Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games - User contributions [en]

Talk:Heckler & Koch HK416 rifle series

2013-03-26T20:44:55Z

Dover500: /* 417 Magazine Options */

== Additional Variants ==
[[Image:HK416 current.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch HK416 D10RS with 10.4 inch barrel - 5.56x45mm NATO]]

[[Image:HK416C.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch HK416C ultra-compact carbine with 9" barrel - 5.56x45mm NATO]]

[[Image:HK417 Prototype.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch HK417 Prototype utilizing [[G3]] magazines - 7.62x51mm NATO]]

[[File:G28 standard.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch G28, standard version - 7.62x51mm NATO]]

[[File:HKG28.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch G28, patrol version - 7.62x51mm NATO]]

[[Image:HK416 with M320.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch HK416 with M320 grenade launcher - 5.56x45mm NATO / 40x46mm]]

== Discussion ==

"See Also

* M4A1 Firearm from which the HK416 was derived. "
As far as i know the 416/417 rifles are based on the M16/AR15 series ONLY in looks and are using similar interiors like the G36
:Utter bullshit you are spewing there as even H&K admits publically that the M416 is simply an improved M4A1 carbine. The gas piston system may possibly be adapted from that of a G36 to work on an M4 but that is all. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 19:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
:::And the gas piston on the G36 was derived from the AR-18. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 07:17, 3 December 2011 (CST)
::The HK 416 WAS meant to be a improved M4A1 from the get go!

They brought on board Larry Vickers a former Delta Force operative to help design the HK416. And it was always intended to be an improved M4A1. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 16:28, 5 July 2011 (CDT)

== HK 416c ==

someone who has an idea of the engine of imfdb.org has to add the new HK 416c
http://www.heckler-koch.com/HKWebText/detailProd/1928/475/4/19
at least the pictures would be great to upload!!

It should probably be in a movie first...but yeah cool design.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If it was used in a movie or video game. If not, then no. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:54, 3 December 2011 (CST)

== M27 IAR ==

Are there any differences between the normal HK416 and the M27 IAR, or that's just the U.S. Army name of the gun, like the M1014 is the M4 Super 90's ?? - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 03:26, 20 August 2011 (CDT)
:I think it's a HK416 with a longer barrel and handguard. Some guys in the U.S. Military (I think the Marines) got the okay from the high-ups or whoever to get these under the guise of new "SAWs" (Squad Automatic Weapons) but the Marines actually use them as assault rifles, lol. I think that's how the story goes, I just remembered it off the top of my head, shows you how much the U.S. Military wants HK416s.

:[[Image:H&K M27 IAR.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch M27 IAR]]
:[[Image:Hk416-2.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch HK416 with 14.5 inch barrel]]
:- [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 07:40, 20 August 2011 (CDT)

:: Here is the Wikipedia article on the M27 IAR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

::Apparently the weapon was adopted by the Marine Corps as a replacement for the M249 SAW. The main differences are a heavier barrel to handle prolonged automatic firing and a bayonet lug. It is rated for 20 & 30-round STANAG box magazines, but tests are underway on higher-capacity magazines such as the beta-C drum mag. It also has a slower rate of fire; 560 to 640 rounds per minute vs. 700 to 900 rpm with the HK416. [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 02:03, 1 October 2011 (CDT)
:::A ''supplement'' for the M249, not a replacement. There's no way in HFIL that a magazine-fed weapon could ''replace'' a belt-fed automatic weapon in the suppression fire role. If the Corps wanted to lessen reliance on the SAW, just put FA lowers on M16A4s and M4s and be done with it. Why do you think SOF don't use a SAW? Because ''all'' of their weapons are capable of full auto. I don't see why they didn't give this an M1918A3 designation, since it's just ''BAR 2.0''. Maybe they should replace their M16s with M1 Garands and their M4s with M1 carbines, considering this backwards motion that procurement is taking. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 07:14, 3 December 2011 (CST)

::::The M27 IAR was meant as a prolonged Automatic Rifle not a Light Machine Gun. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 09:51, 4 December 2011 (CST)
:::::In application, there really isn't any difference between the two. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:05, 5 December 2011 (CST)

::As an Automatic Rifle it has only 2 inches on the standard HK416's barrel length. Sure, without a belt-feed it can still feed casket- or drum-magazines, but those usually don't net you more than a 100 rounds maximum. And for maximum accuracy wouldn't you need the full 20-inch barrel? Or would they rather use M16A4s for that? --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 11:05, 4 December 2011 (CST)

== Stock options for the HK Rifle series ==

All the photos or depictions I've seen for this rifle series depict them with telescoping M4-style buttstocks. Of course it can use a fixed buttstock, but if this rifle is based on the G36 then it stands to reason that it should be able to use the same buttstocks as a G36 can, such as a folding buttstock or just a buttcap. Wouldn't those units issued HK416s/HK417s want the added versatility of a folding buttstock if they're going to be travelling in a vehicle a lot? What about a combination folding/telescoping buttstock seen on the LR-300 rifles? --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 05:19, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

:Only the bolt and gas system are from the G36, the outside is (mostly) just like a M4A1 Carbine. A G36 stock would not fit on a M4/M16 why would it fit a HK416, I'm surprised you don't see that. :| - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 16:12, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

In any case, the G36 gas system has no need for a receiver extension (that big cylindrical thing sticking out the back if you remove a standard AR-15's buttstock) that precludes folding buttstocks. I suppose the standard M4 telescoping stock was kept for familiarity's sake, but for those who can afford to train to adapt to the difference, I'm very surprised that HK didn't go all the way and introduce a folding stock for maximum compactness. It's not exactly rocket science to make and attach a folding buttstock securely to a rifle that can take it, and this is why I'm confused as to why I haven't seen one yet for an HK416. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 19:06, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

:Well, this is what the U.S. Military wanted. :\ Most other gas-piston ARs still have the buffer-tube too. P.S. I think you meant "buffer-tube" not "receiver extension" - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 19:49, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

The bolt in an HK416 isn't from the G36, it differs very little from an AR-15 bolt. [http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/clt2/huge/DSCN2461.jpg] For that reason, it does require a buffer tube and can't take a folding stock. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:59, 3 December 2011 (CST)

:Yes, it seems from [http://www.armytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/ this flash animation] that the HK416 still (regrettably) uses a buffer tube. I still don't know why they didn't go "whole hog" for the HK416/417 since "compactness, compactness, compactness" seems to be the order of the day, since a folding buttstock makes it even shorter (without sacrificing range or accuracy like shortening a barrel does). And the G36 (according to a newer photo of an additional variant on this wiki) also had a combination buttstock earlier. Was it to make the field-stripping/maintenance process similar enough to the M4 carbine so those used to it could transition without any further training? --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 10:57, 4 December 2011 (CST)

::Because it's what Delta wanted. The point of the HK416 was to be just an upgraded M4. No more, no less. If Delta want folding stocks, I'd imagine they have a number of G36Cs (and now SCAR-L/H) laying around in their armory to use. It's pretty safe to assume that top tier units like Delta and DEVGRU have access to virtually any weapon they could ever want to use. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:01, 5 December 2011 (CST)

^ I agree ---P226 21:26, 5 December 2011 (CST)

== RIS ==

Can you switch out the stock RIS on this rifle for another AR15 RIS? Are they compatable?---P226 19:29, 6 December 2011 (CST)
:The 416's RIS is proprietary, its attachment system is different and it has to sit higher because of the piston. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 20:11, 6 December 2011 (CST)

There is a rail system made by Geissele for the standard AR-15 that fits the 416. --[[User:Recon42|Recon42]] 11:13, 22 June 2012 (CDT)Recon42

== French Army ==

Interesting article on The Firearm Blog mentions the French Army may have decided on the HK 416 to replace the [[FAMAS]]. If it's true that would make the French the second army after the Norwegians to do so. --[[User:Charon68|Charon68]] 21:14, 15 August 2012 (CDT)

:That makes me wonder what was wrong with the FAMAS myself. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 21:33, 15 August 2012 (CDT)

::A few things. First I need to clarify that the Army still uses the F1 model, only the Nay adopted the G2, so if nothing else the Army is using a weapon without a STANAG magazine well that has the wrong rifling twist for the NATO SS109 round. Fundamentally though I believe there are problems with the operating system of the FAMAS. It has a lever delayed blowback design which is very rough on the cartridge and kept tearing up regular brass in testing, hence they needed to use specially made steel cased ammunition. So basically the problem is one of compatibility with the rifle hacing to use a different magazine, cartridge case and bullet to other NATO countries. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 03:58, 16 August 2012 (CDT)

This may be a bit of confusion with the fact that French special forces use the 416. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:34, 16 August 2012 (CDT)

:I'm not convinced by that article either, as I'm fairly sure there would have to be an open competition first. Also I vaguely remember reading something that the plant was to start the process of selecting a new standard rifle in 2013, and yet suddenly they have come up with a rifle without a selection process. My guess is that if anything this is going to be the "standard" special forces weapon as currently they use quite an array (off the top of my head they have 416s, FN SCARs, SIG SG550/1/2s and H&K G36s). Further down the line it would make it a top contender to replace the FAMAS, but don't think this is happening yet. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 08:24, 16 August 2012 (CDT)
::Yeah but you have to remember this isn't the US where there is prolonged testing, bids and counterbids and calls for an investigation. European defense acquisition standards might be different from the US and, besides, this is for a relatively 'low ticket' item and not a multi-billion dollar platform purchase like the F-35 or a new artillery piece. --[[User:Charon68|Charon68]] 20:39, 16 August 2012 (CDT)
:::Still the report just says that the 416 was adopted and not why. There were reports that the French were holding a competition for the replacement of the FAMAS in 2013. In this competition the firearms that were being considered that I know of were the 416, SCAR, G36, F90, and maybe the ARX 160 (can't remember if it was on the list or not); so you would expect to here something about why one weapon was selected over the others. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 21:27, 16 August 2012 (CDT)

==Coharie Arms CA-415==

Does anyone know if this weapon is actually available yet? The first I heard of the CA-415 was nearly three years ago now, and it doesn't seem to be sold at any online firearms retailers I've seen. However, Coharie has clearly sold some of their CA-415s to The Specialists, Ltd. in New York (which are now showing up in recent episodes of ''[[Person of Interest]]'' and ''[[Burn Notice]]''), so I figure that it must have gone into production. Anyone know the deal? -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 12:23, 9 December 2012 (EST)
:Not sure, but I think the upper is actually made by Titan Defense, and the assembly and lower is done by Coharie. The old Titan Defense site is gone, and the only one i can find now is an "in construction" one with a copyright date of 2011, so I think TD might have gone out of business. If this is the case, then CA wouldn't have a source for their uppers any more, and hence no more CA-415s. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 13:10, 9 December 2012 (EST)

==417 Magazine Options==
Is it compatible with the magazines of other 7.62mm ARs such as the SR-25 and AR-10? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 01:38, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:Seeing as how the other two are also 7.62x51mm NATO I don't see why not in a pinch. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] ([[User talk:DeltaOne|talk]]) 11:29, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
::Most of the sources I've seen online indicate that it uses a proprietary magazine. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 11:41, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

::Wouldn't be the first time HK gave the finger to their customers in an obvious fashion. Not an HK hater by any means, but some of their decisions are baffling. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] ([[User talk:DeltaOne|talk]]) 16:22, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:::When the 417 was being developed the SR-25 was not being widely used. The AR-10 has never been popular outside the U.S. Originally they were going to use g3 mags, but they couldn't get the bolt to hold open after the last round, so they just designed something new. It is no different than the SCAR 17 using a proprietary mag based off of the FAL mags, but not interchangeable. I do think the mags are overpriced for what they are, but the idea of using someone else's mags for your gun, when there is no industry standard, doesn't really make sense, since you are reliant on someone else continuing to make those mags. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] ([[User talk:Dover500|talk]]) 16:44, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Hanna (2011)

2013-01-19T02:26:06Z

Dover500: /* Update */

==NO SPOILERS!!!==
This is an ongoing problem with people who make pages here. Tons of folks have NOT seen the movie and just happen upon the page. NO SPOILERS PERIOD! [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 15:37, 5 October 2011 (CDT)

Please help ID these weapons that were left out of the page. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 02:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

[[Image:Hanna 01.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]
[[Image:Hanna 05.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]
[[Image:Hanna 11.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]
I believe this is a [[Vektor SP1]]. There's a great closeup at 1:46 at [http://www.traileraddict.com/clip/hanna/where-am-i http://www.traileraddict.com/clip/hanna/where-am-i] (assuming they shot the entire scene with the same gun). Here is a capture of the closeup:
[[Image:Hanna 02.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]

Coulda sworn i saw a luger P08 in the commercial...--[[Special:Contributions/74.177.137.240|74.177.137.240]] 05:29, 29 March 2011 (CDT)

It might be a Luger, I've never seen a luger with the muzzle facing me so I can't be sure. Here's a screenshot from about 01:46 of [http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi984063257 http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi984063257]:
[[Image:Hanna 04.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]

=="HK416"==

HK416? I think those might actually be CAS-V rails on M4s. The flip-up front sight is too far forward by the looks of things to be the 416. Just a thought.
:I agree, but think that they aren't even real guns at all, but the [http://arniesairsoft.co.uk/news2/136 Tokyo Marui M4 S-System airsoft gun]. IIRC, they are not seen fired (except offscreen) in the film. --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 19:01, 10 December 2011 (CST)
:Yeah, they look like the S-System, or at least a similarly-configured M4. Can't be sure because they aren't shown clearly. The shape of the front sight thoroughly proves they aren't 416s, though. Changing. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 07:21, 8 January 2013 (EST)

== Character Armory ==

I am a fanfiction writer. For those of you who are not familiar with the term, fanfiction is is a form of Alternate or Expanded Universe created by the fans of a work, rather than the work's original creator (elaboration available upon request).

For a Hanna fanfiction I have in the works, I plan to give her a personal armory consisting of one of each of the following: an assault rifle, a shotgun, a handgun, and a submachine gun, all given modifications by a gunsmith. After doing countless hours of research on this site and others, I have chosen the following:

The LWRC M6A2 PSD (modified to use the 6.8 Remington SPC cartridge instead of the 5.56 NATO)

The 12-gauge Mossberg 590 Compact Crusier (given a detachable muzzle-break for door-breaching and had the trigger disconnecter removed)

The Glock 29 (uses a modified EFA-2K "Spetsnaz" holster)

The Daewoo K7 (suppressor baffles reinforced to allow continuous full-auto fire without risk of damage, modified to accept ANY 9mm Uzi magazine instead of just the 30-round ones).

