage penalty tied to it, but I did not find this to be the case.

There DO however appear to be two weapons which have issues with the 2x RDS;
—The K-Pistol has an issue where there will be a difference of about a foot between point of aim and point of impact when looking through the 2x RDS, with point of impact being HIGH.
—The KVM 89 has a similar issue, but the difference between point of aim and point of impact is only about 6 inches, with point of impact being LOW.

Point of aim/point of impact tests were done at about 20~25m, at a Control Point, using the Hunter practice target, using the same marked spot for the point of aim—the ‘head.’ Weapons were tested first without the 2x RDS, then with, and I also tested other applicable scopes for each weapon, with no additional issues observed. Shots were fired as carefully as possible, sometimes loading only one round of ammo by dropping the rest of the ammo, to more carefully test the full-auto-only weapons. Others were set to semi-auto. All tests conducted standing fully upright, not prone or crouched. No weapon augmentations.

There IS a small damage penalty for using a suppressor. This varies from weapon to weapon, to some extent. Lower damage weapons see a smaller damage penalty, with higher damage weapons seeing a larger damage penalty. This is a common trade-off for a lot of games, so I’m not going to bother complaining about it…even if it isn’t necessarily realistic, what with how we’re not swapping to subsonic/low power ammo… More details to follow. The quality of the suppressor used does not change the damage penalty; suppressor quality only adjusts the sound signature in regards to enemy reaction…higher quality is quieter, lower quality is worse, as expected.

The AI76 and AG4, when inspected in your inventory, have the same damage values indicated on their stat cards. In testing, this was found to be true. Comparing Purple/4C AI76 to Purple/4C AG4, or Gold/5C AI76 to Gold/5C AG4, damage values mirrored one another from one weapon to the other.

Purple/4C AI76 and AG4: Roughly “21% damage” dealt, no suppressor. “17%” with suppressor.
Gold/5C AI76 and AG4: Roughly “24%” damage dealt. Expect about “20%” with suppressor.

Again, I have to point out—in NO WORLD should an AK-47/AKM and an AK4/G3 do the same exact damage, at the same exact range, on the same exact target. Never. Not ever. The AK-47/AKM, in-game the AI76, uses 7.62x39mm intermediate power ammunition. The AK4/G3, in-game the AG4, uses 7.62x51mm NATO full power ammunition. Damage should be considerably higher for the AG4.

This should be balanced out by the AG4 having worse recoil, being better suited for use in semi-auto, with the AG4 lending itself well to use with a scope, for longer range work like pinpoint attacks against weakpoints, popping Runner fuel tanks, etc—compared to the “close range king” that the AI76 is and should continue to be. Keep in mind, the AG4’s base magazine size of 20 versus the AI76’s base magazine size of 30—and the continued 10-round difference with the best magazines, and greater difference if magazine augmentation is used.

The S21 and the Kotenok, their stat cards suggest they do considerably more damage. While their damage is somewhat higher than that of the AI76 and AG4, the difference is NOT as big as the stat cards suggest. Between the S21 and the Kotenok, there is a difference in damage done.

There is an issue with the S21’s stat card not showing the correct progression for the Gold/5C version, when compared to the Purple/4C version, but in testing the weapons actually do have more or less proper damage values when comparing the different quality versions—the stat cards just aren’t right.

Purple/4C S21: Roughly “25%” with suppressor, roughly “30%” without suppressor.
Purple/4C Kotenok: Roughly “24%” with suppressor.
Gold/5C S21: Roughly “30%” with suppressor, roughly “33%” without suppressor.
Gold/5C Kotenok: Roughly “26%” with suppressor, roughly “30%” without suppressor.

