| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Untitled== | | = Votes for rename to "MA5C Individual Combat Weapon System = |
| Any chance we could add a history part to the MA5C page. It would go like this.
| | I feel that the assault rifle and sniper rifle articles should follow this naming system. What do you guys think?--[[User:Spartan781|'''<font color="LightGrey">Sp</font><font color="DarkGray">art</font><font color="Gray">an-</font><font color="Black">781</font>''']] [[Image:Seaman.png|25px]] <sup>[[User talk:Spartan781|<font color="black">Comm</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Spartan781|<font color="black">CSV</font>]]</sub> 03:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC) |
| | == For == |
|
| |
|
| --History--
| | == Neutral == |
| This is just fan theory based on in game appearance and the Halo trilogy time line. The MA5C is the variant closest variant of the MA5B. It probably was in Production shortly before the events of Halo 2. Later it was most likely distributed during the events of Halo 2. The rifle is only seen in Halo 3.
| |
|
| |
|
| | == Against == |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Well tell me what you think. Sorry if I posted something wrong this is the first time I have even looked at a discussion page, and made an account on any wiki ever.
| |
|
| |
| ==TU2 updates the assault rifle==
| |
| hey,
| |
| the assault rifle recieved an update in title update 2, making its damage increased on shields, but, (unconfirmed) it appears to be harder to finish someone off with it anymore, this may mean that they have changed the "health damage" to boost the "shield damage".
| |
| if anyone can confirm my theory please do.
| |
| [[User:GroverA 125|GroverA 125]] 11:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| | = Talk Page = |
| I think the 'magnum round' theory should be removed, because it is pure speculation, with little serious basis in fact. | | I think the 'magnum round' theory should be removed, because it is pure speculation, with little serious basis in fact. |
|
| |
|
| Line 22: |
Line 17: |
| it's a glaring technical faux pas. --[[User:Sephirius|Sephirius]] 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | | it's a glaring technical faux pas. --[[User:Sephirius|Sephirius]] 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Yes, PLEASE, for God's sake, change the term "clip" to "magazine." There is a HUGE difference. A "clip" is a strip that you "clip" the cartridges into so that they can be loaded into either an internal or an external "magazine." A "magazine" is a fully enclosed box made of metal or plastic that holds ammunition to be fed into the firearm. Thank you. | | Yes, PLEASE, for God's sake, change the term "clip" to "magazine." There is a HUGE difference. A "clip" is a strip that you "clip" the cartridges into so that they can be loaded into either an internal or an external "magazine." A "magazine" is a fully enclosed box made of metal or plastic that holds ammunition to be fed into the firearm. Thank you. |
|
| |
|
| If you look closely on the image with the Marathon logo on the MA5C, you will can find a green button with a power sign on it. Whether this was for the gun or the ammo counter is unknown. --Blemo 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | | If you look closely on the image with the Marathon logo on the MA5C, you will can find a green button with a power sign on it. Whether this was for the gun or the ammo counter is unknown. --Blemo 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
| Line 30: |
Line 25: |
| Err Small problem, in 'Changes from MA5B' it states 'Decreased magazine capacity (60-32)' 60-32=28 ;-; shoud say something like 'it was 60, now 32' | | Err Small problem, in 'Changes from MA5B' it states 'Decreased magazine capacity (60-32)' 60-32=28 ;-; shoud say something like 'it was 60, now 32' |
| --[[User:Brave Moonlight|Brave Moonlight]] | | --[[User:Brave Moonlight|Brave Moonlight]] |
|
| |
|
| |
| == Same design as battle rifle == | | == Same design as battle rifle == |
|
| |
|
| Line 40: |
Line 33: |
| Im talking about how its like the battle rifle from halo 2.[[user:the evil O,malley]] | | Im talking about how its like the battle rifle from halo 2.[[user:the evil O,malley]] |
|
| |
|
| Oh... -- | | Oh... --[[Image:GRAW Wallpaper.jpg|35px]] <font color="#D3D3D3" General></font> |
| [[user:Blemo|<font color="#D3D3D3">B</font><font color="#A9A9A9">le</font><font color="#808080">m</font><font color="#000000">o</font>]] http://www.wikia.com/skins/common/progress-wheel.gif ''<sup>[[user talk:Blemo|<font color="#A9A9A9">Talk</font>]]</sup> • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|<font size="1"><font color="#A9A9A9">Contributions</font></font>]] • '' | | [[user:Blemo|<font color="#D3D3D3">B</font><font color="#A9A9A9">le</font><font color="#808080">m</font><font color="#000000">o</font>]] http://www.wikia.com/skins/common/progress-wheel.gif ''<sup>[[user talk:Blemo|<font color="#A9A9A9">Talk</font>]]</sup> • [[Special:Contributions/Blemo|<font size="1"><font color="#A9A9A9">Contributions</font></font>]] • <sub> |
| <sub>[http://halofanon.wikia.com/wiki/Major_Blemo Semper Fi]</sub> | | [http://halofanon.wikia.com/wiki/Major_Blemo Semper Fi]</sub> |
| :Well, both Rifles are bullpup in design, and I believe developed by the same manufacturer. The M16 and M4 have similar appearances, so for the MA5B and MA5C to appear similar is no real stretch. What's the point in changing a weapon design that works so well in the first place?[[User:XRoadToDawnX|XRoadToDawnX]] 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::apart from making it work even better.[[User talk:Maiar|Maiar]] 04:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Headshoot? == | | == Headshoot? == |
| Line 51: |
Line 42: |
|
| |
|
| According to the halo 3 beta(in which i have participated in), the MA5C's bullet is stronger than the MA5B's, but not strong enough to kill an unshielded opponent when shot in the head.Actually, it would be useless because until you aim to the head you will be killed and because WHO FRIGGIN CARES ITS AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON. | | According to the halo 3 beta(in which i have participated in), the MA5C's bullet is stronger than the MA5B's, but not strong enough to kill an unshielded opponent when shot in the head.Actually, it would be useless because until you aim to the head you will be killed and because WHO FRIGGIN CARES ITS AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON. |
| [[User:Spartan-007|Spartan-G007]] <sup>[http://live.xbox.com/en-GB/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=SpartanG007 <font color=green>XBL gamertag:SpartanG007</font>]</sup> | | [[User:Spartan-007|Spartan-G007]] [[Image:kpisalasergod2.gif|35px]] <sup>[http://live.xbox.com/en-GB/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=SpartanG007 <font color=green>XBL gamertag:SpartanG007</font>]</sup> |