My problem is that I have no practical experience with guns, and have no knowledge about any of these weapons aside from what I have read about them, nor if some of these modifications are even possible in real life. So if anyone out there has real experience with any of these firearms and/or knowledge about the realism of their respective modifications, I would greatly appriciate your input.

- [[User: 2wingo]]

Well, for one thing, the M6A2 PSD doesn't need to be "modified" to use 6.8 because LWRC offers 6.8mm variants of their M6 line straight from the factory. Still, though, I'd suggest 5.56 instead since it (and its civilian counterpart, .223 Remington, are more widely available in both the US as well as abroad (I'm not aware of 6.8 being offered anywhere else but in the US and no foreign companies to my knowledge make 6.8 SPC rifles) and would be easier for someone like Hanna to get acquire. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 07:43, 8 January 2013 (EST)
: Good point. Maybe I'll change it to an H&K G36C. - [[User: 2wingo]]

A Glock 29 is a terrible idea. 10mm is already a powerful round, subcompact is going to be near-uncontrollable, especially for a 13-year old. Go with a Glock 26, 36 or perhaps a 27. Also, 10mm Auto is expensive, and 9mm is the worldwide standard. 6.8 SPC is an utterly unproven round, go with readily available 5.56. And why a K7? An MP5SD might be better, considering the K7 incredibly rare. Also, the shotgun needs a stock. A second pistol grip with an M4-style stock would be nice. Recoil could be a major problem for a small female, super-soldier or not.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 09:37, 8 January 2013 (EST)
: In my story, Hanna will be going up against people wearing kevlar, thick leather, and various forms of body armor, so her handgun has to have plenty of stopping power and penetration. What would you recommend, as far as 12-gauge shotguns go? - [[User: 2wingo]]

=== Update ===

First of all, thank you to all the users who took the time to offer me advice on my selections, here and elsewhere. Based on said advice, here are the changes I've made to Hanna's armory:

Assault Rifle: The Heckler & Koch G36C (with a vertical foregrip attached)

Shotgun: The 12-gauge Remington 870 "Witness Protection" (she probably won't carry it into combat, just keep it in her apartment in case she's attacked there.)

Handgun: The Gen4 Glock 26 (she'll usually use 12-round magazines)

Submachine Gun: The M3A1 "Grease Gun" (rate of fire decreased from 450 to 350 rounds per minute for greater controllability.)

Sniper Rifle: The Remington Model 81 Woodmaster (chambered in .300 Savage with detachable 15-round box magazine and customize-made detachable scope and supressor).

Any further input on what I would say is a vastly improved list will, of course, be appriciated, and again, thank you all. - [[User: 2wingo]]
: A few things to think about. With the submachine gun it would make sense to have one that uses the same caliber as the pistol, and 9mm being rather common worldwide makes the most sense. Same thing with the sniper rifle, .308 is rather common, though not as accurate as other rounds, it would be harder to trace. Otherwise it seems like a good selection. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] ([[User talk:Dover500|talk]]) 21:26, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Talk:List of weapons used by U.S. Armed Forces

2012-09-12T16:26:52Z

Dover500: /* Late 19th Century Special Operations Firearms? */

Thank you to whoever created this page, I've thought a lot about trying to do a page like this myself, since a lot of people on this site like to point out "That isn't what a solder/officer in such and such military of law enforcement agency would use in real life." Maybe if this page proves to be popular we could do other pages about other agencies. --[[User:AndCA|AndCA]] 22:06, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

Your very welcome :) everything on that page took about a month to make due to my schedule (and I'm only 15). I am planning on doing a page about the British and the Russian armed forces but I want to have this done first. [[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]] 22:17, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

I didn't know the Marines have started using the SCAR H [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:23, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

I may have gotten some incorrect info during my research, I'll look into it. [[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]] 22:31, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

Thank You for doing this, the fact that you are fifteen only makes me have more respect for you.--[[User:Dillinger|Dillinger]] 23:29, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

Mate, big respect for you for doing this! Well done! If you need any info on what the British Armed Forces do, please let me know, I can help with that!! Again, proper nice job mate!! [[User:Fixer|Fixer]]

::As far as I know the only use by the USMC of the SCAR platform was a variant of the 'L' model during trials for the M27. The H&K 416 was chosen. --[[User:Crazycrankle|Crazycrankle]] 01:26, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Doesn't the Navy also use the M16A3 variant? [[User:Insertjjs|Insertjjs]] 6:37, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Yes they do, my Seabee buddy's issued weapon is an M16A3 with a 203.-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 11:56, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Are we doing out of service rifles and shotguns as well? Wicked wikipedia gives a complete list if that helps he page.-[[User:Balin21|Balin21]] 12:30, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Of course. [[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]] 12:33, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

== YES!!! ==

THIS IS AN AWESOME IDEA!!! One that I have been wanting to do for a while. Gets my 100% stamp of approval! --[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] 08:33, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Glad you like it I just hope this gets done soon so I can work on my next idea. [[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]] 08:55, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

When this one is done, how about one for the British Armed Forces, SAS and suchlike? --[[User:Taurus96|Taurus96]] 10:25, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

I have been thinking about one for the British I may do one like that next. [[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]] 11:32, 19 July 2012 (CDT)
:If you do, don't forget they recently adopted the LMT 7.62 as their new Sniper rifle/DMR [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 11:47, 19 July 2012 (CDT)
::That they do, but I don't think we have a page for it since it's not shown up in media yet. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 12:59, 19 July 2012 (CDT)
::No, it hasn't appeared in anything to my knowledge, and we need to emphasize that this page, like all other pages on IMFDb, is for weapons ''used in films, TV, or video games'', not an end-all list of every weapon ever used by an armed force. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 03:13, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

== SDM-R picture ==

I'm looking for a good shot of the Army's Squad Designated Marksman Rifle, but I can't find one. Can anyone help me out? --[[User:Dirty Harold|Dirty Harold]] 10:27, 19 July 2012 (CDT)
:I'm reasonably sure it's not that different from the M16A4, aside from subtle differences in the rails (DD M4Rail rather than KAC M5) and differences to the barrel which are hidden by the rails. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 10:27, 19 July 2012 (CDT)
:Never mind, then; I'll simply remove it on the grounds that's it's not dissimilar from M16A4 model. --[[User:Dirty Harold|Dirty Harold]] 11:33, 19 July 2012 (CDT)
:The SDM-R was a very limited trial program and it was only fielded to one unit before it was canceled and/or withdrawn from service. The SAM-R met a similar end when the Marines opted for the Mark 12 Mod 1 instead. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 16:34, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

== P226R ==

Don't the SEALs use the 226 with a rail now? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 11:01, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

:According to SIG the SEALs currently use a P226 with a Picatinny rail that is not the standard rail found on P226s. In the past they have used folded steel slides without any rail or other outward identifying marks. When they went to the stainless steel slides an anchor was added to be able to easily tell which were the new slides and which were the older model. At some point a rail was added during the use of the stainless slides, which lead to a complaint that not all light attachments worked on it (can't complain about an out of spec rail on a gun without a rail), so the current model was outfitted with a true 1913 picatinny rail. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 11:02, 20 July 2012 (CDT)

== Page name ==

Should the "firearms" be changed to "weapons", as there are several things on here that I would not call firearms, such as the grenades, mines and launchers. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 12:15, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

I say go for it if accuracy is the case [[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]] 12:22, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

== USMC SOCOM ==

Should the listing of USMC SOCOM be changed to USMC MARSOC since MARSOC is the branch of the USMC that is a part of SOCOM. I think USMC SOCOM just sounds odd because it describes the USMC ''branch'' of SOCOM. This is just my opinion, what do you guys think? --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 13:22, 19 July 2012 (CDT)
:Done.[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 13:59, 19 July 2012 (CDT)
::Thanks. --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 14:00, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

== Magazine capacities ==

Great idea Mr.Ice. Anyway, is it OK if I add the various magazine capacities for the firearms with the caliber in parentheses beside it?
:It is already there... Under "Capacity"... And sign your post. --[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] 17:04, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

== Colt Rail Gun ==

I think it's been adopted very recently to replace the Kimber ICQB, should it go on the page?--[[User:Recon42|Recon42]] 06:35, 20 July 2012 (CDT)
:it is already on there as the [[Colt XSE]], it is the same gun as the one pictured except with a desert tan finish and grips. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 06:49, 20 July 2012 (CDT)

The XSE along with the Kimber are also used by Army Special Forces and 1st SFOD-D. [[User:Puppet.of.fate|Puppet.of.fate]] 21:58, 24 July 2012 (CDT)
:Last time I checked the Special Forces still used M9s. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 08:56, 25 July 2012 (CDT)

They may use it or have used it but their regular sidearm is a M1911 variant or a Glock. The M9 and M9A1 are standard issue so it isn't uncommon for Special Forces to pick it up and use it once in a while. [[User:Puppet.of.fate|Puppet.of.fate]] 14:10, 25 July 2012 (CDT)
:I'm very interested to see your source on that. Last time I checked the only bit of the US Army to still use 1911s was Delta. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 15:49, 25 July 2012 (CDT)

In a number of 'Small Arms of the World' books I own along with a book co-written by General Carl Stiner, a former Commander in Cheif of USSOCOM. I would love to see the source of your info. [[User:Puppet.of.fate|Puppet.of.fate]] 17:36, 25 July 2012 (CDT)
:Let's jump straight to the photography then.
:*[http://www.americanspecialops.com/photos/special-forces/special-forces-medic.php Special Forces medic in Afghanistan, 2007]. Note the Beretta holstered on his belt.
:*[http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?114762-United-States-SOF-pics&p=6214829&viewfull=1#post6214829 US Army Special Forces at the Fuerzas Comando 2012 event.] Note the obvious M9 being reloaded in the first photo.
:*[http://www.soc.mil/UNS/Photo/2011/2011/album/slides/3SF_9350.html Special Forces NCO Instructor at the 2011 USASFC Soldier and NCO of the Year Competition]. Note the M9 in his holster.
:*[http://www.soc.mil/UNS/Photo/2010/album/slides/101005-A-Lxxx-001.html Army Special Forces soldiers conduct range training, 2010.] Every single one of them has an M9.
:*[http://www.soc.mil/UNS/Photo/2010/album/slides/100805-A-2913D-194.html Special Forces training at Fort Carson, Colorado. 2010.] Holstered M9s.
:In short, for a weapon not regularly used by US Army Special Forces, there's a lot of images of US Army Special Forces with M9s. Note though that I am only calling you out on your assertion about the 1911; there's plenty of evidence for Glocks in the last year or so. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 02:46, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Well I can't tell you you're wrong and I will correct what I said and admit they apparently do use it more often then I thought but you can't honestly tell me I'm wrong either when my source material clearly states they do use M1911 variants. We are talking about Special Forces here so what they use is honestly their choice.[[User:Puppet.of.fate|Puppet.of.fate]] 13:29, 26 July 2012 (CDT)
:And yet nowhere in the 1200+ images I checked through did I see a single 1911 pattern pistol aside from two presentation pieces. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 13:35, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Just because they're not there, doesn't mean they don't exist. You can't find everything on the internet. [[User:Puppet.of.fate|Puppet.of.fate]] 13:55, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

:Well, if the 1911 was the standard sidearm of the US Army Special Forces, don't you think there would be a lot of pictures of them with the 1911? When were these books of your's written? --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 14:10, 26 July 2012 (CDT)
::For the record, the General who co-wrote one of the books he cited retired in '93.[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 14:11, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

His retirement date has no relavence. He's former Special Forces and Commander in Chief of USSOCOM, I'm pretty sure his information would be pretty up to date when he wrote the book. The book he co-wrote was published in 2002 and the most recent one I have of the other's is from 2007. And no, I don't think they'd have pictures all over the internet of them, they're Special Forces, and I honestly don't believe he searched through 1200+ photo's of them to gather his info. [[User:Puppet.of.fate|Puppet.of.fate]] 15:37, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

:Okay, there might not be a lot of pictures of the SF, but there is at least 1200+ talked about here, and out of 1200+ not one of them shows the SF soldiers with their supposed "standard sidearm," the 1911. --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 16:08, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

And as I stated before, just because it isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For the record I never stated it was their 'standard issue.' I said it was their regular sidearm. They're Special Forces, they have no 'standard issue.' Lets make this simple, no matter what I say you're not going to believe me, which is fine I know what I know and you know what you know. He can't find a picture of it and I have books that state it, its a discussion that won't end. It's an agree to disagree situation. [[User:Puppet.of.fate|Puppet.of.fate]] 17:35, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

:Well, regular sidearm means that it would be used in large quantities by them and yet we have no photographic evidence of them using the 1911. If we go by the fact that they can use whatever they want, why don't we just list every handgun and say, "There is a chance someone in the military is using one." There is a way to end this discussion, what are the name of these books that you got your info from? --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 18:54, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

[http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php Professionalsoldiers.com] ask them yourselves, they should know what they carry. (Most on there prefer Glocks btw.)-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 22:39, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

:I don't really trust PS, because anyone can go on it and post whatever they want. --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 02:20, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

Not necessarily true, you have to be vetted to have certain user names and the "Quiet Professional" tag, they will actually go look through their class lists and etc to find out if a person is who they say they are, and if someone posts BS or w/e they get the boot-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 02:42, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

:It says in their bulletin board rules page that not every user is a "Quiet Professional," so they could be anybody. --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 02:44, 27 July 2012 (CDT)
::I believe the implication here is that the ones with the "Quiet Professional" tag won't be talking out of their arse like regular users. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 02:51, 27 July 2012 (CDT)
:::Oh, okay, I misunderstood that. Okay, it seems like a much more reliable source to me now. --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 05:01, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

== M11 Pistol ==

I wasn't aware that NCIS uses the P228 anymore. I thought they used the P229 DAK. I'm posting this to let you know why I changed it on the main page. Just thought I'd let you know. (By the way, if anyone has any comments, feel free to respond to me.) --[[User:Mormonpowerranger521|Mormonpowerranger521]] 15:30 (CDT)

According to (the ever-accurate, lol) Wikipedia, they no longer use the P228. However, it says that they also use the P239 DAK as well as the P229 DAK. --[[User:Dirty Harold|Dirty Harold]] 19:22, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

== Gun order ==

Right now the guns, particularly the out of service ones, seem to be in a pretty random order. What do people think would be the best way to categorise them by, alphabetically, chronologically, user or notoriety? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18:28, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

:Chronologically sounds good, probably from earliest to latest. --[[User:Dirty Harold|Dirty Harold]] 19:30, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

:I agree, it will better in that order. --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 20:03, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

