View source for Talk:M6G magnum/Archive

== Dual-Wielding Section ==
It would be nice if someone more experienced than myself started a section on dual-wielding strategies for on the M6G. This is a section that is on articles of other weapons, for instance, the [[Paegaas Workshop Spiker]]. Just a suggestion. Thanks.
--[[User:Ghost.714|Ghost.714]] 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

== Eric Nylund's Halo: First Strike novel' Pistol ==
Did any one ever think that the pistols in the novel could be the M6G considering they are described as being quite powerful and having a larger and longer barrel.

[[User:BlueTwo|B2]] 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. It mentioned something like a 40% larger and longer barrel than the standard M6D model pistol. The M6G isn't 40% larger though, and the caliber of round is exactly the same as the M6D. The unnamed HE pistol in the novel strongly suggests a round even larger than .50 cal. Perhaps a specifically designed Spartan weapon? I mean, what sort of sane human being is going to fire a gun that size... So I don't think that it was the M6G! I'm glad someone else mentioned it though =D<br />
[[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 09:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like an [[M6J Carbine]][[User:Maiar|Maiar]] 00:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

== Pistol or Magnum? ==

Should this article be named M6G Pistol or M6G Magnum? This article mentions BOTH. Confusing.... --'''[[user:Spartan781|<font color="#D3D3D3">Sp</font><font color="#A9A9A9">art</font><font color="#808080">an7</font><font color="#000000">81</font>]]''' File:Kill_Frenzy_Medal.gif|30px]] [[User talk:Spartan781|<sup><span style="color: black">Talk</span></sup>]]<sup> | </sup>[[Special:Contributions/Spartan781|<sup><span style="color: black">CSV</span></sup>]]

In Halo 3, it's called the "Magnum" so thats what it shall be called.... --[[User:MLG Cheehwawa]]

How come it says Model 6C on the side of the M6G magnum?
[[User:Zuranamee|Zuranamee]]

== Renaming ==

Hey, why don't you guys rename this article "M6G HE Magnum"? --'''[[user:Spartan781|<font color="#D3D3D3">Sp</font><font color="#A9A9A9">art</font><font color="#808080">an7</font><font color="#000000">81</font>]]''' File:Kill_Frenzy_Medal.gif|30px]] [[User talk:Spartan781|<sup><span style="color: black">Talk</span></sup>]]<sup> | </sup>[[Special:Contributions/Spartan781|<sup><span style="color: black">CSV</span></sup>]]

:I'm not sure there's been any confirmation yet that it's an HE pistol. -[[User:Azathoth|The Dark Lord Azathoth]] 19:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

::Oops, scratch that. It has been confirmed. :/ -[[User:Azathoth|The Dark Lord Azathoth]] 12:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

== Why there's no scope on the M6G ==

I belive there is no scope on the new M6G because of a common principal of Halo: no scoped weapon can be dual wielded. In halo: Combat Evolved, the M6D was scoped because you could only single wield it. now that the pistol can be dual wielded, bungie had to remove the scope or go against the "Law" of duel wielding--[[User:Ryan926|Ryan926]] 03:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

i have no facts 2 confirm this. but if the M6G looks like the M6D including scope. then perhaps the scope is available in single wield and not in dual wield as your sights could only cope with 1 scoped weapon at a time. i hope this is the case. if u think about it the pistol fires slower than the M6D and takes more rounds to kill. that would balance the argument of unfair pistol sniping.

ive posted this idea on B net and got flame after flame after flame :(
anyway thats just my thoughts. [[User:Triggerhappymole|Triggerhappymole]] 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC) (edited to include my new logon account)

== Fix'd ==

I fixed a phrase that said the M6G has the range/accuracy of the M6D -- Not true, anyone who played customs in the Beta knows that. I also removed the "more balanced" phrase from the "trivia" portion, that was not an 'in-joke' a weapon becomes is heavier in front than in back when unloaded, Fred loaded it and it became balanced because the weight in back evend it out when he loaded the weapon. --[[User:MLG Cheehwawa]]

== Guys...the stats box... ==

I fixed some of those stats, the M6G's accuracy may be "high" but it is most certainly not "Very high" as a Sniper's (Hell, the M6D is only "High" not "Very High"). It also is not a long range weapon, it's a close range dual wieldable but can be wielded (not very well) at middle range, but would be outgunned by any midrange gun since they all fire/kill faster in those ranges. --[[User:MLG Cheehwawa]]

== 12 Round Magazine... ==

Shouldn't the M6G stay at its 8-round magazine rather than having it at 12? It makes no since if the M6G is more powerful than the Battle Rifle and has the same ammo. Plus, when its dual-wielded, it just becomes way too overpowered. Its much more balanced at 8 rounds, and in the Campaign Trailer, it shows flashing red 8 rounds. Maybe Bungie is joking about the ammo capacity to have the fan-boys cheer that they have the closest thing to the M6D back. I'd say its much more unique if it stays at its 8-round clip but has the same power shown in the Beta.
--[[User:Don Eddy]]

Its waht Bungie have said and its more or less set in stone, leave it! lol --[[User:Ajax 013|Ajax 013]] 01:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keyword: more or less. And also, its probably a prank to get the fanboys exited. Gotta love Bungie's sense of humor, always gets the best of morons. So, unless we see some ACTUAL gameplay footage of the M6G, nothing is proven. Maybe leaked footage from Epsilon would clear stuff up. --[[User:Don Eddy]]

I'm sorry but thats just plain silly. Bungie has never done something like this before, why would they start pissing off people now? Now seeing as Bungie have stated twice that it has 12 rounds, like all the other M6 series pistols, lets safely assume its still twelve >.> --[[User:Ajax 013|Ajax 013]] 14:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

How has Bungie stated that twice? Show me a link if you wanna prove it. Now, when i say its a prank, it probably is considering we havent seen gameplay footage on the current build. The M6G has already pissed off fanboys cuz it has no scope. But once i looked at comments on a video recording the M6G, i found people liked it because it was balanced. Bungie listens to people who aren't fanboys, and if they liked it, then it satys that way. We can't assume anything thats not shown on footage, and people's opinion of the M6G. We can only look at the Campaign Trailer for reference for now until someone leaks epsilon footage. Also, consider the exotic ammunition mentioned, the balance issues, and the fact that many UNSC weapons have shorter clips/magazines.
Link to M6G Video: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/69416.html 
--[[User:Don Eddy]]

[http://www.bungie.net/projects/halo3/content.aspx?link=h3pistol]

[[Halo 3 Instruction Manual]]

Now which is better, cold hard fact or 'fanboy specualtion' hmm? --[[User:Ajax 013|Ajax 013]] 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Point, but who actually get the last laugh? 1UP has a screen of the M6G Magnum, looks like we still have our 8-Round Clip. Like I said, never trust wat people say, not even the source, trust only what is set in Screens and Video. LoL. --[[User:Don Eddy]]

For gods sake, will someone get it right. Pistols/Sidearms do not use "clips". Pistols use a thing called "Magazines". Can you say that..."Ma-Ga-Zine-s". Alright now that you know that, start remembering that. It's not to hard to remember that pistols do not use "clips", they use "magazines".