|
| |
|
| Yeah but still it would be sweet to use an automatic weapon that does headshots since there is no such weapon in the games | | Yeah but still it would be sweet to use an automatic weapon that does headshots since there is no such weapon in the games |
|
| |
|
| [[User:Spartan-007|Spartan-G007]] <sup>[http://live.xbox.com/en-GB/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=SpartanG007 <font color=green>XBL gamertag:SpartanG007</font>]</sup> | | [[User:Spartan-007|Spartan-G007]] [[Image:kpisalasergod2.gif|35px]] <sup>[http://live.xbox.com/en-GB/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=SpartanG007 <font color=green>XBL gamertag:SpartanG007</font>]</sup> |
|
| |
|
| The sniper rifle's bullet can kill a player when shot in the head.I suggest playing one of the games instead of asking about it ;) | | The sniper rifle's bullet can kill a player when shot in the head.I suggest playing one of the games instead of asking about it ;) |
| *AUTOMATIC. dumbass
| |
|
| |
| == Proof on 300m range ==
| |
|
| |
| I find it highly unlikely that the ARs range is 300m range considering the M6D Pistol's (a mid-long range weapon that many people called overpowered due to its range) bullets dissapeared at 127m and the AA dissapeared at 90m. Proof on the 300 m claim? --[[User:MLG Cheehwawa]]
| |
|
| |
| The MA5's range is 300m it says so in Contact Harvest. [[User:Delta-269|Delta-269]] 20:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| According to the MA5 page it uses a 7.62x51 mm or 7.62x39 mm round, both of which are effective out to 300 m and further. However bungie managed to ruin the gun's accuracy so badly that its more of an SMG and is pretty damn hard to hit anything at 300 m, not impossible though. The Battle rifle did have a max range in halo 2, which I thought was strange since it was supposed to be long ranged, but nonetheless. [[User:Coviekiller5|Coviekiller5]] 04:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| technicaly it would be an Light-machine-gun not Sub. a sub uses pistol cartridges but a light uses assaault rifle like rounds, medium uses battle rifle like, heavy; sniper like
| |
|
| |
| ==Aiming?==
| |
| How do soldiers aim this weapon...there's no iron sights or scope visible on the weapons frame. so how are soldiers able to fire this weapon??<br />
| |
|
| |
| Wait really think in this, how the UNSC dont put iron sights. If there were a call of duty with halo weapons aiming this would be hard. [[User:Clavix2|<font color="Black">Clavix2</font>]] <sup> [[User talk:Clavix2|<font color="Red">I WILL PAY FOR </font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Clavix2|<font color="Black"> ALL MY SINS </font>]]</sup> 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| The UNSC has a system of technology that is called a smart-link. From what I can figure from ''The Flood'' the weapon is interfaced with the marine's HUD and aiming reticule is displayed. However, the marines' HUD is no longer visible in Halo 2 & 3
| |
|
| |
| Its like the Cheifs he has a reticule in his HUD (yes that wasnt just for gameplay there is a reticule in the Cheifs armor in the books)that lets him target so no CoD here
| |
|
| |
| If I can recall correctly the smart-link view can be projected on to the ammo-counter screen. It is briefly mentioned in Fall of Reach, I think. [[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 13:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| There Are flip up iron sights on the rifle. [[User:Saber1807|Saber1807]] 07:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Assault Rifle or Battle Rifle ==
| |
|
| |
| I just recently noticed this, there is something I don't understand.
| |
| WHY IS IT ALWAYS CALLED AN ASSAULT RIFLE IF IT USES A LARGE BATTLE RIFLE CARTRIDGE?
| |
|
| |
| Assault Rifle :A military rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge from a high capacity magazine,20 or 30 rounds.Examples: 7.92 x 33mm Kurz, 7.62 x 39, 5.56 x 45 mm (NATO), or 5.45 x 39mm
| |
|
| |
| Battle Rifle :A military rifle that fires a full sized rifle cartridge from a full length barrel.Examples:.303 British, .30-06 Springfield, 7.62 x 54R, or 7.62 x 51 NATO--[[User:0nyx Sp1k3r|0nyx Sp1k3r]] 00:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Because Bungie doesn't know how to properly name (and for that matter, realistically design) guns. But yeah, it's a misnomer. [[User:XRoadToDawnX|XRoadToDawnX]] 20:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| The definition of the two terms overlap. For instance, I've heard the M14 rifle be referred to as both a battle rifle and an assault rifle. Though it is true that most weapons that are chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO are considered battle rifles, quite a few of them also fit the definition for an assault rifle (case in point, the M14).
| |
|
| |
| There's quite a few mistakes Bungie made with Halo, and it ain't just the weapons. A Sergeant is never called "Sarge". For that matter, a Sergeant Major is never called a Sergeant (neither is any other "Sergeant" rank, aside from Sergeant; they made this error in Halo 1 when they referred to Johnson as Sergeant when he was in fact a Staff Sergeant) in the Marine Corps. You don't call an enlisted man "Sir" unless you are a recruit. I guess it's easy to make those mistakes when you've never served, but whatever. [[User:Smoke.|Smoke]]
| |
|
| |
| ::Bungie makes many errors when it comes to modern to Halo military crossovers, especially when it includes ranks, insignias, uniforms, and customs & courtesies. Halopedia:UNSC of Halopedia|<font color="silver"><b>General</b></font>]] [[User:CommanderTony|<b><font color="crimson">Tony</font></b>]], <b>[[Halopedia:Administrators|<font color=green>Administrator of Halopedia</font>]]</b><sup>[[User Talk:CommanderTony|<b><font color="black">Talk</font></b>]]</sup> 12/22/2008
| |
|
| |
| ::::I think Bungie took their liberties with the uniforms and insignia. The UNSC Marine Corps is clearly based on the U.S. Marine Corps (they apparently even wear the same Dress Blues), but they simply replaced the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor with the UNSC insignia, and the rank insignia is slightly different. It just bothers me that they have the boot Marines referring to a Sergeant Major as damn near everything but Sergeant Major (and Master Chief as well). [[User:Smoke.|Smoke]]
| |
| ::::A) Bungie has made no errors concerning ranks. The UNSC has obviously invented a new ranking system. If not, the game is set in freakin' [[2552]].