== M4A1 ==
It needs to be notated that the M4A1 is only standard issue to special operations/ and Rangers. The M4 carbine (Semi and burst fire) is the standard rifle for front-line combat arms units in the US Army. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 21:28, 24 July 2012 (CDT)
:Done. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 23:26, 25 July 2012 (CDT)

== NCIS ==

So this page lists the weapons of the US Armed Forces, like the Army, Navy, Marines, etc. NCIS is a federal agency, not part of the Armed Forces. Should it be removed? --[[User:Mormonpowerranger521|Mormonpowerranger521]] 19:35 (CDT)
:NCIS is part of the Department of the Navy. --[[User:Dirty Harold|Dirty Harold]] 08:35, 26 July 2012 (CDT)
::OK, so I'll go ahead and add CID as well, as it's part of the Army. But should other federal agencies be added, as they are part of the Department of Justice or Homeland Security, and they are also technically part of the US Armed Forces as well? --[[User:Mormonpowerranger521|Mormonpowerranger521]] 16:48 (CDT)
::::The CID doesn't need to be there anyway, as the weapons they use are already listed with the US Army. The only reason the NCIS is listed (if it deserves to be here anyway, my opinion is that it shouldn't as is a federal law enforcement agency and not part of "Armed Forces") is that they use weapons that are not used by the regular Navy. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:56, 26 July 2012 (CDT)
::: Don't forget OSI (Office of Special Investigations), the Air Force equivelant. On an unrelated not, why would EOD use the Mk18? It's not like they need super-short weapons for CQB, they dispose of bombs.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 17:52, 26 July 2012 (CDT)
::::EOD in most forces tend to use shorter weapons than regular infantry as they only carry weapons for personal defence, and the lighter weight of smaller weapons is a plus when you have to carry additional specialist equipment. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:56, 26 July 2012 (CDT)
:::So the question is, I guess, do we keep NCIS, and by that reasoning, add a whole bunch more federal agencies (DHS, FBI, ATF, etc.), or do we remove it as it technically isn't part of the "Armed Forces?" I vote remove. --[[User:Mormonpowerranger521|Mormonpowerranger521]] 19:02 (CDT)

== SIG P239 ==

I have read somewhere that the P239 was issued by DEVGRU to plain clothes operators, does anyone know if this is true? --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 14:43, 26 July 2012 (CDT)
:I'm looking at a page right now that [http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/sig-p239.php says the same thing], but there's no way to confirm it since it doesn't give a source. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 14:48, 26 July 2012 (CDT)
::That's actually the page I read it on, but I didn't trust it without a source. --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 14:51, 26 July 2012 (CDT)
::Certainly, SIG aren't pimping it the same way that they do with the P226.[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 14:53, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

== Colt XSE Image ==

Is it worth replacing the Colt XSE image with [[:File:ColtRailGun.jpg|this one?]] Since that's the actual weapon being adopted, not the XSE. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 11:57, 29 July 2012 (CDT)

:I think we should replace the current image with this one, it's more accurate. --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 12:08, 29 July 2012 (CDT)

:What about this image? --[[User:Mormonpowerranger521|Mormonpowerranger521]] 13:51, 30 July 2012 (CTD)
[[Image:Colt rail gun.jpg|thumb|400px|none|Colt Rail Gun - .45ACP]]
That is no closer match than the stainless one, as the M45 will have a tan finish. I was the one who made the entry with the XSE image, the reason being that it was the only image on here and I didn't want to add an image of a gun that hadn't appeared in anything yet. But as someone has now uploaded the tan one, might as well use it. Also, the reason I originally had it listed as an XSE is because that it what we currently list the railed frame XSE (which is what this gun is) as. Colt currently markets it as the "Colt Rail Gun" but it was originally called the "Colt XSE Rail Gun". As it seems that Colt have now split them, I suppose it might be an idea to split them on the 1911 page into "XSE" and "Rail Gun" sections. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 15:18, 30 July 2012 (CDT)

==
Confederate States of America ==

Insert "south shall rise again joke". Don't want to be technically but This page is for the US Armed forces, not the CSA armed forces [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 23:45, 31 August 2012 (CDT)

== Late 19th Century Special Operations Firearms? ==

This has nothing to do with this page per se, but of all the pages here this one is most fitting. I have been wondering what American "Special Forces" or what you would like to call them, would have used in the 1870/1880's?

If some soldiers/agents/assassains would been sent on a specific important mission, what firearms would they have used? Winchester 1873's? Sharps Carbines? Springfield Trapdoor Rifles? Spencer Repeating Rifles?

Would they use Shotguns? And what Handguns?

Thanks in Advance!--[[User:Z008MJ|Z008MJ]] ([[User talk:Z008MJ|talk]]) 10:06, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:Short answer what people would consider American "Special Forces" didn't exist in the 1870/1880's. The closest thing to that would have been the Calvary, or maybe Buffalo Solders, both of which would have used the carbine version of whatever rifle was standard issue (I think the Trapdoor Springfield, but in the early 1870's it could have been something else). The prevailing strategy of that time period was still to have troops gather en mass when fighting each other. The modern idea of special forces comes from the First South African/Second Boer War (1899-1902). In this conflict the British saw the the effectiveness of the Boer Commandos in reeking havoc on there numerically superior forces. Later the British implemented the strategy within there own forces, to the point where they even borrowed the name of those specialized solders from there adversary ie commando (Boer=white South African of Dutch decent). [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] ([[User talk:Dover500|talk]]) 11:06, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

How about a hypotethical situation then? If ever there was a national threat coming from a single concentrated group of people, who obviously had no army, and soldiers were sent to eliminate them and everyone else at whatever place they resided, would there just be ordinary soldiers with Trapdoor Rifles sent there then?

Also, while not related to the army, what would the Pinkertons have used around that time?--[[User:Z008MJ|Z008MJ]] ([[User talk:Z008MJ|talk]]) 11:33, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:In that hypothetical situation Calvary would be the first group sent in, most likely with light artillery for increased firepower. The main firearms would be Trapdoor carbines and colt SAA or Smith and Wesson model 3 revolvers. For the tactics that would be used, look at the conflicts in the midwest involving Native Americans, as that is rather close to the situation which you are describing. Pinkertons were known to use mainly shotguns and revolvers, as they tended to get in conflicts at close range, but as to specifics of which type of each I do not know. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] ([[User talk:Dover500|talk]]) 12:26, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

Talk:List of weapons used by U.S. Armed Forces

2012-09-12T15:06:32Z

Dover500: /* Late 19th Century Special Operations Firearms? */

Talk:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit

2012-09-09T23:43:03Z

Dover500: /* Desert Eagle */

Ah yes, SVU, the universe where all handguns are Glocks all the time! It seems so rare that the armorers on this show use anything other than a Glock for their characters.

Probably because the Glock is the most common handgun carried by the NYPD. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 03:47, 3 May 2011 (CDT)

==S&W Model 36==
I don't think that's a picture of a Model 36. Beltzer doesn't have small hands. That gun looks like a snub Model 10. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 21:40, 2 May 2011 (CDT)

I believe that in that episode, it's specifically mentioned as a Model 36. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 03:47, 3 May 2011 (CDT)

:Yes, it could be a trick of the camera. Specific angle of the camera makes the gun look LARGER. I just picked up on the size difference because I have both guns (in fact both of the shots on IMFDB of the 1st Model Mod36 and the Snub Round butt Mod10 are mine) and I held them both in my hand for comparison. Hmmmm. Interesting though, maybe I can put guns which look very much alike in the same pic so IMFDB members can see their comparative sizes? [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 16:23, 3 May 2011 (CDT)

==Cragen's Sidearms==
Can somebody try to get some screenshots of Captain Cragen's sidearms? --[[User:L.J. Gibbs|L.J. Gibbs]] 08:58, 26 November 2011 (CST)

For information on where to look for good screenshots, Cragen's Model 36 is notably seen in the episode "Risk" (S4E12), and his Glock is notably seen in the episode "Ace" (S11E22). --[[User:500Magnum|500Magnum]]

== Desert Eagle ==

S.2-E.3 former rape victim Harper carries a Desert Eagle to protect herself. (I'm watching EVERY single episode on Netflix). When Det. Benson asks her what kind of hand gun she's carrying, Harper replies by calling it a ".50 Caliber, double action, Desert Eagle with a 14 round clip." She then turns over the 14 rounder and switches out for 8. If I'm incorrect, isn't the .357 or .44 version the one that comes with an 8 round clip? I don't know much about the Desert Eagle, but I do know that a 14 round clip is absurd. Cheers! [[User:Miyazawa|Miyazawa]] ([[User talk:Miyazawa|talk]]) 08:30, 9 September 2012 (EDT)Miyazawa
:Standard capacity for a Desert Eagle in .50 cal would be 7 rounds, 8 rounds in .44 magnum, and 9 rounds in .357 magnum. Though extremely rare 10 round mags were made in .44 magnum, but I have not heard of anything larger than that. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] ([[User talk:Dover500|talk]]) 19:43, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Normal Life

2012-09-08T23:33:32Z

Dover500: /* Assault rifle */

Talk:Knight's Armament PDW

2012-09-08T16:31:16Z

Dover500: /* Classification of this weapon */

==Classification of this weapon==

Is this really classed as a submachine gun?
http://www.knightarmco.com/images/pdw_last_18.jpg [[User:Temp89|Temp89]] 13:04, 19 August 2012 (CDT)

Technically it's a PDW which is under a submachine gun [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 11:32, 19 August 2012 (CDT)

But realistically it's a compact carbine, like the G36C and HK53. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 11:54, 19 August 2012 (CDT)

:Oh, this debate again, after I made a case for maintaining the separation of the PDW and SMG categories on the forums. In any case, "mainstay" PDWs like the MP7 and the FN P90 can be considered SMGs partly because the "fires pistol ammunition" part of the SMG's definition is fulfilled by the Five-seveN and the HK UCP. The KAC PDW's cartridge, however, is too long to fit into a service pistol (like the .30 Carbine was) and is thus strictly a carbine round, muddying its classification further. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 12:42, 19 August 2012 (CDT)

:: But PDWs can include AKS-74Us which are definitely rifles. To me PDW has always meant beefed-up SMG or cut-down AR. And the fundamental aspect for classifying a gun has always been its ammunition, and this cartridge is closer to rifle than pistol. I don't mind having a separate label for PDWs, but this gun's page in particular has been given the SMG label and gets lumped in SMG sections of movide pages.[[User:Temp89|Temp89]] 13:04, 19 August 2012 (CDT)

The AK-74U is basically a 74 with a shorter barrel. It is still a RIFLE caliber. A PDW uses a sort of hybrid of a rifle caliber but shrunken to a pistol form. An SMG uses pistol caliber ammo. This gun is something else because it fires an even small bullet than today's standard intermediate cartridge. A PDW is not a cut down AR, a cut down AR is still an AR because it still fires AR rounds. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:16, 19 August 2012 (CDT)

:Yep, an intermediate cartridge's intermediate cartridge (cue the obligatory [[Inception]] reference). But yes, a cut down assault/battle rifle is just a carbine or a compact carbine. In an older thread on the forum, I tried to argue that the unique cartridges used by PDWs (rifle-sized projectile diameters, but shorter-than-assault-rifle lengths) merited a separate category, since the "mission profile" is for armour-piercing low-recoil cartridges that allow for smaller weapons than even the most compact of carbines firing assault- or battle-rifle cartridges. If I had my way, I'd drop the "personal defence weapon" moniker immediately (since these weapons can and have been used in an assault role, not just "personal defence") and just call them "micro-rifles" or "sub-rifles," since these PDWs were designed to be effective short-range armour-piercers while using a platform even smaller than mainstay carbines. And no, the PP-2000 and the like are just SMGs loaded with penetrator-containing rounds, since the rounds they use weren't designed from the ground-up to be armour-piercing, unlike the PDW cartridges were. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 19:56, 20 August 2012 (CDT)

PDW is a sales term that means whatever the salesmen decide it means; there is no fixed definition of what kind of weapon you can call a PDW and it's been applied to SMGs, carbine rifles firing completely normal intermediate rounds, and even ''handguns''. The 6mm bullet is an intermediate round (it's short but weighs ''more'' than a 5.56mm bullet) and so this is a compact carbine. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 06:28, 24 August 2012 (CDT)

:As should have been obvious to those salespeople, any weapon can be used "defensively" (which is kind of funny because the P90 has generally NOT been issued to second-line troops, even as they come under increasing terrorist, insurgent, and "I thought he was green" fire, but to CQB assault or VIP protection teams). That's why I believe terms like micro- or sub-rifles would be more descriptive than something as vague as "PDW." And while 6x35mm is too long for a handgun that loads into the grip, I'd say that it's still too short to be a full-fledged intermediate cartridge (those dimensions make me wonder why they didn't go to 6.5x39mm Grendel instead). Sure, the WWII Germans began the intermediate cartridge era with 7.92x33mm, but that was more an act of desperation than anything else--I'm sure they would have gone with a longer length to increase effective range had development started earlier. As for weighing more than 5.56mm rounds, there are heavier ones available, and it's not that big an achievement since 5.56mm rounds are so narrow for their length. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 22:59, 24 August 2012 (CDT)

::Ok, the 6x35mm isn't too short for an intermediate cartridge. Look at .300 Blackout (7.62x35mm). [[User:Jeddostotle7|Jeddostotle7]] 23:49, 24 August 2012 (CDT)

::Intermediate rounds can be pretty stumpy; 4.7x33mm caseless is an intermediate, and as you say so is the 7.92x33mm Kurz. Trying to put something between intermediate and pistol sort of ignores that everything between pistol and rifle is intermediate. Besides, it's all of 4 millimetres away from 39mm, and you can hardly say 39mm isn't intermediate unless you think the AK series are actually all SMGs. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 03:38, 25 August 2012 (CDT)

::Another thing to bear in mind is that out of a 10" barrel this cartridge produces more muzzle energy than a 5.56x45mm NATO as it is designed specifically to be used on SBRs. The round is designed to burn the majority of the powder whilst the bullet is still within the barrel meaning that very little energy is lost, as opposed to on more powerful rounds, such as the Grendal you suggested, where not all the powder will have burnt by the time the bullet leaves the barrel meaning a lot of potential energy is wasted. I believe that out of a 10" barrel both round have the same muzzle energy (maybe even slightly more on the 6x35mm) but the deal breaker is the fact that the KAC round has less recoil making it more controllable. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 05:45, 25 August 2012 (CDT)