Cheers,
<br />File:UNSCoH_Dingo_without_letters.PNG|30px]]UoH/D Company|<font color="silver">'''Colonel'''</font>]] [[User:CommanderTony|'''<font color="crimson">Tony</font>''']]<sup>[[User Talk:CommanderTony|'''<font color="black">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 8/18/2007

ok. calm down. a clip is more or less the same as a mag. a clip is bullets held together to be placed into the magazine of a rifle. a mag is something that holds the bullets and slides into the gun

[[User:Triggerhappymole|Triggerhappymole]] 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, thank you Commander Tony. The magazine/clip confusion is perhaps the most frequent error that comes up in firearms discussions. Very few modern military weapons use clips to feed rounds into the weapon. The last one I can think of was the M1 Garand, which had an integral magazine that had the 8-round en bloc clips inserted into it. All semi-autos today use detachable magazines, not clips.

Anywho, the real reason I came to post here was to clear up the confusion regarding the M6G's magazine capacity. It appears that Lukems made an error in the M6G article from the other day. It has since been edited to say "8 rounds." So y'all don't have to go looking for the link to the article elsewhere, here it is: [http://www.bungie.net/projects/halo3/content.aspx?link=h3pistol M6G article]. With that, I'm off to edit the article here.

End of line.

<span style="font-family: HandelGothic BT; font-size: 12pt;">[[User:Rtas Vadumee|Rtas Vadumee]]File:UNSCoH_Dingo_without_letters.PNG|30px]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Rtas Vadumee|TALK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rtas Vadumee|CONTRIBS]]</sub></small></span> 07:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is unrelated to what is above, but goes under the same title. The M6C model has the same length of magazine as the M6G, so surely if we are being 'realistic', the M6C should technically have also had an 8 round mag. (Of course, computer game balancing comes into it so it doesn't really work, but I thought it was interesting anyway!)<br />
Just as a sidenote, I might go and check the scales of the magazines to see how many rounds they can each physically hold. Stop me if someone has already tried this!<br />
[[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 09:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

actually clips are still used in modern weapons like revolvers ever heard of speedloaders well they are also known as moon clips and ther are half speedloaders known as half-moon clips in fact a lot of military personal use moon clips or speedloaders over loading each round one by one. [[User talk:God like65|God like65]] 00:28, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

== bungie podcast question ==

in the new bungie podcast, 28-9 august 07, they mention custom games and Lars says "no shields, human pistols, with scopes".

does this mean that the M6G has a scope, or am i reading his words wrong?

[[User:Triggerhappymole|Triggerhappymole]] 10:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You mgiht be able to modify them or change them with Forge, i dunno, maybe it means scoped weapons. --[[User:Ajax 013|Ajax 013]] 13:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

maybe, but im still holding on to that small glimmer of hope. i mean, it wouldnt unbalance the pistol.

as ive said above:
"i have no facts 2 confirm this. but if the M6G looks like the M6D including scope. then perhaps the scope is available in single wield and not in dual wield as your sights could only cope with 1 scoped weapon at a time. i hope this is the case. if u think about it the pistol fires slower than the M6D and takes more rounds to kill. that would balance the argument of unfair pistol sniping."

[[User:Triggerhappymole|Triggerhappymole]] 22:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


==Ammunition==
If the M6G and M6D both fire the M225 ammunition, why does one do more than the other. Could it possibly be that the Mark VI shields are slightly stronger requiring more shots to bring it down.

[[User:BlueTwo|B2]]

Yes, that is the most logical theory. The power of the weapon remains unchanged to the original model, but the armour worn by players in the game has been updated and improved since the use of the M6D in Combat Evolved. [[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 08:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote, both the MA5C and M6G do the same damage to ushielded targets as their predecessors from Halo 1. [[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

really? because i can kill a minor grunt in one shot to the body in halo CE but in halo 3 it takes me 3 shots to the body to a minor grunt to kill it on easy, freaking easy! [[User talk:God like65|God like65]] 00:32, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

== Size ==

There seems to be a slight discrepancy between the size of the M6D and the M6G. While they both have a similair size of handle (excluding the magazine on the M6D) the length of the top of the M6G is most definitely longer than its earlier model. Yet, it is still quoted as being the same size. Does anyone know of anything that might cause our scales to be wrong? Maybe Bungie made a mistake in the update... [[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

== Max Ammo ==

Eight times six does not equal forty. Is the maximum ammunition supposed to be 48 bullets or five clips?
[[User talk:Hyper Zergling|Hyper Zergling]] 20:25, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

== g 7th letter ==

Do we need this in trivia[[User talk:SPARTAN - 300|SPARTAN - 300]] 02:46, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
:No[[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith-venator Wavingstrider</span>]] [[File:ODST Crest.png|20px]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Commlink</span>]]) 03:43, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

== M6G PDWS in Halo: Reach ==

<s>The article says that this is the pistol featured in Halo Reach, without any references to said claim. By comparison, by looking at the ViDoc: Once More Unto the Breach, the Pistol has the same aiming ability as in Halo: CE, as well as having at least twice the firing rate of the Magnum featured in Halo 3. Without proper references to the claim in the article, the article will be changed. [[User talk:Warhead xTEAMx|Warhead xTEAMx]] 00:12, February 17, 2010 (UTC)</s> My bad, didn't see the reference, but in any case the article needs to be updated to state the differences between the weapon system in Halo 3 and in Halo: Reach based on what we so far. [[User talk:Warhead xTEAMx|Warhead xTEAMx]] 00:15, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
:It will once the game is released.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 00:20, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

:Either way, no official info has been released on what exact M6 variant it is, so we should not make any final claims yet. But if anything, it makes sense to be an M6D because of its fire rate, scope, and the fact that the M6G wasn't in use until around the Halo 3 era.--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 19:45, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

::[http://gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2010/01/26/feature-Noble-Team-Profile-2.aspx GameInformer confirmed it].- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 19:51, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

:::Doesn't seem like a very good idea on Bungie's part to give it a scope. The M6G isn't supposed to come with a scope, and having a scoped magnum that kills in [http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&link=BWU_031910 4 shots] and is just as common on the battlefield as the Assault Rifle takes away the usefulness of the Assault Rifle.--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 00:11, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