| |
| ::::B) It's probably referred to as an "Assault Rifle" because, in the ''Halo'' universe, everything is upscaled from present day. For example, the present day sidearm of the U.S. Army is the 9mm M9 pistol, and in the ''Halo'' universe, the standard issue sidearm is the .44 Magnum M6.
| |
| :::::12.7x40mm. [[User talk:Agent Tasmania|Agent Tasmania]] 07:43, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::C) They probably don't care for common courtesies anymore. I sure as hell wouldn't if some fucking aliens came and glassed my homeworld.
| |
| ::::My $0.02. [[User talk:CoD addict|CoD addict]] 00:02, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| What's ironic is the AR's physics would actually allow for it to fire longer and with more power and precision than the abnormally fat BR rounds from the BR55 in halo. The BR is a pointless weapon anyway, IMO. Give us a realistic AR and it completely eliminates the need for the crappy BR.
| |
|
| |
| == Trivia=Spoilers ==
| |
|
| |
| in Trivia it says that the compas points to the objective, such as '''escaping Installation 04 (II)''', a Spoiler for people who having beat the game. And the page in uneditable. [[User:76.31.9.72|76.31.9.72]]
| |
| :Thanks for the update, I removed the spoiler, but don't really know any reference point off the top of my head that would work. Go figure.[[User:XRoadToDawnX|XRoadToDawnX]] 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| By the way, the last fact says that there is no cross hair so marines cant aim it. While the one like three above it explains that they use the neural interface so they always have one (im guessing that it is projected directly on there eyes like info on the POA for captain keyes) the last one should be deleted because it is irrelevant. [[User:Husher D316|<span style="color: red; font-family: century gothic; font-size: 10pt;"><font color="#808080">'''Hus'''</font><font color="#A9A9A9">'''hɘr'''</font><font color="#C0C0C0">'''D316'''</font></span>]] <small><sup>[[user talk:Husher D316|<font color="#808080">'''TALK'''</font>]]</sup></small> • <sub><small> [[Special:Contributions/Husher D316|<font color="#808080">'''CONTRIBUTIONS'''</font>]]</small></sub> • <sub><small>[[Special:Emailuser/Husher D316|<font color="#808080">'''EMAIL'''</font>]]</small></sub> • <sup><font style="text-decoration:blink"><font color="DarkOrange">'''FEET FIRST'''</font></font></sup><sup><font style="text-decoration:blink"> <font color="orange">'''INTO'''</font></font></sup> <sup><font style="text-decoration:blink"><font color="Gold">'''HELL!'''</font></font></sup>'' 00:41, September 5, 2009 (UTC)''
| |
|
| |
| == Halo1 Assault Rifle?? ==
| |
|
| |
| Is this not the exact same gun from halo 1
| |
|
| |
| No, it isn't. This is the MA5C, the MA5B is used in Halo 1. They are actually different guns in the Halo universe, not just different stats applied to the same weapon for the games. [[User:Aeshir.|Aeshir]] 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Magazine Release Button ==
| |
|
| |
| In the article, it says that the button is located above the magazine, with an arrow pointing downwards. However, that looks more like an indication of where the magazine is meant to go rather than the said button. The same applies to the Battle Rifle. In Halo 1, the Mag release catch was above the trigger. It isn't present there on the MA5C, though, so I think the mention of its location in this article should be removed. Thoughts?
| |
|
| |
| [[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 12:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Torch ==
| |
|
| |
| The light from the MA5B is not used for the torch. All games use the helmet light.
| |
|
| |
| [[User: Emre004|Emre004]] 20:58 26/04/08 GMT
| |
| :True, but the weapons are designed with Marines in mind, not SPARTAN-II's with integrated flashlights in their half-ton combat armor. [[User:XRoadToDawnX|XRoadToDawnX]] 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == size==
| |
|
| |
| Anyone oticed that when the marines or your model is holdinh a weapon, its normal sized but when its on theground or unused, its massive!
| |
| Good examples, Halo 3 level halo.
| |
|
| |
| angle youself next to johnson and headshot over the top of his weapon. as he dies in theater you can see the weapon enlarge to almost as big as johnson is tall.
| |
| Another example is the level the storm.
| |
|
| |
| Housed rocket launchers as you assualt lake bed b, are about the size of when yo carrry them, (or smalller). when droppped they enlarge .Wtf
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Really this is probably just to make it easier to spot them on the battle field if you wanted to pick them up.