I think the line between pistol cartridge and rifle cartridge (or something looking to achieve rifle-like velocities and penetration at close range, at least) has to be drawn ''somewhere.'' I would think that a 30mm case length would be the case, because that's already pushing the limit of what can go in a service handgun grip like the HK UCP, or a firearm that loads those cases into a pistol grip, like the HK MP7A1. Besides, wasn't .300 Blackout originally a "special purpose cartridge" designed for optimal subsonic performance? And isn't it fairly easy to have more muzzle energy than typical 5.56mm NATO rounds out of a short-range barrel (you could go with the new Mk. 262 rounds, for instance)? I still would move to call these shorter intermediate rounds "sub-rifle" rounds because of their optimization with compact weaponry and their design objectives to duplicate rifle velocities and rifle-level armour-penetration at short ranges. -[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] ([[User talk:Mazryonh|talk]]) 00:44, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

:There isn't a line, it's a matter of common sense. Everything between a pistol cartridge and a rifle cartridge is an intermediate cartridge. Please stop trying to make us invent an entire new class of ammunition. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 04:29, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

:But what determines something to be "compact weaponry"? The STG 44, M16, and AK47 are all more compact than the rifles of their time, which would put them in the new sub rifle category. I mean would you consider a HK53 a PDW since it shoots a bullet that is classified as intermediate, or smaller than rifle but larger than pistol cartridge, and has an 8 inch barrel? If not why? Just because ballistics technology has improved and new technology is better at preventing loss of energy then it was when the gun was developed. It just seems like there is no practical way to say that one weapon is a PDW where another weapon is a compact assault rifle, even if you go by case length then the first widely used assault rifle would be the STG 44 with a 33mm case length, meaning that the case length would need to be smaller than that in order to differentiate intermediate vs sub gun, which would put this gun out of the sub gun category. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] ([[User talk:Dover500|talk]]) 12:31, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

== Redirect needed? ==

If someone enters "KAC PDW" into the search form, I hope they get taken to this page. It works that way for wikipedia for that weapon's page there. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 12:28, 19 August 2012 (CDT)
:It's already created. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 12:40, 19 August 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Medal of Honor: Warfighter

2012-08-25T00:31:59Z

Dover500: /* Possible Kimber Warrior */

== LaRue OBR ==

I changed the M4 entry, but I don't have a picture of the OBR without LaRue watermaks. -- Spike785 2/25/2012 10:35PM

Yeah, I went ahead and removed the M4 picture. No point in having it there if it isn't the weapon being described. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 22:53, 25 February 2012 (CST)

I suppose I should have done that. Should I link the 7.62 OBR pic? Or buy one and upload some sexy pics of it? [[User:Spike785|Spike785]] 23:19, 25 February 2012

Its not an OBR like I originaly thought, its a PredatAR. The handguard is too thin to be an OBR's, and the way the handguard angles up toward the reciever gives it away. [[User:Spike785|Spike785]] 9:21, 26 February 2012

:It is an OBR 5.56, the top rail is raised up higher than on a PredatAR. The 5.56 OBR is pretty different to the 7.62 in terms of the handguard being more like the PredatAR one. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 10:04, 26 February 2012 (CST)

== MEU(SOC) Pistol? ==

Is that the M1911 variant in new game? The lower part of slide doesn't seem to end like one. It could be one of custom M1911s used by Delta Force. --[[User:Masterius|Masterius]] 11:33, 8 March 2012 (CST)

I'm just happy there's a 1911, period. lol Hopefully it appears in the SP campaign, though. I've no interest in MP. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 19:35, 8 March 2012 (CST)

the M1911 makes me happy as well but I'd also like to see another SIG in SP. [[User:Bristow8411|Bristow8411]] 22:20, 8 March 2012 (CST)

== Sniper Rifle in Trailer ==

[http://www.medalofhonor.com/blog/2012/03/shoot-win Shoot To Win | Medal of Honor]

It's one of the four: [http://www.mcmfamily.com/mcmillan-rifles-tactical-cs5.php CS5] / [http://www.mcmfamily.com/mcmillan-rifles-tactical-tac-300.php TAC-300] / [http://www.mcmfamily.com/mcmillan-rifles-tactical-tac-50.php TAC-50] / [http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?clicktype=rifles M1A] (McMillan customized)

And totally not M40 of any kind.

--[[User:Masterius|Masterius]] 14:58, 23 March 2012 (CDT)

Sweet, we get to play as Ryan McMillan. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 17:24, 23 March 2012 (CDT)

It's propbly the the TAC-300, the limited edition of the game come with a MP SEAL skin and the TAC-300 rifle early unlocks. - Wantabe_Warrior

== More details of the cover art! ==

[http://www.medalofhonor.com/blog/2012/03/worlds-finest-illumination-tools-and-tactical-products SureFire, LLC | Medal of Honor]

The [http://www.surefire.com/FA556-212-Suppressor FA556-212 Sound Suppressor], attached to the [http://www.surefire.com/mb556k-muzzle-brakeadapter.html MB556K Muzzle Brake / Suppressor Adapter];

The [http://www.surefire.com/m720v.html M720V RAID WeaponLight], attached to the left rail of the weapon, with its remote dual switch attached to the top rail of the weapon.

--[[User:Masterius|Masterius]] 10:23, 31 March 2012 (CDT)

== Dual Sights! ==

[http://www.medalofhonor.com/blog/2012/04/brilliant-aiming-solutions Trijicon, Inc. | Medal of Honor]

''"We will also give the player the ability to deploy ACOG® weapon sights with a “piggy-back” Ruggedized Miniature Reflex or RMR® for close-quarter engagements without having to transition from the primary to a secondary weapon system. But just in case, if gamers want to forgo all magnification, they may also choose to outfit their weapon with the full sized Trijicon Reflex Sight."''

'''Another conclusion''': the weapon sight on the cover art turns out to be [http://www.militarywarfighter.com/Trijicon_TA01NSNRMR_p/trijicon-ta01nsn-rmr.htm TA01NSN-RMR] rather than [http://www.militarywarfighter.com/Trijicon_TA01NSNDOC_p/trijicon-ta01nsn-doc.htm TA01NSN-DOC].

'''Another speculation''': will the [http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=RX01 RX01] / [http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=RX01NSN RX01NSN] reflex sight have correct amber dot reticle, like IRL, or incorrect red dot reticle, like in [[Battlefield 3|BF3]]? Place your bets.

--[[User:Masterius|Masterius]] 04:46, 6 April 2012 (CDT)

== MP interview firearms ==

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-wWouKKQEM&feature=player_embedded

SASR armed with an AUG (I assume Austeyr) at 0:55 and a mortar of some sort at 1:08.[[User:Animalmenace|Animalmenace]]
:Don't think it is an Austeyr as it is missing the bayonet lug on the barrel. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 11:01, 12 June 2012 (CDT)

== Steyr AUG ==

In a video report of the E3 2012 on the official website the AUG make a short apperance. It's actual game footage from the multiplayer contest at the LA expo and the rifle is shown used by the guys who won the contest. It appears with a tan camo and dual sight.
(sorry fot eh weak english)
:By the look of the camoflage on the arm (DPDU) it looks like its for the aussies, though thats a little erroneous seeing we have our own steyrs (F88SA2's as of current, see [http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=89682.0;attach=29950;image])

*Also odd is its inclusion as a SASR weapon when SASR (or any Aussie SOF) have not used the F88 platform for over a decade. Clearly its been included simply to get an AUG variant into the game... ~~YEPPOON~~

:They kind of have to to have a varied weapon selection between units, since the SASR uses the M4A1 as their regular issue weapon just like virtually every first-world SOF unit in existence. And those that don't use actual M4s (like the Brits and I believe the Norwegians) instead use C8s. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 07:02, 22 August 2012 (CDT)

== SIG P-226, HK USP - Medal of Honor Warfighter Grudge Match ==

What looks like a SIG P-226 and a HK USP can be seen in this video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6TORbW87qE]--[[User:Mattatack92|Mattatack92]] 01:10, 23 July 2012 (CDT)

Freddie's got a SIG P226. EDIT: Actually I think he uses a USP9 for the second match. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 10:18, 23 July 2012 (CDT)

Its not a USP. Its a HK45C with extended 10 round magazine. Same one Navy SEALs have been using for a few years. I'm sure the player just mistook it for a USP. [http://www.gunblast.com/images/SHOT2009/Day3/DSC04917.JPG] --[[User:snake1|snake1]]

Yeah I was just about to say that, at one point in the video you can see HK45C written on the slide and HK45 on the grip. Here's the pic: [[Image:HK45CMOH.JPG|thumb|none|500px|The slide reads ''HK45C .45 Auto'' and ''HK45'' can be seen on the grip. The pistol also has a threaded barrel.]] --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 10:46, 23 July 2012 (CDT)

== New trailer weapons ==

From what I can see in the new fireteam trailer the Glock variant is an 18, there's a PKP Pecheneg, a SMAW, an AK5, an AKS-74U with a fixed stock or possibly a generic Krinkov (referred to as "Suchka" or "Little Bitch", a Kimber 1911, a Remington 870, an OBR 7.62, what I think is an MSR, the F88 AUG and an M79 grenade launcher. There's also an M86 PDM as seen in the killfeed on one of the shots. Here's a link to see if anyone can spot something I missed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUxxNv3NCB8&feature=channel&list=UL--[[User:Recon42|Recon42]] 07:28, 15 August 2012 (CDT)

You sure that's a Kimber? I watched the trailer a couple times and never got a really good look at the 1911. Maybe it's the one that Larry Vickers built for the game.
http://www.recoilweb.com/larry-vickers-demos-hk-mp7-7665.html
Either way, I'm glad we get to kick some ass using JMB's masterpiece in this one. [[User:ShootingLiberal|ShootingLiberal]] 13:43, 15 August 2012 (CDT)

Yeah, I think that's the right 1911. I think it's kind of ironic that after so many CoD fails with naming it the AK74U that we finally get what really could be called that (fixed stock in krinkov config)--[[User:Recon42|Recon42]] 16:06, 15 August 2012 (CDT)

:Maybe it's a stab at CoD by EA? Like, "hey guy, this is an ''actual'' "AK-74U", look and learn, amateurs!" [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:47, 22 August 2012 (CDT)

That's what I thought too, that's why I love DICE being so competitive after BF3 coming out and giving MW3 a kicking--[[User:Recon42|Recon42]] 07:23, 22 August 2012 (CDT)

== We need more images ==

I have edited this page to add some of the new weapons that have been shown in trailers over the past two months. However, someone needs to add images from the trailers to the page. Also, someone needs to analyze the promotional images that have come out and add whatever weapons appear in them to this page - because I can't do that, as I don't know enough about guns. [[User:Markunator|Markunator]] 10:29, 16 August 2012 (CDT)
:Or we can just wait for the game to come out in October and we can be absolutely certain about the guns and get real screenshots. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 10:56, 16 August 2012 (CDT)

== We need a freaking kit up screen! ==
I know, it's unlikely we'll get one, but I'm getting pretty tired of the "here's the weapon you get to use" approach that shooters take these days. Units like Delta and ST6 get their pick of the armory, so since we're playing these very guys, shouldn't we the players get the same luxury? I could understand making mission-essential accessories (suppressors, etc.) mandatory, but at least let us choose the weapon itself. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 13:04, 17 August 2012 (CDT)
:Like in GR:FS. That would be great. - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 15:26, 17 August 2012 (CDT)
:Or like ''SOCOM III'' had back in 2006.[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:59, 17 August 2012 (CDT)
:You forgot about SOCOM 4.--[[User:Commandoninja137|Commandoninja137]] 17:03, 17 August 2012 (CDT)
::Because I haven't played it. So I wouldn't know. =p [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 04:50, 18 August 2012 (CDT)

== Possible Kimber Warrior ==
[[File:Kimber Warrior MoH.jpg|thumb|none|450px]]

Found this on the MoH wiki. Sorry for the low resolution, it was a .PNG so I had to screencap and save it as a .JPG. They have it identified as a Kimber Warrior. I've compared it with the pics of the M45 we have here and the coloration at least is different from the one on this page. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 18:15, 24 August 2012 (CDT)

Or it could be the special custom 1911 made for the game. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 18:18, 24 August 2012 (CDT)

: The barrel bushing on this 1911 looks to be either stainless or nickel plated, something that the Kimber Warrior does not have. Since the image is low resolution it is hard to determine what the exact model of 1911 is, but it could be the Vickers Tactical as already seen on the page. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 19:31, 24 August 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Live Free or Die Hard

2012-08-22T23:50:27Z

Dover500: /* What the heck is wrong with the glock 22 */

==Goofs?==

Anyone else notice that he fired off, what, how many magazines in Farrells house before running out of ammo, like ten, or what?
:I believe it was four mags, instead of 3 since he would have two in the pouch and one in the gun, so that was a mistake. What is more notable is how he fires close to 20 shots from each mag despite them only holding 7 shots each. Anyone notice how in the first film he managed to keep his Beretta loaded all the way to the end and here he wastes all his ammo in one firefight? If he had carried a "friend in need", a backup gun, he likely wouldn't have been left defenseless in the apartment once his SIG ran dry. Last thing, in the theatrical edition he tells Farrell he destroyed the helicopter with the car because he was out of bullets but he tells Matt he has mags in the glove compartment when they leave his apartment. In the unrated version, they changed what he said and this error went away.
9hi , one thing , the car that he uses isnt his , he gets hit by the garbage truck , then gets picked up by agent johnson. simmons 8492)
*** It could of been the 9mm p226 which holds 20 rounds per magazine.***
:A P226 holds 15 shots, not 20. And it has been confirmed as a P220 by the armorer of the film.

Can't a person get a 20 round mag for a 226? Also, wouldn't a 220 have to be his off duty weapon? The NYPD only allows 9mm and 38's.

:''I'd imagine they could, if one made such a magazine for that gun. And as for what the NYPD allows, real life =/= this movie. The gun's been long confirmed to be a P220R. So, in the Die Hard universe, that's what he was issued or allowed to carry.'' --[[User:Clutch|Clutch]] 20:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::Also, in regards to what is permitted by NYPD, McClane as a senior detective (he has been on the force for decades) probably has more freedome in what he can carry than an average patrol officer.
:::Mauser currently made a 20 round magazine for the SIG P226 using super-new spring technology, but that's in 9mm. You can't fit 20 rounds of .45 ACP into a standard magazine and not have it extend way past the grip. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]

::Regarding the "I was out of bullets" remark, I'm guessing that probably had nothing to do with how much ammo he fired. That was probably just for humor. -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 23:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

==Who did it first - ''Die Hard'' or ''Lethal Weapon''?==

Not to say that you're wrong, but wouldn't the ''Lethal Weapon'' movies be just as much of an influence on the guns popularity in the US? I mean, ''Lethal Weapon'' came out a year before ''Die Hard'' and Mel Gibson and Danny Glover talk specifically about the the Beretta in the beginning. "9mm Beretta, 16 in the mag, one in the pipe,..."Danny Glover.