::::I'd also like to point out it says 'M6B' on the side of the weapon, which is why I think it is a bad idea to include it as an image for this article. I didn't realise it had been confirmed wither way whether it was an M6B or an M6G? I am unwilling to go by what the markings say though, as they said M6C on the 'G' variant... but either way, surely we would be better off using the Halo 3 image? Besides, when did we take what a third party review says on game as fact? I would be extremely distrusting of what Gameinformer said unless I knew it was backed by Bungie already. Also, trust Bungie's judgement, I'n sure they know what they're doing! :P [[User talk:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 18:56, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

:::::This weapon is obviously an M6B. Bungie has to have made a mistake when naming it in their project page. The two weapons have some very different features. The new one has a completely different slide, a different grip, a different magazine, a scope, and it says "M6B" on the side of it. This weapon was obviously intended by the designers at Bungie to be a new pistol, not an M6G.--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 19:09, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

::::::Well, the Rocket Launcher in HCE and H2 was labelled as the M41, yet sources confirmed that it is the M19. Texture problem/time constraint, perhaps? Who knows.. ;) - <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 19:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

== New Reach reload animations ==

There seem to be two seperate reload animations for the Reach M6G. Wonder if we can put that into the Article page?

They're seen in the Halo: Reach ViDoc, Carnàge Carnivàle, at 2:20 and 5:55. The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUv98eWVnL0



SolidLemonsoup 07:22, April 24, 2010 (UTC)



The reload animations are only done by Spartans in this video.. maybe Elites also have different animations too (?)

SolidLemonsoup 07:29, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

:Nope. The Sangheili have the same animation as the Spartans when reloading the M6B. --[[User:Ultra Force|<span style="color:gray">(_)LTR/-\ F( )RCE</span>]] 03:56, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

== Isn't this an M6B? ==

I don't know what is in everyone else's water supply, but the writing stamped on the barrel of the ''Halo: Reach'' pistol says '''[[M6B Handgun|Model 6B]]'''. So, why are we saying the M6G is in ''Reach''?--[[User talk:The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari|The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari]] 11:16, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

:Check out the talk page for the M6B. There is a discussion about it there. BTW, the source that claims it is an M6G is Gameinformer's profile of Emile. So, yeah. [[User talk:SPARTAN-177|SPARTAN-177]] 16:21, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

::[http://www.bungie.net/projects/reach/article.aspx?ucc=ordnance&cid=25441 Bungie confirmed it's the M6G].- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">Σάπτανκ</font>]])</sup></font> 16:50, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

:::Even though Bungie says it's an M6G, everything in canon points to it being an M6B.--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 22:08, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

::::Bungie makes canon <sup>and retcons</sup>. They can easily say John-117 is a girl at birth. ;) - [[User:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">Sketch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">ist</span>]]</sup> 04:00, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
::::1st off the M6B is a downsized version of the M6D and 2nd off there is a SOCOM scope on the bottom not the scope on the M6B the scope on the M6B/M6D is on the top and in halo: reach the spartans can hold the weapon well while a spartan could not hold a M6B without breaking it because it's so small. [[User talk:God like65|God like65]] 06:16, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
::::I wouldn't say that the M6B is a downsized version of the M6D, as D would come after C. If anything, D is an upgrade of B. An upgrade with HE round capability and better accuracy. And a scope. [[User talk:Darkhelmet322|Darkhelmet322]] 22:57, August 28, 2010 (UTC)Darkhelmet322 18:65 August 28, 2010 (EST)
::::another thing i'd like to metion the M6B is used in law enforcement only in 2252 not in any militay faction so the UNSC army doesn't use it at all and yet i have seen army troopers use it often so its a M6G model B. [[User talk:God like65|God like65]] 00:39, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

== M6G 'B' and 'C' variants? ==

There are a few points I'd like to make. The M6G in Halo 3 says "Model 6C" on the side. That is likely just an error. If it were an "M6G C", it would say "Model 6G C" on the side. Same goes for the M6G in Reach. It would say "Model 6G B". Since these weapons are very different but go under the same name, I say we differentiate between the two as the "M6G (Marine Corps)" and the "M6G (Army)".--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 15:06, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

:''"Likely an error"'' is not concrete. Bungie may have changed the weapon designation system for the UNSC (they almost certainly change the ranking system of the UNSC as it differs somewhat from the current military ranking system). As for the difference in firing operation, it is just the Beta and changes may be made to the weapons in the final released game.
:The following is also a supported assumption, but an explanation as to why such section exist is needed. The Model6 C in the M6G (H3) denotes that the firearm is the standard firearm used by UNSC personnel whereas the Model6 B (H:R) denotes the firearm is equipped with KFA2x2 scope, as stated in [http://www.bungie.net/projects/halo3/content.aspx?link=h3pistol Bungie's archive]. This is supported with the visuals we see in H:R.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 15:17, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
::Canonically, that wouldn't make sense for there to be a B and C variant of a G variant, it's too confusing and contradicting. The most logical explanation for this is that there were some mistakes between the canon writers and weapon renderers. Another point, the M6G in Reach clearly resembles an M6B. Urk (or whoever manages the project page) made a canon mistake calling it an M6G. Therefore to correct his mistake rewrote canon calling it a variant of the M6G.--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 23:26, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

:::That... is utterly retarded. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, as I am tired as well as distracted with studying... but the game is still in development. Just redo the bitmap! '''[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup>''' 23:53, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

::Another point I'd like to make, this quote ''"The ‘B’ and ‘D’ variants are issued with the smart-linked KFA-2 x2 scope."'' refers to the M6B and M6D, not the M6G's so called 'variants'. Also, the "Model 6C" and "Model 6B" refers to the name of the weapon itself. The M6G is called the "Model 6G", incase you didn't know what the "m" stood for.--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 23:37, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

:::In context of the article, it seems to imply that the M6G had sub-variants, Model6 C the one we saw in Halo 3, the Model6 B in Halo: Reach and the Model6 D. There's a reason why it is written in such bizarre format. As per Subtank, the M6G we see for now have two different bitmaps, Model6 C engraved on the H3 model and Model6 B engraved in H:Reach model. Developers don't repeat the same mistake over and over again (over three games), unless they intentionally do it because they know it is not a mistake and it has been intended to be in such way.- [[User:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">Sketch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">ist</span>]]</sup> 00:15, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

::::Doesn't even make sense from a manufacturing standpoint. Really, if you intend for it to be the same damned weapon, label it as such, and make sure everything is consistent. If you decide to add an attachment, say it's the same weapon with an attachment (because that is exactly what it is). Much simpler, but whatever. It's their series. I'm not wracking my head deciphering idiocy. '''[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup>''' 00:20, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