| |
|
| |
| == Forward assist? ==
| |
|
| |
| Just wondering doesn't it have a forward assist, ya know, one of those things that lets you reload faster, the M16 and the M4 have one.--[[User:0nyx Sp1k3r|0nyx Sp1k3r]] 16:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Forward assists do not help to speed up reloads. They are there to assist the bolt in being cycled forward. If the bolt in an M16 or an M4 is not cleaned and lubricated with CLP, it will sometimes get stuck when you rack the charging handle. The forward assist is there only to help correct this. There is no other purpose for it. The MA5C does not appear to have one. --[[User:Smoke.|Smoke, U.S. Marine]]
| |
|
| |
| That would explain why they say its so damned unreliable. Gunnery sergeant [[User talk:Maiar|Maiar]] 07:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Yup. I've heard it called things like the "Mattel" toy and stuff like that. It is actually quite reliable, though. I can reach out and touch someone with it at ranges of like 500 to 600 meters easily, and as long as I keep it clean, I don't have to worry about it screwing up on me. It's just a high maintenance weapon because it's built for accuracy (hence me referencing it in the above sentence). The forward assist is there basically to correct that fault in the design. If you look at a picture of the old A1 models (the very first ones), you'll notice that there is a lack of a forward assist. <span style="color:#4C8844">'''Smoke''' <sup>[[User:Smoke.|My page]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Smoke.|My talk]]</sub></span> 15:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Ummm...is this true? Is the BR55 really the Marine's main rifle from Halo 2 onward? ==
| |
|
| |
| In the infantry weapon section on the UNSC Marine Corps page, it says that the MA5C is actually a naval weapon for tight quarters on ships, while the standard Marine weapon is the Br55 battle rifle from halo 2 onward. Is this true or merely fan fiction? It is written quite matter-o-factly so I assume the writer knew what he was talking about...[[User:24.15.64.119|24.15.64.119]] 04:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)jake
| |
|
| |
| == WTF IS THIS SHITTY PRECISION? ==
| |
|
| |
| The assault rifle has very bad precision if it is 2552 wouldent humanity have something tha decreases the f...ing recoil?Same for the SMG wich is more dangerus when you have 0 damage!
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| SPARTAN 456
| |
| :Why does everyone think that simply because it is the future, there must be things that completely eliminate problems like recoil. I'm sure a century ago, doctors thought that by now, there should be a cure for every disease in the world, poverty should be done and over with, and we should be worrying about why people don't want to move to underwater cities. That aside, the Assault Rifle uses large caliber rounds which leads to the recoil, and the SMG uses caseless rounds, which also adds to recoil. --[[User talk:XRoadToDawnX|XRoadToDawnX]] 21:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| MetalStorm technologies have already creative recoil-free firearms. They fire thru electronic impulses rather than gas or gunpowder. Second, the AR has very good precision according to halo canon. In the game, I apologize if you think the gun could be more accurate. But the gameplay doesn't match up with halo canon, unfortunately.
| |
|
| |
| :Bungie rushed things a lot when making the games. do they honestly expect us to beleave that certain rounds (7.62x51mm NATO, .50 BMG(12.7x99mm), 14.5x114mm) survived in service for 600 years? and how can the 12.7x40mm Semi Armour-Peircing straght-cased pistol rounds from an M6 pistol do hedshots when a 12.7x99mm Armour-Peircing bottlenecked rifle cartridge from an M41 gatling-gun can't? in spite of having 3 barrels, the AIE486H and M41 gatling guns fire at a rate that a single barrel could manage easily. the realism lacking of HALO is its near-fatal Flaw. [[User talk:Agent Tasmania|Agent Tasmania]] 04:54, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :
| |
| :There's something called GAME BALANCE, in the books it's a lot more accurate. Also, noobs particularly would just sit on the hog turret if it were headshot capable and could shoot faster. GAME BALANCE.
| |
| :''"Bungie rushed things a lot when making the games. do they honestly expect us to beleave that certain rounds (7.62x51mm NATO, .50 BMG(12.7x99mm), 14.5x114mm) survived in service for 600 years?"''
| |
| :Well hey, the revolver survived for about 200 years, so why can't bullet sizes survive that long? [[User talk:Bottletopman|Bottletopman]] 02:17, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :: Somehow i doupt it was the same revolver. and the longest serving cartridge only lasted a little over a century. in Call of Duty, all weapons can get head shots and general much more (though still terribly un) realistic and it's still ballenced. [[User talk:Agent Tasmania|Agent Tasmania]] 04:54, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :: Maybe because the 7.62 NATO round is superior in almost every way to almost every other combat cartridge ever designed? [[User talk:CoD addict|CoD addict]] 00:08, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Yeah, it is disappointing to think that Marines in the 26th century would be armed with such a sad excuse for a rifle. What's important to remember is that Halo 3 is basically a multiplayer game, and the multiplayer weapons are just included in the campaign. So they're not using an assault rifle, they're really using a balanced starting weapon. BS, I know, but so are a lot of things about Halo 3.
| |
|
| |
| == What's The Point????? ==
| |
|
| |
| What was the point of bringing the Assault rifle back? The SMG is way better in the fact that you can dual wield it and has the same amount of ammo in one magazine.--[[User talk:Canadian Reject|Canadian Reject]] 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :The point is variety. Some of us don't like the SMG. There were a lot of complaints about it in Halo 2, and its such an iconic weapon from Halo:CE that they decided to bring it back. If you don't like it, don't use it. --<b>CoH|<font color=purple>Councillor</font>]]</b> <b>[[User:Specops306|<font color=blue> Specops</font>]]UserWiki:Specops306|<font color=blue>306</font>]] - <i>[[User Talk:Specops306|<font color=purple>Qur'a</font>]] [[halofanon:Operation:_HOT_GATES|<font color=purple>'Morhek</font>]]</i></b> 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| I didn't say I didn't like it, I just wondered what the point is. Also, I don't have Halo 3, I gotta get a 360.--[[User talk:Canadian Reject|Canadian Reject]] 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :In Halo 3, the Assault Rifle (the MA5C) is more powerful than the SMG. It also has quite a bit more range. As a tradeoff, the magazine capacity is now 32 rounds, instead of 60. <span style="color:#666666">'''Smoke''' <sup>[[User:Smoke.|My page]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Smoke.|My talk]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Editcount/Smoke.|My Editcount]]</sup></span> 07:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Haha. I see someone put in trivia, "The MA5C has no physical aimer or whatever." I wonder, is this a reference to my point on the MA5B discussion page? Oh, does everybody in 2500 have neural implants or whatever?--[[User talk:Canadian Reject|Canadian Reject]] 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :not everyone but all UNSC personell are Implanted for interface with their equipment and vehicles. [[User talk:Agent Tasmania|Agent Tasmania]] 04:58, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Varient or Model? ==
| |
|
| |
| From my rudmentery knowledge of the expanded universe i beleive that the C didn't succeed the B meerly opperated along side it in a different theater. The armouries on the Pillar of Autumn were issued with the CQB effective MA5B because it was due for a close-in-combat mission(which also explains the Rarity of true long ranged weapons) and the MA5C was the general purpous main issue weapon, the galexy over. along with the sharpshooting BR55. the designation "Individual combat weapon SYSTEM" indicates that the MA5; B,C,K and any others are modular variations of the same basic shell and mechanisms.