Not that it really matters, but Glover said 15, not sixteen. It would be 16 total bullets, but only 15 in the mag. This would also be true in real life, as all 92 mags only hold 10, 15, 17, 18, or 20 rounds. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 10:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think both movies were equally influential in increasing the popularity of the 92FS. But, from my experience at least, Die Hard was the movie that made me want a 92FS from the age of 8 until I got one at 26.
::Hmmmmm. I already had several 92F pistols when I saw Die Hard in the theaters....[[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 09:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

''OK, have at it.'' --[[User:Clutch|Clutch]] 05:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Then there's the fact that by the time ''[[Lethal Weapon]]'' came out, two ''[[A Better Tomorrow]]'' movies had already been released, both featuring the Beretta 92F prominently. BTW, interesting story I heard...has anyone ever noticed that there aren't too many Berettas in movies made in the U.K. during the 1980s (such as the James Bond movies of the time)? Apparently, this is because Bapty & Co.'s Beretta 92Fs and Taurus PT92s were rented out to so many Hong Kong productions in the '80s that they were never in inventory for use by domestic productions. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 15:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

== F-35 ==

The STOVL version actually ''doesn't'' have an internal gun, it mounts it in a ventral pod like the Harrier. I still don't think it has two like the Harrier does, so the page is right about it being inaccurate on that front. [[User:Dongs|Dongs]] 19:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
::I actually know nothing about jets so I used all the information I could find on Wikipedia and IMDB. Hopefully I did a good job. :) - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]
:::You did pretty good. Got some things wrong though but who i am to judge? I don't know nothing about jets either. I'm more of a Army and Marines guy.-[[User:Oliveira|Oliveira]] 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

well on like both of you i am a preaty big plane experet and some countries ( Canada norway and turky) but not USA are planeing to put two internal guns for a ground attack variant. --[[User:Armyguy277|Armyguy277]] 13:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added corrected info about the gun pod and it's location. --[[User:Sidewinder Forge|Sidewinder Forge]] 05:23, 18 December 2011 (CST)

:Corrected you slightly. I don't believe there was any clear information on where it was going to be mounted back in 2007, since I couldn't find any back when I was searching in 2009. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:36, 18 December 2011 (CST)

==Sad to see it Go==
Anyone else saddened by the loss of Mclanes old Beretta for this new film? I'm not knocking the SIG P226, but the Beretta is Mclanes iconic pistol, and it deserved more then just a we cameo. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]]
:He actually uses a SIG P220, not a P226. -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 01:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
:I would much rather see him use a P220 than his old, rattletrap Beretta-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 01:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
::I think everyone knows you hate Beretta's, S&Wshooter. No need to keep going on and on about it. McClane started with a Beretta 92 he should have finished the series with one. It's basically like Dirty Harry not using a S&W Model 29. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 02:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
: I think it would have been cool to see Mclane use a Beretta Px4 Storm-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 02:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

::Um..................he does. Have you seen the page??? -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 02:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

:''I think it would have been cool to see Mclane use a Beretta Px4 Storm''

:Is that a joke?

:[[Image:LFDH-BerettaPx4-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]

:Also, your profile says you hate SIGs, too. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 02:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

:Oh I totally forgot about that part. I don't hate SIGs as a whole, just how all the weight is at the top of the slide and that they are really fucking expensive (I'm '''BROKE''' and if I spend the amount that a SIG goes for, it'll be for a nice Smith and Wesson revolver-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 04:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

::"Part"? He uses the PX4 Storm for half the damn movie! How can you be an IMFDB member if you don't read the page? Ugh...

::Anyway, as for SIGs, the weight on the slide is a consequence of SIG stupidly switching to those cheaply and crudely CNC-milled slides on all their guns since 1996. Earlier SIGs, like my West German stamped-slide P226, are much less top-heavy. So, stick with the P228s and the older-model P220s and P226s. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

:For whoever is pissed about me forgetting a part of a movie that I only saw once, shut up. As for the SIG discussion, I find that the P239 is a pretty nice gun, even though I haven't fired it, and their Hammerli pistol is an excellent target pistol-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 04:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

9x19mms and .38s are cute and all, but i prefer .45, particularily the MK23 [[SargeOverkill]]

::OMG, so you only saw the movie once; haven't you looked at this page? We've got 7 pics of the Beretta!! BTW, thanks for the info on the SIGs, MT2008. :) -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm not "pissed", sorry if I came across that way. But I just think it's hilarious that you're on a site which identifies guns in movies, and you constantly complain about guns you hate on this site, and yet you take NO time to actually read the site that you post on. You gotta admit it's hilarious. But whatever. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 01:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

:It's not that I didn't read the article, it's that I haven't read it in a month or so. I read every article that I see, so you are wrong- I do read the site I post on. I'm not going to hold your assumption against you, however, because you had no way of knowing that this is the third site I check whenever I go online-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 02:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sad to see the Beretta go, since it's my favorite series of handguns (and I'm not particularly interested in getting into an argument over it), I do have to say that it was kinda cool that they had McClain acquire one of Beretta's latest pistols, as sort of a throwback to his original. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 10:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the P220 could be the one choosen because Live free or Die is New hampshire's state motto and SIG pistols are made here.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was mad too, because I've always identified the 92F/FS with [[Die Hard]]. I was pretty much just mad because of the P220. I think of the .45 Automactic COLT Pistol cartrige as American. I'm just like that... the only .45 ACP I like is the [[M1911 pistol series]]. Let's not get into a big fight over it though. 9mm all the way for me.--[[User:Yo dawg 111|Yo dawg 111]] 09:28, 2 January 2012 (CST)

==Watch used==

I was looking at another site and discovered the brand of the watch, worn by Emerson. It is handmade in Switzerland and sells from $15,000.00 to $70,000.00, depending on options. That is quite a watch for a thug to have.

[[Image:LFDH-MP7A1-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Emerson points his Heckler & Koch MP7A1 at McClane.]]

Well, quiet honestly, the watch is probably owned by the actor, and was just included in the movie because the actor was wearing it while they were shooting. I don't think they expected moviegoers to look up the kind of watch he was using.[[User:Acora|Acora]] 10:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

::Not for a major motion picture. The Props and Wardrobe department usually have everything for the actors, including their watches, ready so that an actor doesn't surprise everyone by showing up with a duct taped "hello kitty" watch. ;) Everything, down to the socks (but NOT the underwear) are usually provided by wardrobe (in BIG movies) because any delay caused by something weird that the actor wore from home, costs time and money. Sure, an actor can request to have his own personal watch in a scene, but personal property is many times, not protected from loss by the production insurance if a prop watch is provided and rejected. It can be either way, but usually major motion pictures provide everything so that if there is loss or damage, they have a BOX full of backup watches to slap on the actor for the sake of continuity. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
::PS, as for the watch costing tons of $$, either they have a deal with the manufacturer to provide watches (like they do for James Bond Movies, tons of product placement on those films), or they use the tons of counterfeit or nonfunctioning watches available from prop houses. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 22:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 19:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a Patek Phillipe watch. Expencive? You betcha!!

==Holster==

Any Chance at someone identifing what Brand/type of Shoulder Holster John uses? [[Spades of Columbia]]

If I were to guess it looks like a Galco shoulder rig of some kind, possibly a Galco Jackass. Very very comfy rig, I have one for a P226. If they are fit correctly they are incredibly comfortable to wear. --[[User:Cool-breeze|Cool-breeze]] 18:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

==PX4==
How do we know it was a 45? [[24guns]]

I was thinking the same. I was looking at the screenshots and the bore size doesn't look big enough to be a .45 to me. But there aren't a lot of hugely clear shots of the bore to make a positive identification. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 15:01, 17 September 2011 (CDT)

Nobody said it was or wasn't a .45 in the first place anyway.[[User:Kornflakes89|Kornflakes89]] 02:14, 18 September 2011 (CDT)

It's been changed now but when I looked yesterday it did actually say in the Px4 section that it was a .45 ACP version in the film. But like I said today it's been changed to 9mm. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 05:26, 18 September 2011 (CDT)

==Glockity Glock==
Were the full size Glocks used in this actually 22's? I mean we see lots of pages where people think that Glocks use by FBI in films are actually 22's. Lots of the time they are wrong. And on this page it said, I quote '''"They are noted as such by their muzzle diameters and by the fact the FBI actually carries Glock 22s in real life."''' Of course it's another thing if they have been verified as such by the film's armorer (who apparently has generously given info on some of the other weapons used in the film). So, have they been confirmed as 22's by the armorer? Just wanna know, this thing's been bugging me for a while :) --[[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] 19:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

:I dunno, but yes, we shouldn't justify it by the fact that the FBI carries Glock 22s in real life. The bore size is a legit argument. But I'd have to ask Steve if they were G22s. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In the screenshots on here if you look really closely it looks like it says 17 on the slide, but it's hard to tell. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 18:33, 2 April 2011 (CDT)

== Sticking Mags ==
Has anyone ever had the problem of sticking mags as shown in the movie, not just in a P220R, but in any gun.--[[User:MarineCorps1|MarineCorps1]] 22:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:Never seen it with SIGs or any metal framed pistol, but I've seen it happen with Glocks (especially older Glocks loaded with older, well-used mags). Sometimes, the heat from firing the weapon repeatedly can cause structural distortions to the mags after extended use that cause them to rub against the inside of the grip, so that they won't drop clear of the gun when released unless you shake the weapon. The problem can be compounded by excess powder getting blown back into the action. And remember that blank ammunition (as used in this and other movies) burns much, MUCH hotter than live rounds and also make the weapon's action much dirtier, so I'm guessing that means you're more likely to see movie blank-adapted pistols experiencing the problem of sticking mags than live ones. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

::One other thing I forgot to mention...the structural damage to the mags which cause them to "stick" can also come from them being dropped repeatedly. Sadly, guns and mags tend to experience FAR more abuse on movie sets than they would in real life. The movie armorers on here will tell you that actors will sometimes "improvise" and drop or throw down real guns (rather than the fake rubber "stunt guns" that are normally used for such purposes). It's possible that in the case of this movie, Bruce Willis kept ejecting his mags and letting them hit the floor rather than catch them, and over time, they got damaged and started "sticking" in the P220. And if his treatment of the MP5 in ''[[Die Hard 2]]'' is any indication, Bruce Willis treats weapons pretty roughly. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

:::How easy is it to switch the mag release on those SIGs? That also could have have been the problem. One thing I noticed on my P220 if the magazine hasn't been seated in all the way (it will look like it is, but is a little bit out) you'll have to pull it out by hand or probably shake it out. Another thing since they knew the mags were going to be dropped on the floor they probably used shit or damaged mags as Matt said. Did Bruce mistreat a real MP5 or was it a fake one? But I think the worst gun mistreatment goes to Stallone in Rambo 3 with the M60. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 20:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

::::I haven't tried to switch the mag release on my own SIG, but I'm pretty sure that's not the issue. Not to mention that I imagine they made sure the mag releases worked smoothly on all of the P220s (there was more than one used on-set) when they reversed them for Bruce Willis.

::::''Did Bruce mistreat a real MP5 or was it a fake one?''

::::I haven't been able to find out from any of the armorers on here, but I'm pretty sure it was a real MP5 that he threw down after he fired blanks at Dennis Franz. I say this because (1.) he ejects the magazine out of the weapon before he throws it down, all on-camera (rubber MP5s don't have magazines that you can remove), and (2.) most rubber MP5s have filled-in front sights due to the casting process, but the MP5 he throws down doesn't. So I think Bruce actually threw a real MP5 ''hard'' on the ground in that scene, and I'm guessing that this was an improvisation and also that Mike Papac must have been angry at him afterwards. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 22:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the Magazines Sticking is a very simple one: When you eject a mag normally, it just drops to the floor straight down. In a stylish action movie, this looks boring. Having Bruce Willis dramatically flip or throw each mag out of the gun and send it spinning into the air is more exciting that just Push-button-clack-floor. As I always say, if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing.-Cutter9792, 12/18/2011

Regarding the catching the mags or letting them drop, if I was fighting for my life, the magazine's condition is the least of my worries. Mags are replaceable, my life isn't.--[[User:Yo dawg 111|Yo dawg 111]] 09:32, 2 January 2012 (CST)

I think McClane was just stressed at the opening shootout and therefor shakes the magazine out in order to make it drop faster. When Mai later disarms him, she pops out the magazine with no trouble at all...

== Missing Gun ==

When McClane chases the Terrorists to the Warehouse at the end, he shoots one of the Hackers. Even though he was just a Hacker, the camera points down to the Gun he's holding to show why McClane shoots him. It looked like a Beretta 92F, purhaps the same Gun from the previous films.

That was the Beretta 92G Elite 1A. Used by Trey([[Jonathan Sadowski]]).

== Left Hand Shooters ==

I couldn't tell, but it looked like the slide lock was ambi on Mclane's P220. I know that this isn't factory availible. The grip would have been screwed up because the grip is fat where the slide lock is on a normal SIG. Can anyone confirm this, or did I screw this up.--[[User:Yo dawg 111|Yo dawg 111]] 09:37, 2 January 2012 (CST)

== odd choice ==

I got the opportunity to see an old friend and we watched all 4 [[Die Hard]] movies in a row. He then said we should shoot his [[Beretta 92FS]] and [[SIG-Sauer P220]]. I shot the 220 left handed like [[Bruce Willis]] and had SERIOUS difficulty releaseing the slide left handed. maybe I'm just bad off-hand or it seems like a poor choice for a lefty. Before on this page I said maybe the 220 had ambi slide controls but after looking into this I couldn't find anything that said it was possible. Do any lefty shooters have issues with reloading SIG P220 and other weapons from that series?--[[User:Yo dawg 111|Yo dawg 111]] 17:24, 6 April 2012 (CDT)

you also have to remember that it is designed as a slide lock back not a slide release...most hardcore training still teach you to release the slide by reaching over and pulling back on the slide with a loaded magazine in it.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 17:32, 23 May 2012 (CDT)

== What the heck is wrong with the glock 22 ==
Any one else wondering why the terrorists brought extra weapons instead of the glock 22's they could have easily got suppressors for em i guess to them they're just part of the disguise ...--[[User:Blueboy1600|Blueboy1600]] 14:05, 22 August 2012 (CDT)
:It could be because the 40 cal. round is a high pressure round that would not suppress as well as either 9mm or 45 cal. bullet would. Though the choice of the PX4 Storm would also be a strange pick as from what I understand the rotating barrel would make it harder to suppress. An in movie reason is that you want it easy for the viewer to tell who is the good guy versus bad guys by looking at what gun they are using. --[[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 18:50, 22 August 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Heckler & Koch HK416 rifle series

2012-08-17T02:27:40Z

Dover500: /* French Army */

== Additional Variants ==
[[Image:HK416 current.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch HK416 D10RS with 10.4 inch barrel - 5.56x45mm NATO]]

[[Image:HK416C.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch HK416C ultra-compact carbine with 9" barrel - 5.56x45mm NATO]]

[[Image:HK417 Prototype.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch HK417 Prototype utilizing [[G3]] magazines - 7.62x51mm NATO]]

[[File:G28 standard.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch G28, standard version - 7.62x51mm NATO]]

[[File:HKG28.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch G28, patrol version - 7.62x51mm NATO]]

== Discussion ==

"See Also

* M4A1 Firearm from which the HK416 was derived. "
As far as i know the 416/417 rifles are based on the M16/AR15 series ONLY in looks and are using similar interiors like the G36
:Utter bullshit you are spewing there as even H&K admits publically that the M416 is simply an improved M4A1 carbine. The gas piston system may possibly be adapted from that of a G36 to work on an M4 but that is all. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 19:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
:::And the gas piston on the G36 was derived from the AR-18. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 07:17, 3 December 2011 (CST)
::The HK 416 WAS meant to be a improved M4A1 from the get go!

