That was one of two factors in the OLI calculation that always made me uncomfortable, the other being range. My main reservation stemmed from the idea that accuracy declines as RoF increases, both from recoil, and also form wear and overheating. The recoil factor seems to have some visible manifestation in the trend towards burst govenors on assault rifles. Interestingly, the idea that Rof decreases accuracy even shows up in some single shot weapons. It is my understanding that pre-cartridge weapons tend to become fouled by powder residue fairly quickly. One estimate, for which I have seen no data in support, estimated a 10% accuracy loss for each five shots taken with a black powder weapon,assuming that no time is taken to clean it after firing. While cartridge weapons do not preduce such a level of residue, it is my understanding that they do produce some, and combined with both temporary and permanant warping of gun barrrels from overheating, cause Rof to have a less that linear effect.

With that in mind, I have tried using different methods for measuring Rof. One was fairly simplistic, and came out of a primitive commercial wargame, which involved taking the square root of RoF as a factor. This seems to have proved unsatisfactory. Another I based on a fairly complicated model ballistic performance I created, based of commercial ballistics table and some guessing, to represent the loss of accuracy produced by recoil, considering the relative ratio of the firing platform to the momentum of the round.
The model has had some limited testing against real data, nut unfortunatly all from one book.

One reoccuring problem I my alternate RoF factor reducing OLI type models was I always get the reslut thatSMGs become very much inferior to bolt-action rifles, and machine guns become only 2-5 times as effective as a bolt-action rifle. Semi-suot rifles cease to have any superiority at all.
This seems to run counter to much WWII experience. It also raised the question of the effect of proper balancing of arms on a small scale ratio, and the subsequent effect on firepower. Thus, it is generally accepted that a bolt-action rifle is superior to an SMG at longer ranges, and the reverse at close quarters. But is it really possible to assign one or the other a better rating in general? Perhaps terrain should specifically modify the OLI of long range weapons separately form close range ones, obviously bringing up the difficult issue of defining those two categories precisely.

does the "better late than never" cliche apply? I had the smae concerns as you expressed -- in general the entire rating schem of Infantry Weapons -- small arms, Machine Guns and Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons.

My reading of WWII accounts also confirms the vast superiority of Machine Guns over bolt-action rifles, and the substantial superiority of SMGs over same.

I have experimented with some variances to the original QJM ratings which incorporate precisely the same concerns you address about Rate of fire and the impact on accuracy. I don't however address the issue of degraded accuracy of time usage.

I have an Excel Spreadsheet, and BELIEVE IT OR NOT, a Word document documenting what i did and why. I would be glad to email them to you if you would offer me comment sback. Because I have not yet finished documenting my approcach to Guns & Artillery QWeapons, aFV Protection and AFVs -- I have not yet gone through the v ery necessary validation / calibration of the WWII Battles documented in the TDI Reports I have.

Please advise.