This is not as it should be. The Kotenok should be ever so slightly more powerful than the S21, and both of these weapons should be even more powerful than they are compared to the AI76 and AG4, currently. The AG4 should be closer to where the S21 and Kotenok currently are, at least. Like the AK4/G3, in-game the AG4, the M14-derived M21, in-game the S21, uses the 7.62x51mm NATO full power rifle cartridge. The SVD, in-game the Kotenok, uses the old 7.62x54mmR full power rifle cartridge… These should not struggle to pop Runner’s fuel cells on a regular basis, not like they currently do. These are potent rounds, potent weapons, and ought to be so in-game…

As for MGs, the stat cards for the KVM 59, N60, and PM71 are a bit sketchy again. The PM71 looks like it is just insanely powerful, and it is pretty powerful in use, but NOT as insanely powerful as the stat card suggests. I’ve lost some numbers, here, but I’ll provide what I have.

Purple/4C KVM 59: Roughly “21%” damage per bullet, with compensator.
Gold/5C KVM 59: Roughly “24%” damage per bullet, with compensator.
Gold/5C N60: Roughly “24%” damage per bullet, naked.
Gold/5C PM71: Roughly “31%” damage per bullet, naked.
Again, compensators do not have any impact on damage values. Suppressors do; expect to lose a few a few damage points

The difference between the KVM 59 and the N60 appears to be negligible, in terms of damage per shot, which is probably about right—same ammo, 7.62x51mm NATO. For comparison, the PKM—in game, the PM71—used the old 7.62x54mmR cartridge, slightly longer than the NATO round. Again, the PM71 is stronger, considerably so, but not MASSIVELY so as the stat card suggests. That said, it is perhaps still stronger than it should be, comparatively speaking. Cut the difference in half, I think that would be more correct.

Other damage numbers for other weapons, for sake of discussion:
Purple/4C .270: Roughly “66%” damage per shot, unsuppressed.
Gold/5C .270: Roughly “76%” damage per shot, unsuppressed.
Purple/4C .243: Roughly “65%” damage per shot, unsuppressed.
Gold/5C .243: Roughly “75%” damage per shot, unsuppressed.
Surprisingly little difference between these two rifles. Testing at longer range, or against armor, might show bigger differences. Wish we had a dedicated test range/target, somewhere…

Purple/4C Vintovka (Mosin): Roughly “68%” damage per shot, naked.
Gold/5C Vintovka (Mosin): Roughly “77%” damage per shot, naked.
Purple/4C PVG90: Roughly “68%” per shot.
Simo Hayha approves of the Vintovka/Mosin. And, yes, the .50 BMG is a bit weak on raw damage…even if it is just the Purple/4C I tested.

Purple/4C HP5: Roughly “17%” damage per shot, unsuppressed. Roughly “15%” with suppressor.
I don’t have the numbers for the other 9mm SMGs, but rest assured that they are THE SAME for the same quality level. Gold/5C models should be a few points stronger. Just as their stat cards suggest—these ones are actually reliable…

Gold/5C AT-WAD (9x39mm): Roughly “20%” damage per shot. Integral suppressor.
The AT-WAD doesn’t appear to be as underpowered as the weapon’s stat card suggests when inspected in the inventory. It may still be ever so slightly underpowered, maybe another point or two would be perfect.

Purple/4C AG5: Roughly “13%” damage per shot, naked.
Gold/5C AG5: Roughly “15%” damage per shot, naked.
Gold/5C N16: Roughly “15%” damage per shot, naked.
The 5.56 weapons are indeed underpowered. Even with a tiny projectile, it is a high velocity round, it should hit with some force—more than a 9mm SMG, at least. I mean, come on… Bump this up to 20%, the AT-WAD can stay as-is or go up a percent or so, the AI76 can come down a point or two, the AG4 can go up a few points, then the KVM 59 and N60, then the PM71, then the S21 and Kotenok…geeze, total weapon rebalance.

My character build DOES have the Commando specialization active, which is supposed to be good for a damage boost versus enemies that aren’t alert. So, if someone tries to replicate my tests to check the results, just keep in mind possible differences in selected skills/perks.