:::::Meh, Bungie said it. I'm just interpreting it.- [[User:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">Sketch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">ist</span>]]</sup> 00:26, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

::::::I know, I wasn't going after you directly. '''[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup>''' 01:12, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I know, I wasn't offended. lul.
:::::::343i better offer some smart-ass explanation once Bungie is out of the picture.- [[User:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">Sketch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">ist</span>]]</sup> 01:17, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

::::::::@Smoke; perhaps this confusion is the result of uncommon/rare notice? [[wikipedia:Beretta 92FS#History|Beretta 92]] underwent many iterations throughout the years as it became common. It would make sense if Model 6/C is the improved version of Model 6/B, but judging from gameplays in the Beta, this is unlikely. Let's hope the finalised game clears things up.- [[User:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">Sketch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">ist</span>]]</sup> 03:15, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Perhaps. Once I woke up a little I looked back here and thought about it a little. Firearms manufacturers do variants of variants all the time, though generally the difference is usually size and barrel length, rather than cosmetic features like sights. Maybe it's different for the M6 series. I'm still waiting for the final product, though. '''[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup>''' 03:40, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

"''The M6 series are recoil-operated and magazine-fed. The ‘B’ and ‘D’ variants are issued with...''"

I always got the impression that the "B" and "D" variants refer to M6B and M6D, not sub-variants of the M6G. It makes more sense, since their descriptions match them and only "M6 series" is mentioned in the previous sentence, not M6G. Plus, one would imagine they wouldn't label sub-variants with letters since the M6 models are already designated with letters. Too confusing. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue">'''Jugus'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]]) 06:14, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you Jugus, that's what I wanted to get across. If the manufacturers wanted to designate a variant of the M6G, they wouldn't use capital letters. More likely a "Mk. II" or whatever number. Also, remember the M6C/SOCOM? It is a variant of the M6C and it isn't labeled with another capital letter. All that we can say for sure is that the Bungie designer who made it intended it to be an M6B.--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 21:06, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
:I was agreeing, I was just bitching about the inconsistency. '''[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup>''' 22:23, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, whoever keeps putting up the B and C variants section needs to stop. It's NOT OFFICIAL INFO, IT'S A CONJECTURE!--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 03:07, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

:It was Subtank. Check the history and edit summary. It's legit info, ''for now''.- [[User:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">Sketch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">ist</span>]]</sup> 03:51, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Fluffy, calm yourself down and take a chill pill, you aren't being kewl. And as per Ascension...it's legit. {{User:CommanderTony/Sig|May 24th, 2010}}

:Sorry, my all caps weren't supposed to be yelling but just using emphasis (damn interwebz). So now I guess we have to argue on whether or not it's legit info. If it were an M6G B or C variant, it would have to say such a thing. All it says is "Model 6B" or "Model 6C". What I'm saying is that the wording does not provide enough proof to label it as an M6GB or M6GC. And may I remind you all that various weapons in the Halo games (especially the rocket launchers) have had incorrect labels on their models? If we assume that these pistols are B and C variants, then we would have to assume that the M19 SSM Rocket Launchers in Halo 1 and 2 are "M19 SSM M41 SSR MAV/AW" variants. It makes no sense.--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 16:11, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

::All I can say is ''"res ipsa loquitur"''.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 17:13, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

:::If one were to assume anything, it would be that the printing was a mistake. There is more evidence to support that it was a misprint than an intentional designation of a variant.--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 21:28, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

One final statement to close my point. The "Model 6C" and "Model 6B" are lengthened names of the "M6C" and "M6B" magnums. The printing on the Halo 3 and Reach magnums '''do not''' indicate variants of the M6G. They were mistakenly put there for whatever reason and designate the weapons as the M6C or M6B. This quote: ''"The M6 series are recoil-operated and magazine-fed. The ‘B’ and ‘D’ variants are issued with the smart-linked KFA-2 x2 scope."'' refers to the M6B and M6D, which are in fact issued with said scope.--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 15:11, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
:Bungie says otherwise. As per Ascension and Tony, ''it's legit for now''. If you feel that this should be removed, ask a Bungie employee to confirm that they made a typo in the bitmap. - <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 15:15, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
::Bungie does not say otherwise. They have not commented on this at all. Would you stop ignoring all of the evidence please? If you would rather take printing on the side of the gun over official Bungie statements, then why don't you just call these the "M6C" and "M6B"? Perhaps there is no such thing as the M6G at all because the weapon's printing says otherwise. Also, I would love to know who at Bungie to contact to confirm this.--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 16:04, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
::And if you're going to designate them, it would have to be "M6G Model 6C" and "M6G Model 6B".--[[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|FluffyEmoPenguin]] 16:13, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

:::Bungie says so by saying they are M6G. That's an official statement made by them. The fact that both weapon have two different imprint ''implies'' that Bungie also intended to be two different variants. Hence, Bungie says so in a way. On the topic of designating them; sure, why not we do that now... The best Bungie individual to contact would be Urk.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 13:52, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
::::I believe you're on the right track but you're not quite right. It has been stated by Bungie that the Reach magnum is a variant of the M6G on the ordnance page, but they have not named said variant anything other than "M6G PDWS". Remember, the canon team and rendering team are not always that close. Canon team could have told rendering team that it was an M6B, so they printed "Model 6B" on the side. Then, either canon team makes a mistake calling it an M6G, or they truely decided to rename it. Bungie is not implying that it is a "Model 6G Model 6B", they simply created contradictory information by accident.--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 01:02, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
:::::That must be one heck of a miscommunication, if that is indeed true.- [[User:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">Sketch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">ist</span>]]</sup> 01:27, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
::::::Not really, because if canon team renames it after the bitmap was created, say, a few months down the road, why would the rendering team feel inclined to care about something so miniscule?--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 01:49, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Because that would mean poor work effort and would lead to, ''oh say'', getting fired/less paycheck/insert-something-that-affects-work-and-ruins-working-life. It's like saying a contractor working with a group of architects, but the architects ignore a little design error during the development phase and chose not to correct it even after the construction has been completed. - [[User:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">Sketch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">ist</span>]]</sup> 02:06, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Well maybe canon team doesn't notice/care/has better things to do. In that case, I may have just gotten someone fired by pointing this whole thing out ;)--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 02:17, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
::::::::lulz.- [[User:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">Sketch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">ist</span>]]</sup> 02:24, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Soooo, coming back to this, did we really ever come up with a conclusion? Can we scrap the 'B' and 'C' variants idea and get this page unlocked?--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 03:29, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

:The conclusion is: ''"It's legit info, '''for now'''" - Ascension''. Once the game is released and says otherwise, then we will remove it and apply the appropriate changes.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 05:28, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