| |
| in a simaler respect, i beleave the M6D (Halo 1) is a special issue weapon, the M6C standad issue sidearm in Halo 2 succeded by the M6G in Halo 3. [[User talk:Agent Tasmania|Agent Tasmania]] 05:08, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ==Various notes and questions==
| |
| First off, I've got a theory about why the MA5 is so inaccurate. I think that it may have attributes similar to the AK series of modern assault rifles, which are known for their reliability and ruggedness. Since the UNSC works across a huge region of space, they'd probably favor reliability over other factors, because they may be far away. This would also allow it to be used in many different situations across many different planets. Its used much differently than the BR55, which is known for its accuracy, and is probably comparable to the modern AR-15 for that.
| |
|
| |
| On another note, how does this gun compare against the M7S. I know that it works well comparably to the M7, but the M7S is much different than its silenced counterpart. [[User talk:Arcdash|Arcdash]] 02:34, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Here is my question, why is the charging handel on the left side but the bullet hulls eject right.If you look in theater the other side of the weapon doesn't even move the hulls just appear.And in ODST only about 1 in 5 hulls actually eject.apparently some of the rounds are caseless.(joke)[[Special:Contributions/4.153.67.200|4.153.67.200]] 03:32, February 5, 2010 (UTC)Lance Corporal Phy-ODST
| |
| : I think you mean Cases, not Hulls. [[User talk:Agent Tasmania|Agent Tasmania]] 04:50, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ==Accuracy==
| |
|
| |
| Is it canonical that a pistol with an extremely short barrel (M6G/M6D/M6S/M6C) is much more accurate than a long barrel assault rifle that fires a round more suited for long range? Doesn't make sense to me, I am considering recoil but even the first shot is inaccurate.
| |
|
| |
| PS, How do non-neural interface equipped marines aim? and is it designed for low gravity situations as it's pretty large, bulky and likely heavy compared to the BR55 which was standard issue(?) for the Marine Corps? [[User talk:ClydeE247|ClydeE247]] 06:49, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :It is standard issue with iron sights and the recoil is for gameplay reasons.--[[user:Sgt.T.N.Biscuits|Gunnery Sergeant]] [[user_talk:Sgt.T.N.Biscuits|Pete Stacker]], [[Special:Contributions/Sgt.T.N.Biscuits|UNSC Marine Corps]] 03:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :I've also read in the books that the screen on the rifle can be used as a sighting mechanism. It's also important to note that it's removable. [[User talk:CoD addict|CoD addict]] 00:12, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Separate page for MA37 ==
| |
|
| |
| It seems that the debate was in favor for having the MA37 retain its own article, yet it was merged. Why? Now we have a cluttered mess of a weapon that deserves its own page, yet it has a tiny little footnote on a page for a weapon it shares little in common with. We have concrete proof from Bungie that the MA37 is its own weapon, yet it has been decided to merge it based on conjecture. Even in the odd chance that it is infact a sub-variant, sub-variants have their own pages when they are different enough. This weapon is different enough. Open the debate once more.--''[[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><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 14:07, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| Another thought, how could there already be a 4th sub-variant of a 3rd weapon variant in 2437? It just doesn't seem likely that the UNSC would already have something as detailed of a variant as this when they didn't switch over to the MA5 series until about the time of the Spartan-II program (no exact date). Bungie even said themselves that the MA37 is known to the Marines and Navy as the MA5; not the MA5C, not the MA5C - Mk. IV, ''just MA5''. Further evidence, the MA5C shares more things in common with the MA5B than the MA37. Sub-variants usually have minor differences like an added mounting rail or a modified stock, not a complete overhaul. If we take this nameplate as canon, then we must take the DMR's nameplate as canon also. It shows a name other than M392 on its nameplate. Should we override common sense to change it as well?--''[[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><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 16:53, 3 November 2010 (EDT)
| |
| :I agree.--[[User talk:The All-knowing Sith'ari|The All-knowing Sith'ari]] 17:26, 3 November 2010 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ::I would like to remind that proposals are not usually concluded by a majority vote but by constructive discussions. By looking at the [[http://halopedian.com/Talk:MA37_Individual_Combat_Weapon_System#Merge previous merge proposal], the proposal would have been a tie. I must ask you this: what more can you argue if everything that the opposition has commented has been resolved? The most concrete proof we have that confirms this is the nameplate, and yes we need to treat all as canon unless official figure says otherwise.
| |
| {{Article quote|We have concrete proof from Bungie that the MA37 is its own weapon, yet it has been decided to merge it based on conjecture.}}
| |
| ::Bungie provided even more proof by stamping that nameplate on the side of the rifle. In addition, the MA37 would be a variant and a redesignation used by the Army of the MA5C, tweaked to fulfil whatever is required by the Army. The proposal has moved from conjecture to being a fully-supported assumption, thanks to the nameplate.
| |
| {{Article quote|how could there already be a 4th sub-variant of a 3rd weapon variant in 2437? It just doesn't seem likely that the UNSC would already have something as detailed of a variant as this when they didn't switch over to the MA5 series until about the time of the Spartan-II program (no exact date).}}
| |
| ::I think you're misinterpret this. The original MA37/MA5C did came out in 2437, but the Mark IV was only recently released at the time of the Battle of Reach, that is 2552. How you reached to the conclusion that the Mk IV was released in 2437 and remained in service till 2552 is beyond me. We can assumed that in between 2437 to 2552, a total of four variants were manufactured and released, with the fourth (Mk IV) issued to all Army personnels by 2552.
