Editing Talk:BR55 battle rifle

== Merge BR55HB SR Battle Rifle ==

BR55HB SR, obviously by its designation, is just a variation of the standard BR55. So therefore it should be included in the BR55 article rather then as a seperate article. As I have said before, the M16A2 doesnt get its own article in the normal Wikipedia, so why should the BR55HB SR get a seperate article from the BR55 page? [[User:Justin Time|Justin Time]] 02:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

*Like I said before, the MA5C is different from the MA5B, the M6C is different from the M6D, and the BR55HB SR is different from the BR55. '''([[User:CommanderTony|CommanderTony]])''' 7/31/2007
**agree with the Admin

==Halo: First Strike==

Now correct me if I am wrong but in first strike it says that the [[Battle Rifle]] was a cut down version of the [[Assault Rifle]] that the [[Spartan]] twos found along with extra armour in [[ONI]]'s Castle Base?

actually, the book made it clear that they were entirely new weapons. however, they did include features from the MA5B, and were even referred to as "assault rifles" at times, although the term is generally applied to a wide array of weapons in general. dont worry: it's an easy mistake to make.

==Pre-Halo 2 Information==
I've has this lingering thought in the back of my mind and now I've finally got a place to ask about it! Is it just me, or did the pre-Halo 2 reports state the battle rifle would be able to shoot a single bullet ''or'' a three-shot burst? Or am I crazy? lol. Please eleviate my concerns about my mental health on my talk page, Thanks :) -- [[User:Manticore|<b><span style="color: black">Manticore</span></b>]] [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|25px]] [[User talk:Manticore|<sup><span style="color: black">Talk</span></sup>]]<sup> | </sup>[[Special:Contributions/Manticore|<sup><span style="color: black">CSV</span></sup>]] 14:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:I think it was fixed in semi-auto at first, then changed to burst when not zoomed and shoot semi-automatic when zoomed. Not sure, though. -[[User:AK|AK]] 18:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it was origenly going to be single shot --[[User:Climax Viod|Climax Viod]] 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

==Weapon Design==
just realized, isn't the BR55 a bullpop? should that be added in?
==Ammo Switch==
even if it isn't something you can do in the games unless you mod, would it be possible to switch the battle rifles ammo to that of the M6D, or at least giving the BR55 rounds HE power? thanks, im doing a fan-fic and trying to keep it real to a point to the cannon story, so any replies would really help. [[User:SpecOps ODST|SpecOps ODST]] 18:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

would any one happen to know how you can increase a BR55's power?

:It would not be possible to use the M6D's ammo in the BR55. Quite apart from the fact that the rounds are too big to fit through the barrel, the clip wouldn't fit in the gun. If you want a BR that fires HE rounds, just make up a 9.5x40mm FMJ-HE as opposed to the 9.5x40mm FMJ-SAP. -[[User:Azathoth|<font color="black">''theblackthrone''</font>]] [[User talk:Azathoth|<font color="black"><sub>(atthecenter)</sub></font>]]  [[Special:Contributions/Azathoth|<font color="black"><sub>(ofultimatechaos)</sub></font>]] 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 

Or better yet magnumized FMJ SAPHE like the pistol [[User:SargeLIVES|SargeLIVES]] 21:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

== Major cleanup, etc. ==

Oy vey! I just spend the last several hours giving this article a major makeover, and boy, did it need it. Most of the article was poorly written and looked like a grade schooler wrote them. Numerous typos, comments that looked more at home in a casual message board discussion, and various other things really detracted from the overall quality of the article. It certainly didn't look like a quality encyclopedic entry. In addition to making look more professional, I went in and corrected factual errors and removed some extraneous commentary & speculation.

For example, I removed comments that the BR could have a 36-round magazine capacity or could compensate for supposedly excessive recoil due to some far-out futuristic UNSC tech. However, dimensional compression and inertial dampeners have to my knowledge never been mentioned in canon sources as technology employed by the UNSC for small arms or, well, ''anything''. Furthermore, it's an inconsistent theory anyway. I also refined the section regarding the BR's ammo besides removing the aforementioned commentary. I know a good bit about firearms, and needless to say, I discovered a few erroneous assumptions (large bullet≠massive recoil, at least not necessarily).

I also removed the BR vs. MA5B comparison as I felt it to be unnecessary (it was only a short paragraph anyway). Both weapons fill entirely different niches and don't even appear together in the same game. In fact, the only thing they have in common is that they are both rifles. I could understand if somebody wrote a comparison of the MA5'''''C''''' and the Halo 3 BR on thier respective pages since they both appear in the same game, but not the MA5B and the Halo 2 BR. The only weapon from Halo 2 that warrants a comparison to the MA5B is the SMG.

I did a whole bunch of other stuff as well, and I even contemplated removing an entire section, but I though it'd be best to refrain from that for now until I consulted with an admin.

Well, that's all for now. I'm sick of typing for the night.