::Great, looks like I have to open up the arguement again >_> Where do you draw the line between writing this down as a misprint or as an official designation? Because appearantly these same rules do not fall upon the M19 SSM. There is a line between using common sense to realize it was a mistake and exploiting loopholes in the hierarchy of canon to come up with something technically official but totally retarded and obviously a mistake. You aren't understanding what exactly is official here. What ''is'' official is that these weapons say they are the incorrect variant on their side. Bungie states them to be the Model 6G, while the in-game bitmaps state them to be the Model 6C and Model 6B. Bungie canon trumps, like you say.--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 06:38, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

:::You know, arguing isn't contributing to this article, so it is best to simply wait for the game to be released... >.>
:::But for your sake, I will. In-game bitmaps are made by Bungie, and Bungie stated they are Model 6G. So, Bungie canon trumps, yes? I agree, both are canon and both are of superior authority. The description confirms that both are M6G, yet the bitmap seemingly expands this information by stating they are infact sub-models. Which one is more superior? ''*shrugs*'' Just wait for the game/manual booklet to be released. As per Ascension, ''"it's legit info, for now. It is based off Halo: Reach Beta, the Beta is canon as it is made by Bungie, it stays."''
:::Regarding the M19 SSM; Bungie made the bitmap, yet labelled it as M19 SSM in both manual booklets even though it says M41. This informs us that it is indeed a bitmap-error made by Bungie. However, this is only so to H1 and H2. In H3, we first thought the Model 6C imprinted on the M6G was an error by Bungie. If Bungie is indeed lazy, why didn't they just ported the same bitmap, improve/enhance the texture and leave the text in like they did in H1, H2 and H3? Why did they change the imprinted text? Because they want to name it M6B? No, that can't be true because Bungie said that the pistol is indeed the M6G. This might imply they are submodels. Lost of communication between development team during the Beta? Most likely but we never know until we get hold of the final product. Common sense will simply say; '''be patient and just wait for the game to be released'''. It's only a few months until the game is released... >.< - <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 07:08, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
::::Arguing ''is'' helping this article. I want to get that obviously bogus information out of the article. Stop thinking that Bungie does everything on purpose. '''The bitmaps DO NOT designate sub-variants of the M6G. They designate the M6B and M6C.''' When the designations on the side are written in the same form as a full variant (Model 6X), it is considered contradictory and a mistake. Take for example the Halo 2 and ODST magnums. The Halo 2 one is named the M6C and has Model 6C on its bitmap. The ODST one is named the M6C/SOCOM and has Model 6C printed on its side. See the pattern? The bitmap details what '''variant''', not '''sub-variant''', it is. If it were a Model 6G Model 6B, it would have to say Model 6G on its side, following the naming tradition of putting the variant on the side, and not listing the sub-variant on the weapon. And no, we don't need to wait for the game to come out, we already have sufficient information.
::::To follow the style of halopedia, we must state that it was either a mistake, or we must call every single weapon that has a misprint a "sub-variant" of the original. If this is a Model 6G Model 6B, then appearantly there is an M19 SSM M41 SSR MAV/AW. It makes no sense, just revert the article already.
::::One more thing, I don't think you fully understand. Bungie stated it was an M6G. Bungie's in-game content contradicts and calls it an M6B. '''Bungie's stated remarks are the highest of canon, in-game content is second highest.''' The weapon isn't an "M6G M6B", just use your head. I don't feel like I'm so much as arguing, but trying to explain something so ''painfully'' obvious.--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 19:39, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, can we just get this stuff removed so we can get this article unlocked already?--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 05:49, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

:''Nein''! Bungie deviates from tradition and establishes its own tradition of what they think the Halo Universe would be. Just wait for two more months. [[Halo Encyclopedia (2009 edition)|It's not like Halopedia will be printed into an actual reference book and be sold to the... oh wait...]]... - [[User:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">Sketch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">ist</span>]]</sup> 08:03, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

::But it's ''sooooo'' stupid! It's painfully obvious that these statements are wrong! When it says "Model 6B" on the side of a Model 6G, that means it was a mistake! Besides, what kind of confirmation are we going to get out of the full game when it's released? It's not like the game manual is going to say anything other than "M6G PDWS", or even just "Magnum". We have sufficient evidence to delete that information, and excuse me, but this ignorance is seriously frustrating me.--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 21:16, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

:::Well, Bungie said the rocket launcher used in H:CE and H2 is indeed the M19 SSM, but it is ''"painfully obvious"'' that the designations labelled are M41 SSM. As per Tony, "take a chill pill". If it is indeed a mistake, Bungie will more likely fix the bitmap. If not, then we'll just have to embrace them as it is.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 18:36, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Subtank, I still don't think you're understanding. You can't call it an "M6G model B" because look at the actual bitmap: it says "Model '''6'''B". They technically couldn't be called that because you would have to call it an "M6G model '''6'''B". Sure, say that they're sub-variants because we actually know that, but you're calling it the wrong thing.--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 17:53, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