| |
| {{Article quote|Bungie even said themselves that the MA37 is known to the Marines and Navy as the MA5; not the MA5C, not the MA5C - Mk. IV, ''just MA5''.}}
| |
| ::Indeed, they did. The MA37 started being referred to as the MA5 by the Marines and Navy back in 2437, as provided in B.net's description of the MA37. However, it can be assumed that the title was later changed to MA5C as the UNSC progresses through time. The nameplate would be able to support this assumption. If anything, consider the case of M16 v M4 in our present time; the M16 was released back in the 70s, having its name changed to M4 for whatever reason years after.
| |
| {{Article quote|Further evidence, the MA5C shares more things in common with the MA5B than the MA37. Sub-variants usually have minor differences like an added mounting rail or a modified stock, not a complete overhaul.}}
| |
| ::And the MA37 has identical characteristic to the MA5C, than the MA5B. Simply ignoring the graphical updates, because games gets newer graphics every year, the technical specifications is still similar though having some very minor differences for gameplay balance (i.e. bloom).
| |
| {{Article quote|If we take this nameplate as canon, then we must take the DMR's nameplate as canon also. It shows a name other than M392 on its nameplate.}}
| |
| ::As for M392's nameplate, [[User:Smoke.|Smoke.]] has already [http://halopedian.com/Talk:M392_Designated_Marksman_Rifle#Clarifying_Trivia confirmed] that the M45A771B stamped in is the rifle's own serial number, so I'm going to assume you meant the nameplate that shows '''"H\800-VXM"''' along with the AR specs. If so, I can provide a valid suggestion as to why it is written in such format; the M392 was originally an assault rifle, but adapted as a DMR. The general principle is that a DMR ''cannot always'' be considered as an Assault Rifle, but an Assault Rifle ''can'' become a DMR. The '''"H\800-VXM"''' could be the model title for the AR that was adapted as a DMR. As for the name change, we don't know anything about the H\800-VXM other than the assumption that it could very well be the AR that was adapted as a DMR, so I would say no name change until 343i says otherwise.- <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> 19:24, 3 November 2010 (EDT)
| |
| :::''I think you're misinterpret this. The original MA37/MA5C did came out in 2437, but the Mark IV was only recently released at the time of the Battle of Reach, that is 2552. How you reached to the conclusion that the Mk IV was released in 2437 and remained in service till 2552 is beyond me. We can assumed that in between 2437 to 2552, a total of four variants were manufactured and released, with the fourth (Mk IV) issued to all Army personnels by 2552.''
| |
| :::Keep in mind that I still believe the MA5C - Mk IV nameplate is incorrect. I'm saying that the MA37/MA5 replaced the MA3 in 2437. Some time later, the MA5B was produced and issued to Navy and Marines, while the MA37 was still in use by the Army. Then, around the events of Halo 2, the MA5C was produced and given to all Marines/Navy. While there were a lack of MA5Cs in Halo 2, this could be explained by the use of the BR55 and M7 SMG as temporary replacements until the MA5C could be fully issued.
| |
| :::''Indeed, they did. The MA37 started being referred to as the MA5 by the Marines and Navy back in 2437, as provided in B.net's description of the MA37. However, it can be assumed that the title was later changed to MA5C as the UNSC progresses through time. The nameplate would be able to support this assumption. If anything, consider the case of M16 v M4 in our present time; the M16 was released back in the 70s, having its name changed to M4 for whatever reason years after.''
| |
| :::I don't think you have a good enough background in the whole M16/M4 situation, so I'll explain. The M16 has several variants that were produced over time: the M16A1 (original), M16A2 (used today, slowly phasing out), M16A3 (used by US Navy), and M16A4 (newest, replacing A2 slowly). The M4 is not another name for the M16, it is instead an entirely different variant based on the M16. The names are not interchangable. That aside, the MA37 could not be an MA5C as the MA37 was released ''as the first weapon in the line'' in 2437. Consider the UNSC remarks on the MA5C. They note all of the minor differences between the MA5C and MA5B, such as a lowered RoF, smaller mag size, and longer barrel. This proposes that the MA5C was a slight improvement on the MA5B. If this pattern had been consistent, the MA5B would have been a slight improvement on the MA37/MA5. If we put aside graphical differences, this indeed is consistent. The MA5B has a higher RoF and a larger mag size.
| |
| :::I strongly encourage you to read over the description on the ordnance page once again and try to find the true meaning.--''[[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><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 12:25, 6 November 2010 (EDT)
| |
| :::Something I think I should add about the argument. According to the description on the ordnance page, the MA37/MA5 was released in 2437 and became the primary serivce rifle of all branches ever since. Since it is clear that the MA37/MA5 is not present as the primary variant althroughout the Halo timeline, this article means that the MA5 series was created in 2437. This makes it impossible for the MA37 to be an MA5C. The MA5C would have had to be created at a much later date (around Halo 2-3). Basically, your theory won't make sense until you can provide me with information that a weapon in the MA5 series existed before 2437.--''[[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><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 12:50, 6 November 2010 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| {{Article quote|I'm saying that the MA37/MA5 replaced the MA3 in 2437. Some time later, the MA5B was produced and issued to Navy and Marines, while the MA37 was still in use by the Army.}}
| |
| :::::Conflicted between agreeing or disagreeing with your comment. Just throwing it out here: Could we assume that the MA37 is indeed the MA5, '''and''' that the ''Mk X'' written on the nameplate is used to denote the rifles themselves? It wouldn't be surprising that Bungie took this approach, after what they had revealed about the MJOLNIR Mark System. To put things into perspective:
| |
| <pre>
| |
| MA37 - Mk I = MA5
| |
| MA37 - Mk II = MA5A
| |
| MA37 - Mk III = MA5B
| |
| MA37 - Mk IV = MA5C
| |
| </pre>
| |