Regards,

<span style="font-family: HandelGothic BT; font-size: 12pt;">[[User:Rtas Vadumee|Rtas Vadumee]]</span> 10:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

== Trigger ==

Anybody else notice the lack of a trigger? I had some trouble finding them on these pics. [[User:75.42.70.173|75.42.70.173]] 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

== 9.5mm x 40 ==

"It is interesting to note the ammo used for the Battle Rifle. It uses a new 9.5mm x 40 Experimental Round. The 7.62 x 51 mm NATO round is a rather high-powered round used on the MA5B and on modern-day marksman rifles and machine guns. The 7.62 mm already has a history of having too much recoil because of the round's high power, which made it hard to fire fully-automatically in assault rifles. While the BR55's larger 9.5 mm round would be heavier and would thus presumably generate even more recoil than the 7.62 mm NATO, this is not necessarily the case. Since the Battle Rifle's rounds have a noticeably shorter case length than the 7.62 mm NATO (40 mm vs. 51 mm), they most like contain much less powder that the 7.62 mm NATO, which would yield less muzzle energy and thus less recoil, making the weapon more manageable. 
However, the size of the ammo would have a problem fitting in the 36-round magazine of the current Battle Rifle. If a Heckler Koch G3 (which is chambered in 7.62mm x 51) has a standard magazine count of 20 and be the size that it is, it would be hard to see a cartridge much wider than the 7.62mm fit inside of a magazine of the Battle Rifle's size and with a capacity of 36 rounds. The Battle Rifle's magazine would have to be about twice as long as it actually is to hold that many rounds. This is a continuous pattern with UNSC assault rifles as a similar instance occurred with the MA5B. The MA5B has a magazine of 60 rounds chambered in the 7.62mm x 51 with a rather "small" magazine size, which looks to be smaller than the Battle Rifle's magazine."
 Rtas Vadumee

A lot of assumptions are being made in the above commentary about the 9.5mm x 40 cartrage; Has anyone actully seen specs for it? Does the 40 even stand for the case length? That number could be anything from the birthday of the designer to the powder charge.  Is the 9.5mm x 40 a bottle neck cartrage? If the 9.5 was a straight wall cartrage with a case diameter of say 10mm it would be aprox 2 mm smaller than the 7.62 Nato cartrage. the bullet diameter and case size are rarely related; the same bullet can be loaded in the 30 M1 carbine and the 300 Weatherby Magnum and the 7.62 Nato all with dramaticly different case sizes and balistic performance. And who really knows by the 25th century magazines could easily be triple stacked and not require folded springs or thick followers to feed reliably and be mass produced with much greater capacity. Regardless the MA5B mag holds 60 and the BR55 36.
[[User:Dagger133|Dagger133]] 08:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:Given that all other mm measurements for bullets in the haloverse have followed standard naming conventions, it's safe to say that 9.5 x 40 mm means what it says. -[[User:Azathoth|<font color="black">''theblackthrone''</font>]] [[User talk:Azathoth|<font color="black"><sub>(atthecenter)</sub></font>]]  [[Special:Contributions/Azathoth|<font color="black"><sub>(ofultimatechaos)</sub></font>]] 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The article dosn't say 9.5x40 mm it says 9.5mmx40 so it dosn't say what you assume. There are no, real, standard naming conventions ; and there are several non mm x mm lables in the US forces history, 38 special comes to mind as well as the 30-40 Krag and the good old 45 Auto somtimes also called the 45ACP.
[[User:Dagger133|Dagger133]] 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well we have never actully seen a real life BR55 from the halo universe. 500 years seems like decent amount of time to come make something like this happen. We've never witnessed any one take the gun apart or even seen the amunition itself, plus things like guns seem slighty bigger in person.([[User:0nyx Sp1k3r|0nyx Sp1k3r]] 23:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC))


robrob

hello my name is robrob. i have been shooting guns since i was 8. wile i agree that the .30 cal or 7.62 would be hard to control in a automatic gun there are other things to consider such as stopping power. for example i believe that the shields of elites work as so. speed of projectile X mass of projectile = amount of energy needed to deflect round. in this case the larger more powerful rounds would be more effective against shielded targets. this can be seen in space battles when the super MAC gus can propel a massive round that is fired at neer light speed, perices covie ships like tin foil. on the other hand light rounds from small ships bounce off.

                                            thank you,
                                                robrob

Hell the proto BR held 60 rounds of that size obviously they made a -BLAM-ton of improvements by 2525 (source contact harvest PG 132 bottom line and 133 line 1)[[User:SargeLIVES|SargeLIVES]] 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Well, hell, I'd say that the magazine has an electromagnet taking the rounds up to the chamber, also, I must take note, that the -BlAMIN- thing could probably already fit 36 should it be triple-tracked(Three rounds, lined up one after another) besides, can't a Beretta M92FS fit fifteen rounds inside it's magazine? I mean, -BLAM- that's a friggin' pistol, we're talking about an assault rifle. Also, there is a naming convention, and actually, the system is pretty much width x length, though I've heard it called powder grain before, but eh. It would be 9.5mm's wide, or about a .44 cal, and 40 millimeters long, I believe. If you don't believe me, go ask somebody who owns an AR15 rifle and check on the side, it should say 5,56 x 45 (But that may just be on my G36). 
- Tenth

Go grab a reloading manual flip through it and see how many  ###-### cartrage desegnations you find that are NOT mm x mm. For example, the 22-250, the 7 x 30 Waters, the 7mm-08 Rem., the 30-40 Krag, the 30-'06 [one of the most popular military rifle rounds of all time], the 45-70, the 32-20. "powder grain" don't spout off without checking your facts; some of the cartrage designations the like in the 45-70 the 70 stood for a charge weight of 70 grains [4.536 grams] of black powder. 