They brought on board Larry Vickers a former Delta Force operative to help design the HK416. And it was always intended to be an improved M4A1. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 16:28, 5 July 2011 (CDT)

== HK 416c ==

someone who has an idea of the engine of imfdb.org has to add the new HK 416c
http://www.heckler-koch.com/HKWebText/detailProd/1928/475/4/19
at least the pictures would be great to upload!!

It should probably be in a movie first...but yeah cool design.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If it was used in a movie or video game. If not, then no. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:54, 3 December 2011 (CST)

== M27 IAR ==

Are there any differences between the normal HK416 and the M27 IAR, or that's just the U.S. Army name of the gun, like the M1014 is the M4 Super 90's ?? - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 03:26, 20 August 2011 (CDT)
:I think it's a HK416 with a longer barrel and handguard. Some guys in the U.S. Military (I think the Marines) got the okay from the high-ups or whoever to get these under the guise of new "SAWs" (Squad Automatic Weapons) but the Marines actually use them as assault rifles, lol. I think that's how the story goes, I just remembered it off the top of my head, shows you how much the U.S. Military wants HK416s.

:[[Image:H&K M27 IAR.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch M27 IAR]]
:[[Image:Hk416-2.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch HK416 with 14.5 inch barrel]]
:- [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 07:40, 20 August 2011 (CDT)

:: Here is the Wikipedia article on the M27 IAR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

::Apparently the weapon was adopted by the Marine Corps as a replacement for the M249 SAW. The main differences are a heavier barrel to handle prolonged automatic firing and a bayonet lug. It is rated for 20 & 30-round STANAG box magazines, but tests are underway on higher-capacity magazines such as the beta-C drum mag. It also has a slower rate of fire; 560 to 640 rounds per minute vs. 700 to 900 rpm with the HK416. [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 02:03, 1 October 2011 (CDT)
:::A ''supplement'' for the M249, not a replacement. There's no way in HFIL that a magazine-fed weapon could ''replace'' a belt-fed automatic weapon in the suppression fire role. If the Corps wanted to lessen reliance on the SAW, just put FA lowers on M16A4s and M4s and be done with it. Why do you think SOF don't use a SAW? Because ''all'' of their weapons are capable of full auto. I don't see why they didn't give this an M1918A3 designation, since it's just ''BAR 2.0''. Maybe they should replace their M16s with M1 Garands and their M4s with M1 carbines, considering this backwards motion that procurement is taking. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 07:14, 3 December 2011 (CST)

::::The M27 IAR was meant as a prolonged Automatic Rifle not a Light Machine Gun. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 09:51, 4 December 2011 (CST)
:::::In application, there really isn't any difference between the two. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:05, 5 December 2011 (CST)

::As an Automatic Rifle it has only 2 inches on the standard HK416's barrel length. Sure, without a belt-feed it can still feed casket- or drum-magazines, but those usually don't net you more than a 100 rounds maximum. And for maximum accuracy wouldn't you need the full 20-inch barrel? Or would they rather use M16A4s for that? --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 11:05, 4 December 2011 (CST)

== Stock options for the HK Rifle series ==

All the photos or depictions I've seen for this rifle series depict them with telescoping M4-style buttstocks. Of course it can use a fixed buttstock, but if this rifle is based on the G36 then it stands to reason that it should be able to use the same buttstocks as a G36 can, such as a folding buttstock or just a buttcap. Wouldn't those units issued HK416s/HK417s want the added versatility of a folding buttstock if they're going to be travelling in a vehicle a lot? What about a combination folding/telescoping buttstock seen on the LR-300 rifles? --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 05:19, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

:Only the bolt and gas system are from the G36, the outside is (mostly) just like a M4A1 Carbine. A G36 stock would not fit on a M4/M16 why would it fit a HK416, I'm surprised you don't see that. :| - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 16:12, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

In any case, the G36 gas system has no need for a receiver extension (that big cylindrical thing sticking out the back if you remove a standard AR-15's buttstock) that precludes folding buttstocks. I suppose the standard M4 telescoping stock was kept for familiarity's sake, but for those who can afford to train to adapt to the difference, I'm very surprised that HK didn't go all the way and introduce a folding stock for maximum compactness. It's not exactly rocket science to make and attach a folding buttstock securely to a rifle that can take it, and this is why I'm confused as to why I haven't seen one yet for an HK416. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 19:06, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

:Well, this is what the U.S. Military wanted. :\ Most other gas-piston ARs still have the buffer-tube too. P.S. I think you meant "buffer-tube" not "receiver extension" - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 19:49, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

The bolt in an HK416 isn't from the G36, it differs very little from an AR-15 bolt. [http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/clt2/huge/DSCN2461.jpg] For that reason, it does require a buffer tube and can't take a folding stock. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:59, 3 December 2011 (CST)

:Yes, it seems from [http://www.armytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/ this flash animation] that the HK416 still (regrettably) uses a buffer tube. I still don't know why they didn't go "whole hog" for the HK416/417 since "compactness, compactness, compactness" seems to be the order of the day, since a folding buttstock makes it even shorter (without sacrificing range or accuracy like shortening a barrel does). And the G36 (according to a newer photo of an additional variant on this wiki) also had a combination buttstock earlier. Was it to make the field-stripping/maintenance process similar enough to the M4 carbine so those used to it could transition without any further training? --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 10:57, 4 December 2011 (CST)

::Because it's what Delta wanted. The point of the HK416 was to be just an upgraded M4. No more, no less. If Delta want folding stocks, I'd imagine they have a number of G36Cs (and now SCAR-L/H) laying around in their armory to use. It's pretty safe to assume that top tier units like Delta and DEVGRU have access to virtually any weapon they could ever want to use. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:01, 5 December 2011 (CST)

^ I agree ---P226 21:26, 5 December 2011 (CST)

== RIS ==

Can you switch out the stock RIS on this rifle for another AR15 RIS? Are they compatable?---P226 19:29, 6 December 2011 (CST)
:The 416's RIS is proprietary, its attachment system is different and it has to sit higher because of the piston. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 20:11, 6 December 2011 (CST)

There is a rail system made by Geissele for the standard AR-15 that fits the 416. --[[User:Recon42|Recon42]] 11:13, 22 June 2012 (CDT)Recon42

== French Army ==

Interesting article on The Firearm Blog mentions the French Army may have decided on the HK 416 to replace the [[FAMAS]]. If it's true that would make the French the second army after the Norwegians to do so. --[[User:Charon68|Charon68]] 21:14, 15 August 2012 (CDT)

:That makes me wonder what was wrong with the FAMAS myself. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 21:33, 15 August 2012 (CDT)

::A few things. First I need to clarify that the Army still uses the F1 model, only the Nay adopted the G2, so if nothing else the Army is using a weapon without a STANAG magazine well that has the wrong rifling twist for the NATO SS109 round. Fundamentally though I believe there are problems with the operating system of the FAMAS. It has a lever delayed blowback design which is very rough on the cartridge and kept tearing up regular brass in testing, hence they needed to use specially made steel cased ammunition. So basically the problem is one of compatibility with the rifle hacing to use a different magazine, cartridge case and bullet to other NATO countries. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 03:58, 16 August 2012 (CDT)

This may be a bit of confusion with the fact that French special forces use the 416. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 07:34, 16 August 2012 (CDT)

:I'm not convinced by that article either, as I'm fairly sure there would have to be an open competition first. Also I vaguely remember reading something that the plant was to start the process of selecting a new standard rifle in 2013, and yet suddenly they have come up with a rifle without a selection process. My guess is that if anything this is going to be the "standard" special forces weapon as currently they use quite an array (off the top of my head they have 416s, FN SCARs, SIG SG550/1/2s and H&K G36s). Further down the line it would make it a top contender to replace the FAMAS, but don't think this is happening yet. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 08:24, 16 August 2012 (CDT)
::Yeah but you have to remember this isn't the US where there is prolonged testing, bids and counterbids and calls for an investigation. European defense acquisition standards might be different from the US and, besides, this is for a relatively 'low ticket' item and not a multi-billion dollar platform purchase like the F-35 or a new artillery piece. --[[User:Charon68|Charon68]] 20:39, 16 August 2012 (CDT)
:::Still the report just says that the 416 was adopted and not why. There were reports that the French were holding a competition for the replacement of the FAMAS in 2013. In this competition the firearms that were being considered that I know of were the 416, SCAR, G36, F90, and maybe the ARX 160 (can't remember if it was on the list or not); so you would expect to here something about why one weapon was selected over the others. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 21:27, 16 August 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Half-Life

2012-08-12T17:31:45Z

Dover500: /* Beretta 92FS */

==Alien Weapons==
Should the alien weapons be put into this article? I know they aren't real, but they are still weapons from the game
:Nope --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Why not the Gluon gun or the Tau as well?
:They are considered as fictional firearms and have no use being put here. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 20:04, 17 September 2011 (CDT)

==Different mods==

I think we should probably divide the guns up among pages for the original ''Half-Life'', and also make new pages for ''Opposing Force'' and ''Blue Shift''. I don't think we should throw the OpFor and Blue Shift (read: HD Pack) weapons on this page.

Half Life norm smg

Isn't it a Bizon not an MP5 with the MP5 being added via mods?

You have that the wrong way round.

dose the crossbow count as a weapon on this sight?

==MP5 SD==

I'm pretty sure the mp 5 in th egame is the silenced variant, it sure looks like it.

it is an mp5. if you look at it while its on the ground you can see its an mp5

:This is a very well-known continuity error. The Player (p_view) model is an MP5SD3, but the World (w_view) model that lies on the ground is an MP5A3. On the other hand, the weapon certainly does not ''sound'' like an MP5SD3. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]

::The thing that looks like a silencer is a compensator used to protect the grenade launcher. ---[[User:Drake2|Drake2]]
::: Yeah, just like the one from "End of Days"

::::No, it's not. Look at the model some time using the Half-Life Model Viewer or any other such program. The p_view MP5 model clearly has an MP5SD hand guard and suppressor, not a ported compensator and G3-style hand guard like the ''[[End of Days]]'' MP5. Not to mention that ''[[Half-Life]]'' was released almost a year before ''[[End of Days]]'', so I doubt the ''[[Half-Life]]'' artists used that gun as their reference point. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]

==M4?==
The "M4" would be a Colt Commando seeing as it has a fixed carry handles and no features that would identify it as an M4. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 23:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:If it has a stepped barrel, it could be...sort of. The Colt Model 777 (which is the first gun that was adopted as "the M4") did not have a detachable carry handle. But the 777 also fires burst. The full-auto version of the 777, the 727, was never adopted. And I think the ''Half-Life: Blue Shift'' "M4" is a full-auto weapon. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]

==RPG==
For me the RPG looks kinda wierd too,but Combine OverWiki(half life wikia) says that it resembles an Armbrust.Is this true?

:i think it does. i checked with combine overwiki (i am a member) and it does say that, when i googled it,it doeslook just like it. its called the HECU RPG, but RPG is rocket proppelled greneade and this isnt its more like laser guided rocket launcher [[user:smish34|smish34]]

== Taken from Main Page ==
They've only used the single action .45 ACP M1911/M1911A1, and the SIG-Sauer P226 and M9 in 9mm.