| :::::As I keep analysing the nameplate and referring to firearm databases for clarity, I found that the above could be the potential solution to this problem as it makes the most sense when combining the details of the nameplate and the description that is provided in Bungie.net. The nameplate, in my opinion, is canon/correct and it fully reflects what Bungie had intended about the history of the weapon; that is the MA37 is the base weapon for all MA5 series, but the "Mk" denotes which rifle 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> 14:30, 6 November 2010 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::The system you provided doesn't work because the nameplate would have to say "MA37 - Mk IV", when infact it says "MA5C - Mk IV". It's unlikely that this is the case. Also, that system implies that the MA37 in Reach and MA5C in Halo 3 are the exact same weapon, which is far from reality. Aside from obvious differences of the two weapons, why would the Army be using an MA5C when the Navy/Marines are still using the MA5B? The Army is known for having all of the older variants (SRS99, M319 IGL, M392 DMR, etc.)--''[[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><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 08:37, 7 November 2010 (EST)
| |
| :::::::From the supplied illustration, this suggest that the UNSC Army and Marines/Navy utilised two different designation systems for the firearms, that is "<RIFLE SERIES><RIFLE MODEL> - <ARMY RIFLE SERIES>" rather than the standard "<RIFLE SERIES><RIFLE MODEL>" that we've been accustomed to. To put make things clearer:
| |
| <pre>
| |
| Army Marines/Navy Nameplate
| |
| MA37 Mk I | MA5 | MA5 - Mk I
| |
| MA37 Mk II | MA5A | MA5A - Mk II
| |
| MA37 Mk III | MA5B | MA5B - Mk III
| |
| MA37 Mk IV | MA5C | MA5C - Mk IV
| |
| </pre>
| |
| :::::::The nameplate is simply used for universal descriptive and joint-forces purposes. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the approach they took, [[Talk:MJOLNIR_Powered_Assault_Armor/Mark_IV#Primary_Model.3F_New_clues_from_Halo:_Reach_and_FoR|since also manage to pull out an extravagant statement when explaining the MJOLNIR Mk system (See Specops306's comment)]]. I am aware that the system illustrated is somewhat hard to believe, but it makes sense when combined with the description supplied in Bungie.net. I also believe the way we've been interpreting the descriptions in Bungie.net is wrong; the description should actually be used to explain the history/background of the weapon and not to explain the actual detail/specifications of the weapon at the time of the game. This makes the most sense to me. I now agree that that having MA5C Mk IV is simply out-of-this world based on these information.
| |
| {{Article quote|Also, that system implies that the MA37 in Reach and MA5C in Halo 3 are the exact same weapon, which is far from reality.}}
| |
| :::::::It could very well be, and is not far from reality. Bungie retconned almost everything from H:TFoR in Halo: Reach, from details of the events, to individual/personnel details. It wouldn't be surprising, since Reach is indeed one of a few planets the UNSC used to test experimental weapons. To make sense of things, it could be said that the MA37-MkIV/MA5C on Reach was once an experimental version that recently passed long before the events of Reach, which later mass-produced by the time of Halo 3. In addition, it should also be made aware that Halo 3 is not as realistic as Halo: Reach, something Bungie has stated during the development of Halo: Reach.
| |
| :::::::If anything, the MA37 (which is the MA5 for Marines/Navy) is similar to the [[Wikipedia:CAR-15|CAR-15]] (which basically shows that the Army and Air Force have different designation system). Do note of what you've said earlier, that ''"the MA37 is the primary service rifle for the UNSC"''. And take into consideration that nowhere in any Halo reference stated that the MA5B and MA5C are primary service rifle for the UNSC (Halopedia is the only reference site that stated so, and incidentally, Halo Encyclopedia copied us too), thus in other words, we've been presenting false information for saying both MA5B and MA5C being primary service rifles.
| |
| {{Article quote|Aside from obvious differences of the two weapons, why would the Army be using an MA5C when the Navy/Marines are still using the MA5B?}}
| |
| :::::::I should remind you that the Navy/Marines do utilise the MA5C/MA37 during the events of Reach, as per Halo: Reach, that is to say, Halo: Reach retconned Halo: TFoR in terms of what happened and the actual details of the event. It should be noted that the novels, which is essentially a Microsoft project, didn't take potential future updates that Bungie would introduce into account, thus having a larger possibility of creating retcons. In other words, the novels have old canon that could not always be applied. Thus, details that are available in the novels cannot always be applied to the events as narrated in the games and those details should always be taken into consideration before applying to future titles.
| |
| :::::::After reading through these discussions and from the ones in Halo.Wikia, I've came to the conclusion that the MA37's description in Bungie.net should be added in the [[MA5 series]] article and that this article should only reflect what Halo: Reach has shown. If anyone is still having problem understanding what my points are, I'll put it in a simple sentence: The MA37/MA5 is the base weapon and that the MA5B (Army designated Mk III) and MA5C (Army designated Mk IV) are simply build-ups of the MA37/MA5.- <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> 10:22, 7 November 2010 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| :Regarding the move in the first place...why were arguments presented by firearms enthusiasts (which had the majority) overruled by comments normally consisting of "Bungie Knows All" (which they don't)? {{User:CommanderTony/Sig|November 6th, 2010}}
| |
| ::On the contrary, you were the only firearm enthusiast in the merge proposal. :P
| |
| ::A few firearm enthusiasts agreed that the MA37 is indeed the MA5C, while some say it is the MA5A. The Mk in the nameplate seems to resolve this issue. - <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> 10:22, 7 November 2010 (EST)
| |
| :::Subtank, i'm going to have to ask you to please revert all of the previous pages back to the MA37 article as per the reasons i've stated in my vote in the last vote, in addition to arguments presented by Fluffy. This vote was incredibly premature (15-5-2), then claiming "victory" by simple stating a comment you placed out of context prior, in addition to overwhelming support in favor that the MA37 and the MA5C are two very different rifles in the series. Thank you for understanding! {{User:CommanderTony/Sig|November 6th, 2010}}
| |
| ::::I would like to point out that the notion of majority (that is, 15-5-2) in a vote [[Halopedia:What_Halopedia_is#Halopedia_is_not_a_democracy|doesn't mean anything if the voters are simply voting without supplying any concrete arguments.]]. If one refers to the merge proposal in the [[halowikia:Talk:MA37_Individual_Combat_Weapon_System#Merge|old.Halopedia]], you will see that most, if not all opposition comments have been resolved, including yours. The only credible arguments I will acknowledge would be Fluffy's, which I know shows some concern on the legitimacy of the nameplate, thus requiring some analysis and discussion.