Oh, and robrob  force = mass x acceleration, not speed. 
[[User:Dagger133|Dagger133]] 05:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

== Name ==
Am I the only one who remembers the battle rifle originally being named the HA871?
[[User:Zuranamee|Zuranamee]] 5:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you think that stands for? Any guesses people?([[User:0nyx Sp1k3r|0nyx Sp1k3r]] 23:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Okay I'm curious now... when was this mentioned? Was it pre-Halo 2 release or in one of the books somewhere? [[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where exactly it was first mentioned but I believe a Bungie released piece of information had it and a lot of unrelated pre-Halo 2 fanfics had it labled as that, despite being from different authors.
[[User:Zuranamee|Zuranamee]] 7:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

==What is it==
The article states 
Quote: "It replaced the M6D Pistol as the primary mid-range UNSC firearm, although the power of the Battle Rifle is less than that of the M6D."
A battle rifle replaced a pistol? Impossible
--Imperial Stormtrooper

The M6D pistol had the range and power of a rifle in Halo: Combat Evolved.
[[User:Minster01|Minster01]] 21:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No the pistol had the range and power of a GOD[[User:SargeLIVES|SargeLIVES]] 21:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


In terms of Bungie balancing their game, yes, the BR replaced the Halo: CE pistol.  In terms of the Halo fictional universe, of course the BR was not the pistol replacement.  But it is in terms of gameplay.

== It isnt considered cheating ==

MLG did not ban ANY of the BR glitches just the superbounce. As far as Live went it was debated[[User:SargeLIVES|SargeLIVES]] 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

== The chinese ==

A good photo of the characters can be found here: http://nikon.bungie.org/images/ARchar.jpg
It's hou2 wang2, which does mean the monkey king.  Look up the 'journey to the west' legend for where that name comes from.

== SA80????? ==

The article says that the design of the BR55 was influenced by the SA80. Now, I've used the Cadet GP, which is more or less the same thing, and it doesn't look a thing like the BR55.--[[User:The All-knowing Sith'ari|The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari]] 10:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


ve seen pictures of many SA-80 series weapons and they look nothing like the BR55.[[User talk:Maiar|Maiar]] 03:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Matter of opinion really. Personally I think it looks like an l85a2 with a rail added. The cadet rifle doesn't have a scope so obviously they don't look alike. --[[User:Redcoat117|Redcoat117]] 18:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

== Relationship with the MA5 ==

It is my opinion that Earth was the only UNSC world to have access to the BR55, as even the hidden few on Reach were only advanced prototypes. After the Battle of Reach perhaps HIGHCOM decided to finally, (after ~27 ''years''), issue it as a standard weapon to Marine forces stationed at Earth/Luna/Sol. As for the lack of any MA5s in Halo 2 (the standard armament for Marines and soldiers), well, that's a gameplay element. In the two-ish months between the beginnings of Halo 2 and Halo 3, the UNSC had already upgraded/replaced many of its BR55s with BR55 HB SRs. The MA5C was, perhaps, already Earth's main assault rifle, rather than the more common B model, although the C was used less commonly elsewhere, (apparently not at Reach, though.) --[[User:Braidenvl|Braidenvl]] 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To get this point out, I think the M6D is a special-issue, often NavSpecWar-issued weapon. The M6C is a standard Navy-issue weapon, and the M6G is a standard-issue Marine Corps weapon. --[[User:Braidenvl|Braidenvl]] 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


You lost me. what point of any importance dose this have with the BR55?[[User talk:Maiar|Maiar]] 03:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

== Slight confusion ==
Assault firle and Battle rifle are two diferent clasifications of weapon. The diference being that a batle rifle uses higher power Cartridges. Several modern battle rifles (eg the FN FAL or SCAR/H) use the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge(the cartridge used on the [[MA5 series|MA5 assault rifles]]) compared to many modern assault rifles(eg the M16, XM8, Galil, SCAR/L) using the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge. There is a bit of a grey area though. one of the highest calibre assault rifles (by modern calculations) was the OTS-14 GROZA capable using 9x39mm cartridges. [[User talk:Maiar|Maiar]] 07:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

:The definition of the two terms overlap. Some modern assault rifles also qualify as battle rifles. <span style="color:#4C8844">'''Smoke''' <sup>[[User:Smoke.|My page]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Smoke.|My talk]]</sub></span> 15:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

== Sights ==

Dose anyone else think the optics-railing is too short and therefor the scope too far forward? Ihave seen pictures of people hefting life-size replicas and their heads only come halfway down the distance to the scope. it needs to be at least 35% further back. [[User talk:Maiar|Maiar]] 08:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)