:Perhaps a way to solve this "designation issue" is to avoid using both "sub-model" and "variant". Instead, a term that should be used in this article would be Models "M6G-B" and "M6G-C", as supplied by one of the trivia? It would most certainly solve whatever infuriates you and it would most certainly relaxes my mind from thinking how to solve such minuscule issue that bothers you. In the end, we'll simply have to wait for the game to be released to finalise this ''big'' issue; the question as to would the info stay or would it be removed from Halopedia. Anyway, I added a little note to that section, which you can see above the Sources section as a temporary clarification. It helps to inform users that this is a highly-plausible speculation based off evidences gathered from the ''Beta'', thus, nevertheless, remains simply a unofficial info. Note, '''temporary clarification'''.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 18:36, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
::M6G-B would still be incorrect. The situation is this: We can call them the "M6G M6B" and "M6G M6C", or we can use our brains to realize that the stamping does not designate another "type" of M6G, but another variant of the M6 series. Listen to this theory: The M6G in Halo 3 was created using Halo 2's M6C's model. All they did was color it silver, strap on a laser sight, and of course update the graphics. Even the animations are the same. They simply didn't change the designation on the stamping for any number of miniscule reasons. In Reach, it seems that they wanted to create an M6B because it has the exact same description as it. And yet again, they did not change the stamping on the model for any number of miniscule reasons. I highly doubt that they would even change such an unnoticable thing in the final game for Reach. I've seen recent screenshots and it doesn't seem to have changed at all.--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 19:01, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
:::I once thought of that, in the same position as you are right now when Halo 3 Beta was launched, but recent research through the archives made me think the opposite... in the end, it is still a theory... one that will ultimately be discharged of, ''thus scrapped'', or embraced, ''thus expanded upon'', when the final product of the game is released. If the final product doesn't provide any answer, then we would have to add in the conjecture template as to acknowledging the existence of the stamp, and at the same time question as to whether it is a legitimate stamp or an error by the design team. If such instance were to happen, we would have to consult to Bungie themselves. I'm sure such small request they would gladly provide some official explanation.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 19:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
::::The only thing that would expand upon it would be the Halo: Reach game manual, which would call it an "M6G" or an "M6G PDWS", and it would most likely have less information about it than the ordnance page. The thing is that we have more knowledge right now than we will. The M6 series has their variant posted on the side, NOT sub-variant, sub-model, etc. This means that the two weapons in Halo 3 and Reach say they are the M6C or M6B, but are incorrect. The information is already there to prove the conjecture wrong. On a side note, that last trivia piece is wrong. The module underneath the barrel is actually the scope.--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 19:28, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
:::::In full agreement that the manual would be less helpful to solve this ordeal. Regarding ''"The M6 series has their variant posted on the side"''... I have this to say: Bungie has done bizarre things in the past and I have no doubt they change the M6 series designations in their Halo Bible when developing ''Reach''. They managed to snuck in a few SPARTAN-IIIs into a game which everyone thought was impossible because of Ghost of Onyx! This includes those over Bungie Universe forums over at B.net and hardcore Halo historians. In no doubt this is new to you, but Bungie is God in the Halo Universe. Sadly, what you know now is irrelevant ''for now''. Regarding the trivia, I'm pretty sure the [[KFA-2 x2]] scope is the one above the barrel, not below. - <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 19:51, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

After looking back at the archives (I love my archives), it seems Bungie did intended on adding variants to the M6G... or at the very least implied on doing so. The following is from the [http://www.bungie.net/projects/reach/article.aspx?ucc=ordnance&cid=25441 Ordnance page of Bungie.net]:
{{Article quote|The M6G (more formally Personal Defense Weapon System, Caliber 12.7mm, M6) is a semi-automatic, recoil-operated, magazine-fed handgun. It is the standard sidearm of all UNSC personnel and is highly regarded for its ruggedness and reliability. '''Several variants are issued with the smart-linked KFA-2 x2 scope.'''}}

:<small>Emphasis on bolded added.</small>

The above serves as my official stance. Looking at how one interprets (in my view) the paragraph, it implies that the M6G did have variants which some are issued with the scope. It could, however, be interpreted as it did back when Halo 3's M6G info was released; ambiguous as to refer the M6 only rather than focusing specifically on the M6G.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 19:51, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
:I agree that these two variants of the M6G are indeed sub-variants. However, the argument is the naming of them. The ordnance page's quote seems to imply the M6 series as a whole. This is because it states it as the standard sidearm of all UNSC personnel, which is true for the M6 series, but not the M6G necessarily. It makes more sense that several variants of the M6 have the KFA-2, rather than several variants of the M6G. This is because it is infact true that several M6 variants have that scope (M6B, M6D, M6F, M6H). It is simply too complex to imply that a variant has several variants.
:On the other note, if it is indeed an M6G variant, then the top device would be the laser module, and the bottom device would be the scope; this is because it would be what was "added on" (or taken off) from the existing model.--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 20:20, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, guys, firearms '''can''' have variants of variants. The Beretta 92F has a variant called the 92F/FS.-- [[User talk:Forerunner|Forerunner]] 20:37, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, that's been stated already. But the argument is what to name them.--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 20:41, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Well, ready to open up this arguement again? The game is out, it still says "Model 6B" on the side, and nowhere has there been any naming of the sub-variants. I think that this battle can finally end.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</sup> 21:22, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

343 released some updated info on the M6 series via Halo Waypoint. Nothing about a B and C variant of any weapons, nor implied. Do we really need further evidence to prove that they are not named the B and C variants? Sometimes, common sense is more evidence than odd contortions of minor details.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</sup> 13:13, 22 December 2010 (EST)

== Request For A Change To The Page ==

The long story: The two images on the infobox needs a reduced size. When I came across the page, the picture was way too large. I tried to make it smaller by reducing one of the files to 200 px (I can't remember what I changed it to exactly), but forgot to also reduce the other to 200 px. This made a user revert my edit (-Ascension-) and when I try to fix it the next day, an admin (Subtank) protected it because of users edit warring. Admins, please make the images sizes smaller (like somewhere between 200 to 300 px) so that users won't get a huge surprise when they come across the page.

The short story: Admins, will you please change the two images of the M6G and B to somewhere between 200 to 300 px? Thank you.

--Your friendly [[User:Ultra Force|<span style="color:gray">(_)LTR/-\ F( )RCE</span>]] 13:06, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

:Done. Sorry for the trouble. :) - <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 13:48, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

== Separate information more efficiently ==

Taking a breather from the debate :) Since these weapons are very different in terms of gameplay, we should separate the information more efficiently. It seems that info on the Halo: Reach version is kind of 'snuck' into the overwhelming info about the Halo 3 version. We could go as far as making a completely different page like with the M6C and M6C/SOCOM, or we could divvy it up more like the M90 shotgun page. What do you think?--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 02:09, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

:If you've been listening to the podcast recently, they've tweaked the technical specs of the weapons in the Beta. So, it is highly likely that it would differ greatly from what we recorded now.- [[User:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">Sketch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:-Ascension-|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic; color:#E32636;">ist</span>]]</sup> 02:14, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah, I was expecting that. Still, when the game is released, we should consider this idea.--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 02:18, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

== Range ==

152.5&nbsp;ft = 46.482m, NOT 100m
:Please sign your posts. And you are correct. I believe "152.5ft" should be changed to "328.08ft", as 100 meters is equal to about 328.083 feet. Too bad the page is locked from editing. [[User talk:Cultred|Cultred]] 22:31, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

:Fixed. Honestly, for a pistol with that barrel length and the round having the muzzle velocity that it does, that range is unrealistic. It would drop long before 100 meters. '''[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup>''' 14:20, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

== Quotes are Wrong ==

The Quote "The M6G is either the biggest pistol or smallest rifle" is off, as in Halo: Combat Evolved, the M6D is obviously much larger. - [[User:Echo 1|Cprl. Echo 1]] image: SpecHarness.jpg | 28px [[User Talk:Echo 1|High Resolution]] [[Special:Contributions/Echo 1|Poor Quality]] 02:01, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
:Erm, no. First off, those quotes were created by Bungie, so they are canon. Secondly, they're both of similiar length. - [[User:Sgt.T.N.Biscuits|Gunnery Sergeant]] [[User talk:Sgt.T.N.Biscuits|Pete Stacker]], [[Special:Contributions/Sgt.T.N.Biscuits|UNSC Marine Corps]]