Just one question: when has the USMC ever used the SIG? They don't even give SIGs to their pilots (contrast this with the Navy, who issues the P228 to their pilots as well as SEALs.--[[Special:Contributions/24.15.51.1|24.15.51.1]] 23:55, 15 April 2011 (CDT)

== Can anyone please help with these guns? ==

[[Image:Half-Life Vehicle.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:Half-Life BigBigGun.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:Half-Life Turret2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
Thanks. - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 14:04, 16 October 2011 (CDT)

1 is supposed to be a Bradley, so it's an M242 Bushmaster chaingun. 2 doesn't really have enough detail to ID; it looks more like they based it on a WW2 anti-tank gun than a modern artillery piece, though. 3 would just be "fictional gatling gun." [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 14:39, 16 October 2011 (CDT)

:Also, get a picture of the Abrams, it's worth commenting that the hull machine gun it has is totally wrong since I can't off-hand think of any MBT that's ever had a hull MG; it compromises the glacis plate. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 14:46, 16 October 2011 (CDT)
::Ok, will get an image. But first tell me which tank is the Abrams. There is a yellow tank or the green tank. The green tank has a Browning on its top, the yellow one has no MG on it. (so I'm thinking it is the green one) - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 15:25, 16 October 2011 (CDT)
:::I only recall one tank (the green one, IIRC). When do you see the other? [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 15:27, 16 October 2011 (CDT)
::::There is a tank with desert finish when climbing up from the sewers I think. I didnt cap it because there was no gun on it.
[[Image:Half-Life M2 3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The Green Tank]]
Is this the Abrams? And back to the Bradley: can we add the TOWs too? (see, I did some research in the past minutes...XD) - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 15:40, 16 October 2011 (CDT)
:You can, yes. The tank with the hull gun is in an open area with trenches you can use to sneak around it, I think it's just after that Bradley you've got in the picture. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 16:28, 16 October 2011 (CDT)

[[Image:Half-Life M2 5.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
This is what you meant, right? This is from the original game. In the HD version there is a small window and the Browning is sticking out from there so it is a little bit more acceptable.
[[Image:Half-Life Mortar.jpg|thumb|none|600px|+ a bonus mortar awaiting the IDing]] [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 08:56, 17 October 2011 (CDT)

:Fictional again (if it were anything real it would be a >12 inch siege mortar), and that stupid little mount would probably just make it flip over backwards if you tried to fire it in real life. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 09:35, 17 October 2011 (CDT)
I do think you should leave one non-HD screenshot at the top of each section, just to illustrate the difference better. That's what I'm planning to do when MGS HD Collection comes out. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 07:32, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

::Changed the order of some of the images. now most weapons have pics of both versions, Maybe I will get the rest when I have the time but to be honest playing the old version hurts. Really. Oh, and the combine wiki claims that the artillery is a M198 Howitzer. What do you think? - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 08:06, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

:::I think not. Take a look. [http://www.google.com/search?q=M198+Howitzer&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=SzC&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=46CdTs_AFKbt0gG26K24CQ&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1680&bih=907] - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 10:55, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

::::Yeah, game-specific Wikis can have some fairly "interesting" ideas about weapon IDs added. If someone held a gun to my head and said I had to ID it as ''something'', I'd say it was a deployed [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pak+44&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1920&bih=954 PaK 44] with the wheels missing, but it looks nothing like any modern field gun. And looking at the mortar again, I think they based it on a telescope. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 11:01, 18 October 2011 (CDT)

== Mills Bomb instead of Mk II Grenade ==

I've been looking at the handgrenade in the original game and it looks more like a Mills Bomb rather than a MkII.
What do you think?
[[Image:Mills Bomb SGM-1.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Mills Bomb High-Explosive Fragmentation hand grenade.]]
[[Image:Half-Life Mk2 4.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Original version of the Mk 2 grenade.]]
:The fuze looks nothing like a Mills bomb's fuze. It is just a big fat Mk2 grenade. - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 11:52, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

Could say that the the scoring patterns on the body looks nothing like a Mk2. Perhaps a hybrid?

== Beretta 92FS ==

Why does it say that the 17-round magazine is incorrect for the Beretta 92FS? On the main page for the [[Beretta 92 pistol series]], the 17-round capacity is included --[[User:Ultimate94ninja|Ultimate94ninja]] 15:59, 11 August 2012 (CDT)
:Where on the page for the Beretta 92 does it say that there is a 17 round magazine for it? I want to know because I just checked and found none. [[User:Jeddostotle7|Jeddostotle7]] 20:26, 11 August 2012 (CDT)
::Specifications section above the 92FS section. There is a factory 17-rounder, but from the pictures I just looked at it has a deeper base than the one on the model in the game. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 02:31, 12 August 2012 (CDT)
:::Oh, I didn't see that part somehow. 0_o [[User:Jeddostotle7|Jeddostotle7]] 11:11, 12 August 2012 (CDT)

::::Beretta's 17-round magazines for the 92FS did not exist when ''Blue Shift'' came out. I forget when they were introduced, but I know they weren't around at that time. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 12:02, 12 August 2012 (CDT)

:::::The 17 round magazines were introduced with the Beretta 90-Two, which came out in 2006. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 12:31, 12 August 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Heckler & Koch

2012-08-10T20:54:30Z

Dover500: /* G28 */

== Handguns ==

If anyone would like to adjust the Handguns' table so that the calibers line up with the capacity available for that caliber that would be great. If you don't get what I mean, look at the Heckler & Koch UMP in the Sub-Machine gun category. --[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] 23:07, 23 December 2011 (CST)

== :) ==
I like this idea. While this isn't a wiki, strictly speaking, like it or not, this IS the place people go online to learn stuff about firearms. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 16:26, 17 January 2012 (CST)

:Just to "keep it German," I'm glad that a brand-and-firearms-made-by-that-brand page for Walther has been made too. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 23:55, 17 January 2012 (CST)

Who did this page because im certain the HK45 didnt come out in 1995 --[[User:Captain Snikt|Captain Snikt]] 20:18, 22 January 2012 (CST)

:I did this page. And according to the Manufacturer of the gun it was "first released in 1995". http://www.hk-usa.com/military_products/hk45_general.asp What makes you "so certain"? --[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] 20:40, 22 January 2012 (CST)

::I think the reason it seems odd is the HK45/P30 seem like "replacements" for the USPs, and the HK45 only came out a couple years after the USP and about the same time as the USP45, while for some reason the 9mm version of the HK45, the P30, didn't come out until 2006. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 20:58, 22 January 2012 (CST)

:::I think it is a poorly worded sentence that actually refers to the release date of the USP45 and not the HK45. As the sentence reads "The HK45 was developed as a product improvement of the highly regarded USP45, first released in the 1995." While it could mean that the HK45 was released that year, it most likely means that it is an improvement over the gun released that year. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 06:21, 23 January 2012 (CST)

::::It IS a poorly worded sentence. The HK45 did NOT exist back in 1995. It was the USP45 that was first released in 1995. the HK45 replaced that gun in 2005. Hell the one pic I got of the screen used gun for [[Book of Eli, The]] was one of the earliest ones in Hollywood Inventory... [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 22:35, 23 January 2012 (CST)

:::::Well [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] is the expert here so I will GLADLY defer to him. Any one who has a better source of when the gun was actually introduced, please correct my mistake. Thanks. --[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] 22:51, 23 January 2012 (CST)

The HK45 was made specifically for the Joint Combat Pistol Program which ran from 2005-2006, so the HK45 was first produced in 2005.--[[User:--JazzBlackBelt--|--JazzBlackBelt--]] 06:52, 23 January 2012 (CST)

:That sounds better. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 19:10, 23 January 2012 (CST)

== G28 ==

Any further information on this? The only things I have heard are that it is the new German DMR and that, the weight is something like seventeen pounds. --[[User:Charon68|Charon68]] 23:33, 18 February 2012 (CST)

:Google "G28 DMR" for lots of pics. It's based on the HK417, and seems to be the German Army's Mk11/M110. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 00:37, 19 February 2012 (CST)

My guess is that it isn't going to be well liked. They seem to have gone for a hybrid between a DMR and a sniper rifle. For something shooting out of a 16.5" barrel the scope is ridiculous, being up to x20 magnification while something like x6-8 is fine for DM work. The length of it means that if you have the night vision device mounted in front it is all the way at the front of the rifle meaning a long rail is needed and generally making for a very front heavy and cumbersome weapon. Loaded with optics this thing weighs 17.4 lbs, and when you compare it to comparable weapons like the new British L129A1 which weighs about 11 lbs, this is just too heavy, and cumbersome looking to boot. I think they have tried to make a sniper rifle/DMR hybrid and don't think it will do great as either. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 05:26, 19 February 2012 (CST)

On their website they state its 5800 grams I did the math and it equals 12.78 pounds so the source must have been incorret

:17.4lbs is when it is loaded and with issued accessories. 5800g is the weapon, 1250g for the sight, 150g for empty mag, and 500g for 20 rounds of 7.62 which comes to 7700g which is about 17lbs. Maybe the rest is the bipod, or mounts or something. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 04:26, 10 August 2012 (CDT)

:: It's just the way you worded your opinion made it sound like the 11 lbs L129A1 and the 17.4 lbs G28 were the same, when that G28 weight included 4.6 lbs of stuff on it. I do agree that 12.78 lbs is still rather heavy for the rifle, but it would appear that for what the German Army wanted. Had they wanted a lighter rifle they could have just continued to use the G27, which was a stock HK417 that with a 16 inch barrel and weighs 10.16 lbs, but they wanted improved accuracy while maintaining the modularity that the HK417 offered which resulted in a weapon that ends up with a greater overall weight. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 15:54, 10 August 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Cockneys vs. Zombies

2012-08-06T19:39:20Z

Dover500: /* Unknown MP5 Variant */

== Unknown guns ==

I´d need to see additional screenshots to be sure, but for the unknown guns I´d say: [[Browning Hi-Power]] (Unknown Handgun #2) and [[Enfield L85 rifle series|L85]] (Unknown Rifle), --[[User:PeeWee055|PeeWee055]] 14:20, 3 August 2012 (CDT)

Here is the trailer if you want to see it. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH3p-giK1MU][[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]] 15:07, 3 August 2012 (CDT)

Thanks for the suggestion, but the trailer is in a restricted part of Youtube and I don't feel like registering. Maybe others have an idea, --[[User:PeeWee055|PeeWee055]] 08:56, 5 August 2012 (CDT)

The first unknown rifle is definitely an L85. Unfortunately I can't help with the other unknowns yet. Is it possible that unknown rifle 2 is an AK-type rifle? It looks like there is a wooden stock, just visible next to Michelle Ryan's right arm. --[[User:Spanner|Spanner]]

== The M16 ==

Is not an A4, it looks like an A1. Non-detachable carry handle and fixed rear sight. I'd change it, but I suck at editing pages. [[User:The Kaptain|The Kaptain]] 15:28, 3 August 2012 (CDT)

== Airsoft? ==

If this is shot in London, all of those weapons must be airsoft, due to gun laws.

:Blank firing weapons are legal in the UK if you have a reason to own them, such as being a film/TV armourer. There are plenty of shows and films that have been made in the UK that use real blank converted firearms. Having said that, the MP5 is an airsoft one judging by the little allen bolt on the base of the pistol grip which adjusts the motor, but using airsoft weapons in non firing scenes is commonly done so as not to require an armourer on set. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 19:31, 3 August 2012 (CDT)

== Type 56-1 ==

Judging from the receiver (second picture in its section), it's not a Type 56-1. It has the milling above the magazine, the sights of an AKS-74U, and the original under-folding stock, also with the ribbing on the top of the receiver. It's a 7.62 rifle, from the magazine shape, so that narrows it down to a custom-made rifle, probably based off of either the Old AK-47 or the Bulgarian AR- rifles. [[User:Sangheili1155|Sangheili1155]] 15:24, 5 August 2012 (CDT)

Edit: The Bulgarian AR-M1F rifles also have the correct crimping in the stock. [[User:Sangheili1155|Sangheili1155]] 15:32, 5 August 2012 (CDT)

:I'd go for a 7.62 Arsenal AR-SF:[[File:7,62ar-sf.jpg|thumb|500px|none|Arsenal AR-SF - 7.62x39mm]]--[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 16:36, 5 August 2012 (CDT)

::I Agree there, shove some wooden furniture on it, and it looks just like the screenshot. [[User:Sangheili1155|Sangheili1155]] 03:10, 6 August 2012 (CDT)

== M4A1 ==

This also is an incorrect identification. The muzzle brake looks exactly like that of an XM177. Judging from the hand-guard, an E2, or Model 629.

== Unknown Handgun #1 ==

Looks like a nickel-plated M1911 from the muzzle. Also has the right bore-size. --[[User:Sangheili1155|Sangheili1155]] 09:29, 6 August 2012 (CDT)

== Grenades ==

Anyone else notice that the spoons on all the grenades are blue? The M26 frags look like cast-iron dummy grenades. [[User:Sangheili1155|Sangheili1155]] 08:59, 6 August 2012 (CDT)

Probably due to the film being shot in London but Im not sure.[[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]] 08:57, 6 August 2012 (CDT)
:Well, they could have at least bothered to paint them the right color. [[User:Sangheili1155|Sangheili1155]] 08:59, 6 August 2012
(CDT)

== Unknown MP5 Variant ==

Either an A3 or MP5KN, judging from other pictures of a collapsible-stock MP5, probably the Kurz. --[[User:Sangheili1155|Sangheili1155]] 09:29, 6 August 2012 (CDT)
:I don't know what to classify this as, as it has the barrel length and forward grip of an MP5K, but an A3 retractable stock. It can't be an MP5K with an A3 stock fitted as this is impossible, as the MP5K has blocks welded into the grooves which the arms of the stock slot into, and the MP5K also lacks the receiver extension on the back which the full size MP5 stocks attach over. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 09:57, 6 August 2012 (CDT)
::Of course, all the MP5Ks in this have that stock. And an aftermarket flash-suppressor or PDW length barrel with an attachment over the end. --[[User:Sangheili1155|Sangheili1155]] 10:37, 6 August 2012 (CDT)
::While never made by HK, some people in the U.S. have been known to build MP5 PDW's with an unmodified MP5 receiver (like those found on the MP5a models) allowing them to attach a traditional MP5 stock to what would otherwise look like an MP5K or PDW. These are called MP5k Reverse Stretch. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 14:39, 6 August 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Resident Evil: Retribution

2012-07-27T22:17:22Z

Dover500: /* Barry Burton */

==Moved from main page==
http://www.moviesonline.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/resident-evil-retribution-poster-590x358.jpg
Alice has a Beretta 9FS in the movie

Until some actual footage from the film is officially released, these screenshots will be put here. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 04:57, 30 September 2011 (CDT)

==TDI Vector==

The lead actress, [[Milla Jovovich]], uploaded a group of "behind-the-scenes" videos of the film including a training session with a TDI Vector. It features an extended magazine, no foregrip and no stock.