| |
| ::::I should note that recent researches that I've gone through and analysed that shows that the merge needed to branch off towards another point; that the MA37/MA5 is the base weapon and that the MA5B and MA5C are simply derivatives built from the MA37/MA5. Also, you should know me; that I would eventually forfeit when the situation is against me. One such example is the discussion between me and Fluffy, where he managed to proved that I'm wrong. Simply prove me wrong and I'll comply.- <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> 12:40, 7 November 2010 (EST)
| |
| :::::I have proven that you're wrong, and on multiple ocassions on the issue, you just haven't bothered to acknowledge that fact yet. And that same "democracy" point can be used in asking you nicely to revert the pages back... {{User:CommanderTony/Sig|November 6th, 2010}}
| |
| ::::::Please point where. :) - <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> 12:50, 7 November 2010 (EST)
| |
| :::::::Everything above this comment and on the MA37 page. {{User:CommanderTony/Sig|November 6th, 2010}}
| |
| ::::::::As I said before, if one refers to the merge proposal in the [[halowikia:Talk:MA37_Individual_Combat_Weapon_System#Merge|old.Halopedia]], you will see that most, if not all opposition comments have been resolved, including yours. Grievous0311, a former Marine, acknowledges what my proposal has stated so far. The only credible arguments I will acknowledge would be Fluffy's, which I know shows some concern on the legitimacy of the nameplate, thus requiring some analysis and discussion. The discussion I'm now having with Fluffy concerns with the interpretation of the description of the MA37 and other details, and how it fits in canon. If you're still unhappy with this comment, please talk to me in the IRC. - <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> 13:02, 7 November 2010 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| ==FN 2000==
| |
| Any one else think Bungie should have compared its weapons to real life counter parts before just throwing them into games? I was reading the books and Jenkins can hit targets at 300 meters easy with 100% hit rate i could believe this if the MA5 were allowed interchangeable attachments such as a scope or reflex shit... I mean come on what AR has not even an Iron sight? and the clip size? I would just like a very real shooting SIM lol with an epic space opera in the background! just saying that FN's effective range is 500 meters with a 1.6x magnified telescopic sight, i cant hit Nothings with the MA5C specially past 300 meters.
| |
| ...Just Saying--[[User talk:RussellofSwinhart|RussellofSwinhart]] 03:48, 21 October 2011 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :Okay people, new posts go at the ''bottom'' of the page. It's not just you, Russell, it's others as well. Not picking on you...just saying.
| |
| :Secondly, you're making the mistake of assuming that Halo should be matching a COD-style of military "realism". At the time, all weapons were like that - the fact that, canonically, the MA5 ''does'' take attachments like grenade launchers or shotguns undermines your point somewhat. Also canonically, the rifle links up to the user's HUD - it's a smart-aim system, rendering iron-sights obsolete. The clip size was based, like the rest of the weapon, on the M41A Pulse Rifle from Aliens, one of the major inspirations for the game - I think Bungie can hardly be blamed for the mistakes of James Cameron. It's a homage. The gameplay aim was ''simplicity'' not complexity, and its a winning formula.
| |
| :And can I say, why are games like COD considered "realistic"? You mean real Soldiers/Marines/SAS Troopers can take multiple bullets and regenerate their health? You mean they can survive the shockblast of a nuclear explosion in a helicopter? You mean they can only carry two weapons at a time? Realism is illusory. It is all a dream - a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought - a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty eternities!
| |
|
| |
| :[[Wikipedia:The Mysterious Stranger|I vanished, and left you appalled; for you knew, and realized, that all I had said was true.]] -- [[User:Specops306|<b><font color=indigo>Specops306</font></b>]] [[halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>Qur'a 'Morhek</sup></font></i></u>]] 04:33, 21 October 2011 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| And scene[[User talk:Jac0bBau3r1995|Jac0bBau3r1995]]
| |
|
| |
| == Introduction Date ==
| |
|
| |
| There seems to be some confusion regarding the introduction date of the MA5C. The MA5C has been consistently implied to have entered service quite late in the Human-Covenant War. This article has <span class="plainlinks">[https://www.halopedia.org/File:Legends_SPARTAN-II_team.jpg this image]</span> and <span class="plainlinks">[https://www.halopedia.org/File:H2A_Terminals_-_Jai_vs_Thel.jpg this image]</span> to supposedly refute that, but both of those rifles look to me like MA5Bs, not MA5Cs. Now I'm also aware of <span class="plainlinks">[https://www.halopedia.org/File:Halo-legends-the-package_halo3-hud.png this HUD screenshot]</span> from ''The Package'', but that would seem like a mistake on the part of the animation studio more than anything. If not, it could also be explained as the MA5B being able to accept 32 round magazines in addition to its traditional 60 round ones. As for the MA5D being in service in 2526, it is entirely possible that the MA5D was introduced before the MA5C. Its designation is never stated in ''Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn''; it is entirely possible that it was called something different up until it became the standard service rifle of all UNSC branches, at which point they could've renamed it the MA5D. [[User:Anonymous ONI agent|»Anonymous ONI agent«]] <sup>[[http://aoasandbox.wikia.com/ DATABASE]<nowiki>] [</nowiki>[http://halofanon.wikia.com/wiki/Demons_of_Hope ERROR: INSUFFICIENT CREDENTIALS]]</sup> 18:08, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :It is likely that all MA5 variants (e.g. MA5B, MA5C and MA5D) came into service around the same time, perhaps as early as 2437 or shortly thereafter. In any case, this article has been deliberately written without mentioning an introduction date because there's no actual source or authority that provides such date. As such, any implication is on the reader.
| |
| :As you've noted, the rifle used in ''The Package'' is modelled after the MA5C. It could be a mistake on part of the animation studio but there is nothing to suggest that this is so thus far. Your suggestion that it could be a MA5B with a 32-round magazine will simply be treated as head-canon until a more authoritative source supports it. This applies as well to the second image you linked. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 10:37, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
| |