Echo, Citation needed. Cheak canon sorces please. -[[User:SPARTAN-118|Ye old 118]]

Actually, that quote is off for another reason. The actual quote says "M6", not "M6G" so technically, Echo is right. And this quote is out of context: ''"The ‘B’ and ‘D’ variants are issued with the smart-linked KFA-2 x2 scope."'' It actually refers to the M6B and M6D, which in fact use those scopes. It does not refer to the M6G itself. --[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 20:45, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

== Uh... A little trivia thing. ==

In [[Halo 3]] when you switch to the M6G you turn the safety off. Is this worth mentioning in the trivia? <font color="Blue"><big>'''Helljumper'''</big> <small>[[User:II Helljumper II|U]] [[User talk:II Helljumper II|T]] [[Special:Editcount/II Helljumper II|C]]</small></font> [[File:M6G Cropped.png|30px]]

== Attachments to the M6 series sidearms ==
Ok so everyone seems to think that the visible attachments on the M6D, and both versions of the M6G are scopes. This is entirely wrong. On the M6D and both vesions of the M6G, there is a laser aim module on the top of weapon. On the Halo: Reach M6G, the underside is simply a flashlight. It can't possibly be a scope. There is no way to look through it. The scope links directly to the user's HUD. Therefore there is no need to actually have a full sized, mounted scope. there is most likely a small visual enhancer somewhere on the front of the sidearm that links to the HUD. I believe this because the M6D has a scope but the only visible attachment is the laser aim module. --[[User:BlueTwo|B2]]

:What you just said doesn't make sense...The M6D uses a smart-linked scope that functions sort of like a camera to the HUD. It is located on the top of the pistol. The Halo 3 M6G uses a laser sight in this same spot. The Reach M6G uses the same top-mounted laser sight with a smart-linked scope underneath. If the M6D only has a laser sight on top, where is the scope? If the M6G in Reach has a laser sight and flashlight, where is the scope? You're not making sense.--[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-weight:bold; font-family:Comic Sans MS">Penguin</span>]] 19:12, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

::What I said makes perfect sense. The attachments on the M6 series pistols from the Halo games are laser aim modules. They all are identical aesthetically. I would believe that the attachments on the M6D and M6G-B are scopes if they didn't look identical to the attachment on the M6G-C. This leads me to believe that all the attachments are laser aim modules, and that the scope is a small device located somewhere on the weapon (maybe even built into the laser aim modules themselves). If this were true, then we could even speculate that the laser aim modules on the M6D and M6G-B are different versions of the standard laser module. Also, the under-barrel attachment is most certainly a flashlight. It even has the yellowish-white glow on the end of it along with a power button. --[[User:BlueTwo|B2]]

:::It makes perfect sense that the M6D's top device is its scope. It doesn't have the red glow that the M6Gs have. If it weren't a scope, where would the ''actual'' scope be? Invisible? Since the Halo 3 M6G has no scope and only a laser sight, the top device is its laser sight. The Reach M6G is the same weapon, but has a scope. Where would it logically be? Obviously under the barrel as the M6G comes standard with a laser sight on top.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])</sup>'' 15:53, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


::::I strongly disagree but I guess there is no way to know for sure since the attachments haven't been separately identified. --[[User:BlueTwo|B2]]
::::
::::the M6G in reach has a SOCOM scope because in halo: 3 ODST there is no visible scope on the top of the gun and in halo 2 and 3 when you zoom in with a non scoped weapon there is a shape like the MJOLNIR's visor and in halo ghosts of onyx kurt looks through a 4x zoom built into the armor. [[User talk:God like65|God like65]] 20:29, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
:::::God like, you are very wrong. It does not have the "SOCOM" scope because Bungie said it has the KFA-2. Also, the "SOCOM" scope is visible, it's on the bottom of the M6C/SOCOM. To reiterate, the Reach M6G has a laser sight on top, and a scope on the bottom. It's the only way for this to make sense.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</sup> 19:23, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

== Contradiction in the article? ==

In the M6G article it says the M6G (Model B) has an unusable [[KFA-2 x2]] (see [[M6G Personal Defense Weapon System#Changes from Halo 3 to Halo: Reach|here]]) when there is a screenshot at the bottom showing the scope in use.[[User talk:Veso &#39;Kalom|WORT! WORT! WORT!]] 23:16, August 18, 2010 (UTC)Veso 'Kalom

== Confusing Images ==
The Halo 3 render of the M6G should switch with the blueprint of the Halo: Reach M6G, in order to better align the images with their corresponding paragraphs in the "Submodels" section of the article.

== Model 6B prited on slide ==

"Model 6B, UNSC property 2546" is printed on the right side of the slide in Halo: Reach. Has probably been noted before? [[User:KickButtUnggoy|Kick]][[User talk:KickButtUnggoy|Butt]][[Unggoy]] 04:00, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

== Sub-variant argument 2.0 ==

''Created because we have new proof, and because it lags my computer to type in that previous wall of text...''<br>
I can't believe I missed this, but on the website version of Halo Waypoint, the renders of the Reach M6G have been graphically updated and now feature new printings with "Model 6G". This is proof that the M6G does not use the previously theorized naming of sub-variants, and also proof that the printings in Halo 3 and Reach were mistakes.<br>
That argument is solved. However, I present a new one. Are these M6Gs truly sub-variants, or are they simply examples of updated canon? Many things in Halo: Reach are the same variant as things in other Halo games, yet may look totally different. The M6G in Halo: Reach may not be a sub-variant, but rather the exact same weapon but with an undermounted scope. The visual differences may not need be accounted for, as they would be examples of updated canon. Is it really that hard to believe that the M6Gs found in Halo: Reach just feature an attached scope, rather than belong to a sub-variant?<br>
But why would every soldier in Halo: Reach wield an M6G with an attached scope, rather than the seemingly more common one without? This sort of thing occurs in multiple Halo games. In Halo: CE, the only M6 variant in that game is the M6D. This is ''far'' from being a standard issue weapon that you would find in large numbers on the battlefield. The M6D is an "officer's model" and is the favored weapon of Captain Keyes and presumably other officers. This makes it nearly impossible for it to make sense to be found in such a high number throughout Halo: CE and as the only M6 variant in the game. So, it must be ''implied'' that each magnum found in the game is actually the standard issue model (likely M6C, M6G, or M6E), and when used by the Master Chief, becomes the M6D that was given to him by Keyes at the beginning of the game. This same concept is evident with weapons in Halo: Reach. All Marines and ODSTs in Halo: Reach use the UNSC Army's weapons, along with all Army Troopers. This is because Bungie didn't want to implement the Marines' weapons alongside the Army's and create useless clones. So, it must be implied that every Marine and ODST in Halo: Reach uses their Marine Corps equivalent (or that somehow they all coincidentally found Army weapons and ditched their Marine weapons; take your pick as to which makes more sense). A final example, the civilian milita on the mission "Nightfall" are stated by Jun as using standard issue civilian security sidearms, which are actually military scoped M6Gs. A civilian security M6 variant would likely be the M6B or M6K.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</sup> 17:33, 28 December 2010 (EST)

:Perfect summary, that's exactly what I thought about the weapons in the earlier games. The only thing I disagree with you on is the scope. I do believe the underbarrel is a flashlight. Why? Two reasons. First, every single other human weapon in the game has a flashlight, it seems to me Bungie was originally going to bring back the CE style flashlight which was actually on your weapon and moved around, but later scrapped it and added night vision. The other is, yes, the attachment looks the same as the Halo 3 one, except the 3 one was red, and therefore, a laser sight. The one in Reach is the scope. Think about it, the big silver plate on top is just a cover, I would think you could change out the attachment under it, scope, laser sight, nothing. I mean, it does have a rear sight you can't use. Why? Because could use the sights if the attachment was removed, but you don't need to use the sights if you have the scope or laser. Just like you don't need a laser if you have a scope. Swappable attachments, we have those right now, today. The DMR has a front sight and the scope looks rail-mounted, and Reach's AR looks like the ammo counter/compass is rail-mounted too, like you could replace it with optics or something. [[User talk:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 04:38, 11 January 2011 (EST)

::The M6G in Halo 3 was noted to use a laser sight. The Reach M6G is the same weapon but with a scope that wasn't on there before. Since there's a new underbarrel attachment, wouldn't it in all common sense be a scope? Besides, every flashlight on every weapon in the Halo series had a clear lens. The underbarrel attachment on the Reach M6G has a yellow light at the end. It just doesn't match up.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</sup> 18:11, 5 February 2011 (EST)

::I would say because you wouldn't need a smart-linked scope AND a laser sight at the same time. CE's M6D had just the top one and had a scope, 2's M6C had nothing (iron sights) and didn't have a scope, 3's M6G had a top one that was a laser and didn't have a scope. The way I see it is the laser is an attachment that goes in the same location as the scope, you could have iron sights, or a laser, or a scope, all aiming devices, not really practical to have more that one of them. [[User talk:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:42, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:::Call the top one what you want, but the bottom attachment is the scope. The top red attachment was not a scope on the Halo 3 M6G, so why would they switch places in Reach? Often, the correct answer is the simplest one.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</sup> 20:28, 9 March 2011 (EST)

==M6G+M6D,ETC==
I like your argument, Penguin, but I disagree on a few things. It seems that the updated m6D model seen in Halo: Anniversary is in fact the M6G model from Halo 3. To me, this would be logical to assume that the M6G in Halo 3 was in fact the M6D. Perhaps a misprinting on Bungie's behalf? Or more likely it might be updated canon. 343i is trying to make everything in the Halo universe fit in with each other and make it more intricated and connected. The updated weapon models seen in Halo: Reach were even used as weapon skins for the original weapons seen in Halo CE. I believe that it's more likely these are just canon updates.

As for the M6D being an officer's sidearm, I don't recall ever reading anything about that. It is a common frontline sidearm and just so happens to be used as one by some Navy personnel. It is very likely the weapons the ODSTs and marines use in Halo: Reach are merely just for gameplay. So, technically, looking from a canon standpoint, they would be wielding BRs and MA5s rather than DMRs and MA37s. -- TheGutsyChipmunk 03:06, 29 November 2011 (EST)

:The M6 variants have always been named wierd, I really hope we get something concrete about them. The one that really bugs me is the M6C SOCOM. The M6C (Halo 2) is a full slided pistol, like most modern ones, but the rest of the M6's (incuding the SOCOM) are half slided, witht he whole front half not moving. There is no way two pistols can have a difference that big and still both be "C"s, really, really stupid. What makes way more sense is to call it the M6S, as Buck did call it in one of the trailers, and that would also fit nicely with the M7S too. Arg :( [[User talk:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 03:15, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Okay, here's how I see it. Let's use the real-life Heckler & Koch USP as an example. There are several sub-variants of each model, largely being the differences in the trigger group. I propose that the "B" indicates that there is a higher limit on the RoF, with a lightened trigger and a slide that moves faster. The Halo 3 variant had an RoF limiter to preserve accuracy in case of a lack of trigger discipline on the part of users. Basically, the "B" featured in Halo: Reach is more akin to the USP Compact Tactical, whilst the "C" in Halo 3 is more like the USP Match or Expert, and is compensated. --[[User:Delta1138|Delta1138]] [[User talk:Delta1138|SnooPING AS usual I see]] 12:47, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

:I fully agree with what you're saying, but what I'm mostly talking about is how the M6C SOCOM has a half slide, like the Desert Eagle (and the rest of the M6s), while the standard M6C has a full slide, like the Jericho 941 "Baby Eagle". The relationship between the M6C SOCOM and M6C is pretty much the same. There's no way (in reality) they'd both be "M6" let alone the same subvarient. [[User talk:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 01:17, 24 May 2012 (EDT)

== About the images in Gallery section ==

Put it simply, if we have a turnaround reference image, there is no need of a similar, individual image (referring specifically to the side profile images). It adds up unnecessary space to the gallery (not that there is a limit on the space). And about the supposedly "corrected text", that is only in Halo Waypoint's article and is not in-game. In other words, they corrected it for the article but not for the game (and this has been covered by the reference turnaround image). — <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  14:29, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
::Agreed, but there is a difference between the corrected model on Halo Waypoint and the model in ''Halo: Reach''. The M6G on Waypoint Model 6G, whereas the in-game M6G says Model 6B. If you really want to get rid of a few images, you can remove the two from Halo Waypoint, but please keep the original in-game M6G model. But just so you know, I still disagree that they should ''all'' be removed, but rather kept for use as larger references. --[[User talk:Xamikaze330|Xamikaze330]] 16:19, 31 July 2012 (EDT)Xamikaze330
:::Am very aware of that. Also, it's already visible in the infobox, so having another image of it is unnecessary. — <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span>  16:36, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Fine. If you must remove a couple images, then just do the two from Halo Waypoint, but keep the original in-game M6G model. That's all I ask. Not that I'm happy about it either. But whatever. Go ahead and do it if you feel it is really necessary. --[[User talk:Xamikaze330|Xamikaze330]] 16:39, 31 July 2012 (EDT)Xamikaze330