[[Image:KrissSuperV.jpg|thumb|none|500px]]
[[Image:Rekriss1.jpg|thumb|none|500px]]
[[Image:Rekriss2.jpg|thumb|none|500px]]

== Additional vids ==

More vids from Milla. One dual-wielding Vectors, one of Jill Valentine (Sienna Miller) training with an MP7 and one of Michelle Rodriguez with an MP5.

http://tweetreel.com/?s93ex
http://tweetreel.com/?ag173
http://tweetreel.com/?62emj

So it appears earlier reports that Sienna Guillory (not Miller ;) ) wouldn't be returning in Retribution were incorrect. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:53, 19 January 2012 (CST)

Michelle Rodriguez? Didn't she get zombified, then die again in the first movie? Also, you'd think that after using the MP5K and MP5A2 in previous movies, she'd already know how to shoot. On the other hand, it's probably more of a getting re-acquainted with the weapon than rely learning how to operate it, it's been a few years. --[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 21:55, 19 January 2012 (CST)

== .... ==

Seriously? Another one? *sighs*

I give up on Hollywood's ability to listen to what the fans really wanted from a true Resident Evil film... --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 06:16, 19 October 2011 (CDT)

: Can't possibly be worse than ''Dead Aim''. Unless they also decide to have a gender-swapped Tyrant with electric tits and organic high heels. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 06:20, 19 October 2011 (CDT)

::...Er yeah, We'd rather '''''NOT''''' think about that X___X But in all honestly, you are better off owning [[Resident Evil Degeneration]] and it's upcoming sequel, Resident Evil Damnation. Instead of owning some aborted fanfiction movie trilogy created by some no-talent hack director who can't make a good movie worth shit. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 06:59, 19 October 2011 (CDT)

:::I think I'm the only one who really likes these movies (this coming from a big fan of the games), except for the the second movie. :\ - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 17:32, 19 October 2011 (CDT)

You could go a lot worse with videogame movies than this series (see Alone in the Dark, Postal, etc.). --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 17:43, 19 October 2011 (CDT)
:You mean everything made by Uwe Boll and the 80's. XD - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 17:48, 19 October 2011 (CDT)
::'''[[Street Fighter|OF COURSE!]]'''--[[User:PistolJunkie|PistolJunkie]] 21:01, 19 October 2011 (CDT)

:::At least the [[Postal]] film fares better than Uwe Boll's other works because the game it's based on has NO PLOT whatsoever. The game is just an opportunity to see what would happen if you decided one day that you are gonna go postal on everyone and everything around you, which is why that game has a bunch of mindless tongue-in-cheek and toilet humor, murderous rampaging, blood and body parts, sexual innuendo, animal abuse, and pissing off the parents of kids who owned the game, minorities, ethnic groups, religious groups and those extremist activist groups who happened to take notice of the game. So in the case of the Postal film, I am a little more forgiving. Same deal with the Hitman movie and the Prince of Persia film. Every other videogame movie after or before those ones, suck. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 21:29, 19 October 2011 (CDT)

::::In your humble opinion. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 00:51, 20 October 2011 (CDT)

It's more than my opinion, everybody from the hardcore fans of the games to the professional film critics bash these films and give them negative reviews. But it's more than just the negative backlash and criticism, it's really about this issue: Why can't the studios actually listen to the negative backlash and criticism that these films get, and instead of viewing it as an attack against them or their character, use it as a learning tool. So that when they go in to make the next film, they will have learned and remembered what was said about the previous film, and not make the same mistakes again? If Universal Studios could do that with [[The Incredible Hulk]] after [[Hulk]] sucked ass so hard, and Warner Brothers with their Batman reboot trilogy after Joel Schumacher's horrible Batman & Robin film, and Sony Pictures with their upcoming Spider-Man reboot film after Sam Raimi's [[Spider-Man 3]] didn't leave the last trilogy on a positive note, then why can't the studios that distribute the Resident Evil films do the same thing? And as a matter of fact, why can't other film studios that have tried their hands at videogame film adaptations follow that example as well? --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 17:17, 20 October 2011 (CDT)

:So I shouldn't like the movies because you and other people say so... - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 18:59, 20 October 2011 (CDT)

::No. If people like these movies, then ok, I won't hold that against them or you. I'm not trying to take away your liking of the Resident Evil movies, I'm just stating how these movies ''could'' have been better than what the audience got if the studios listened to the criticism that the more hardcore game fans and the film critics gave to the first film, and worked with it when they made the next few films. But since you like the Resident Evil films for what they are, then I'm not holding that against you. Many people out there like these films, I just happen to be one of the many who don't. But in closing, I was just stating how the movies could have been different than what the audience got with my last closing paragraph. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 19:31, 20 October 2011 (CDT)

:::I understand. :) I personally look at the movies story and such as an alternate version of the games, and that's how I treat them, as an alternate version of Resident Evil. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 18:50, 21 October 2011 (CDT)

:Hey! Dead Aim wasn't that bad, and hell, the guy looked feminine enough before he turned into a Tyrant, and that moment doesn't even come close to the butchering of the series RE5, and the movies (though the first was decent, felt like a side story to the games and should've stayed that way) have done. Whether people like this movie or not, the characters they're putting in it don't make any fucking sense at all, Leon for example, in a newspaper thing in the second movie, he's pretty much confirmed dead, though i guess retcons happen in games and movies all the time, but how the fuck are they going to get Rain and One back by cloning after they nuked the entire city, destroying pretty much everything (which would've included their bodies, or what's left of them) it's just like this Alex Wesker crap they pulled in RE5, just another last minute add in to keep beating an already long dead horse who just wants it to end.[[User:Kornflakes89|Kornflakes89]] 18:01, 7 March 2012 (CST)

The movies are apparently successful enough to generate sequel after sequel, so clearly more people like them than the OP would like to think. Reviewers are tools and their opinions mean piss to most people with half a brain. And most game fans only want the movies to be identical rehashings of the games, which isn't very appealing to me even as what one would call a "hardcore Resident Evil fan". If I wanted to relive RE2, I'd go back and ''play RE2''. A full-length multi-million dollar movie that rehashes the story and events RE2 already told isn't something I'd pay $8.50 to see since I already have RE2. As far as dead characters returning as clones in ''Retribution'', none of us have seen the movie and very little of the plot has been released, so it's a bit premature to say it doesn't make sense since we don't know the circumstances behind how or why they've been cloned. Don't knock it until you've seen it. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 05:06, 15 June 2012 (CDT)

== Possibility on Ada's pistol ==

I'm not sure but I think Ada's pistol may be a Glock 17 with a tactical entry light but it's too blurry when she draws it (0:59 in the new trailer.) to tell. Can't tell if it's a 3rd or 4th generation either. Possibly a 3rd.

It looks long enough and the shape seems right. Plus she draws it with her left, Ada in the game is a rightie. However, after reviewing the trailer again, Ada might draw this weapon from a holster in the small of her back.

Like I said though, can't be sure. I even watched it in 1080p full screen. --[[User:Bad Boy|Bad Boy]] 20:19, 19 January 2012 (CST)

(moved until confirmed)
==H&K MP5A5==
Rain is seen in the trailer carrying an MP5A5 like the one she trained with in the most recent behind-the-scenes video.
[[Image:H&KMP5A5.jpg|thumb|none|500px]]

==H&K MP7==
Jill Valentine uses an MP7 as her personal weapon whilst under Wesker's control.
[[Image:MP7 40rdmag.jpg|thumb|none|500px]]

== Galil? ==
In a new screenshot, it looks like James One Shade ([[Colin Salmon]]) is holding what appears to be a heavily customized Galil ARM. Not sure though, needs to be verified. Seen on the right. I apologize about the small picture size.
[[File:RER 901.jpg|thumb|none|800px|]]

==
New trailer ==

There's a new trailer out. Anyone want to cap it?

== Barry Burton ==

I found an image of Kevin Durand As Barry Burton i cant identify the weapon he's using the image is on resident evil wikia.

[[File:RERBarry.jpg]]

Looks like the same Galil type seen in the movie so far except he has a suppressor attached. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:23, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

It looks like the revolver he is using is a Smith & Wesson model 629 what do you think? [[User:Balin21|Balin21]] 16:52 27 July 2012 (CDT)

The rifle looks like the ACE 21, a newer version of the Galil with rails, a different charging handle, and different mag well. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 17:17, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Zulu Dawn

2012-07-22T04:07:08Z

Dover500: /* Moved from main page */

I believe the "shotgun" is actually a double rifle.--[[User:Alowe56|Alowe56]] 22:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

==Moved from main page==
This isn't actually a continuity error since CSM Williams handed Private Williams his Martini-Henry with a bayonet in between scenes. The rifle CSM Williams wasn't his anyway, it was just one he picked up. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 16:24, 21 July 2012 (CDT)
:It is also worth noting that the bayonets missing on the Martini-Henry rifles might not be anachronistic as the early versions of that rifle had issues with casings sticking inside the chamber when the weapons were fired rapidly, and the way that they "fixed" this in the field was to use their bayonets to pry the casings out. Though I doubt that this was the reason some or the bayonets were missing in the film, it is something that has a real world reason for the bayonets to not be there. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 23:07, 21 July 2012 (CDT)

[[Image:goof.jpg‎|thumb|none|601px|C.S.M. Williams (Bob Hoskins) saves his son in law Pte. Williams (Dai Bradley), note the private has a rifle with no bayonet fitted.]]

[[Image:Mhrb.jpg‎|thumb|none|601px|Seconds later it becomes a carbine with a rather floppy looking bayonet!]]

Talk:List of weapons used by U.S. Armed Forces

2012-07-20T16:02:06Z

Dover500: /* P226R */

Talk:M14 Rifle

2012-07-19T01:34:04Z

Dover500: /* EBR Mod 0/1, EMR? */

==Additional Variants==
[[Image:M14sagestock.jpg|thumb|450px|none|Springfield M-1A in SOPMOD configuration with Parker & Hale bipod - .308 Winchester]]
[[Image:US M14 Mk 14 Mod 0 EBR (Enhanced Battle Rifle).jpg|thumb|none|450px|Mk 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle with spare magazine - .7.62x51 NATO]]
[[File:M14MCS.jpg|thumb|none|450px|M14 MCS (Modular Chassis System) with EOTech red dot sight and Vltor Modstock - 7.62x51mm NATO]]
[[File:M14 EBR-RI.jpg|thumb|450px|none|TACOM M14 EBR-RI with magazine removed and Harris bipod - 7.52x51mm]]
The military stopped issuing F/A M14's because they were too hard to control, existing rifles were fixed to fire semi only.
:Tell that to SOCOM because the Mark 14 is quite capable of FA. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:47, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

==M14==
I don't know what made the founder of IMFDB to use an M14 as part of the logo of IMFDB. I don't know if I could get the M14E2. It's kinda hard to get. - [[Special:Contributions/98.234.123.141|98.234.123.141]] 21:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)(Crysis)

I knew people who used the E2 type stocks on M14s and M1As. They preferred the higher cheek line in service rifle target shooting competition.

==M21==
That's not an M21, it's an M1A
:It's an M21 now. ~ DK

==M14E2==

I cut off the bit about it being meant to supplement the B.A.R. it was actually designed to replace it all together.

[[Special:Contributions/174.114.87.236|174.114.87.236]] 06:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
::And I undid your edit. What counts is how it was fielded. It actually was issued to supplement the M60s which was the GPMG of the American forces, and though it may have been designed to replace the BARs we issued to the ARVNs, the BAR was technically an obsolete weapon already by that time. The M14E2 was to supplement existing BARs in the ARVN. As far as American forces go, BARs were only seen really early in the war on the U.S. Side and primarily by USMC units. By that time the doctrine called for a General Purpose Machine Gun and select fire assault rifles. The BAR no longer fit the US military's goals. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 07:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia claims that the M14E2 was redesignated M14A1 in 1966. Is there any reason we still refer to it as E2? [[User:Kadorhal|Kadorhal]] 15:45, 16 May 2012 (CDT)

== Congo ==

How come the m14 that was used in congo isnt on the site

:I haven't seen Congo in years. Was there something special about it? I looked at the screencaps on the [[Congo]] page and it doesn't really look particularly unique. Also, sign your posts by putting four tildes (~) at the end. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 01:08, 18 February 2012 (CST)

== EBR Mod 0/1, EMR? ==

What's the difference between the Mk. 14 Mod 0 and the Mod 1? Is it just that they have different extras attached?
Likewise, what's the difference between an EBR and an EMR? As I understood it, an EBR has a shorter barrel, can fire full auto and is generally used by the US Navy, specifically the SEALS, while an EMR has a longer barrel, is semi-auto only and is used by the USMC.
Seeing pix like the one further up this page, referring to guns with the longer barrels as EBRs makes me wonder if I've got it right.
How do you tell the difference?
--Stix
:AR-15 style stocks can be attached to an Mk 14 Mod 1. As far as I know that is the only difference. --[[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 10:40, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

:Additionally, the Mark 14 is selective-fire for semi- or full-auto, whereas the M39 EMR is semi-auto only. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:45, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

:Another slight variation is the early model Mod 0 had a larger railed forearm than is present on current Mod 0 and all Mod 1 model. If you look at the image at the top of this discussion page you can see the early model forearm (the image mislabeled as a SOPMOD), where as the image labeled as TACOM M14 EBR-RI shows the current rail length. Though this can be hard to tell on some of the 18" models where a 16" version (usually a M1A SOCOM) is used to give the same overall look of the older model. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 20:34, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Wanted

2012-06-05T20:14:02Z

Dover500: /* Compensator on Matchmaster */

==Fox's car==

For those that want to know, the car that Fox uses during the big car chase at the beginning of the film is a Dodge Viper SRT-10 Coupe. The version seen in film is from the 2006 model year (noted as such because of the smaller hood vents), which has an 8.3 liter OHV V-10 engine with an output of about 510 hp.

Here's some images from the film:

[[Image:WantedViper-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:WantedViper-2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:WantedViper-3.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:WantedViper-4.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:WantedViper-5.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Illinois plates?]]
[[Image:WantedViper-6.jpg|thumb|none|600px|That's not Angelina Jolie!]]
[[Image:WantedViper-7.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:WantedViper-8.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Not the safest way to drive.]]
[[Image:WantedViper-9.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:WantedViper-10.jpg|thumb|none|600px|When the car lands this jump, it pretty much breaks in half, although it is somehow still drivable in the next scene.]]
[[Image:WantedViper-11.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]
[[Image:WantedViper-12.jpg|thumb|none|600px|When she pulls out, the rear bumper falls off.]]

==My Birthday==
This movie came out on my birthday. No big deal but I thought it was cool. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]

I had one of my favorite shows come out on my birthday [[Justified]]-[[User:Simmons 8492|Simmons 8492]]

==Spoilers==
Good thing I avoided looking at this page before I saw the film. There are WAY TO MANY spoilers on this page. Excellent work on the page but the descriptions don't have to reveal so much about the twists of the plot to explain the guns. I am making changes now that I have seen this film. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 06:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

== "Brown Bess" ==

Yeah, as was suggested the "Brown Bess" isn't one at all, it's a German Schetzen rifle. They were pretty much all hand-made so it's impossible to identify it more than that. Unusual to see one with a flintlock though, they were almost always precussion or early breech loaders. That and their rarity / expense makes me guess it's probably a mock up.

== Anyone else notice... ==

wesley has a "meh" two handed grip (almost a cup and saucer) in the first pic of him training with the USP compact, then his left hand is a little higher, then finally on top of the train he has an excellent two handed grip. I can't remember what it is called when the hand is positioned like that. Also notice how on the ''website'' for the film they have no problem accurately naming the custom Safari arms matchmaster, but in the film the custom beretta 92fs is called an "inimashi 17". Is it possible "inimashi 17" is simply what Mr.X called his personal 92fs or maybe sloane? Maybe the fraternity specially modifies berettas or other weapons and inimashi 17 is their designation? the latter seems slightly more possible as special weapons such as flintlock weapons with magazines attached to them appear to be ''issued'' to certain members.
:A two layered hand grip is usually called the "weaver" technique, but if both arms are locked extended it's focus combat shooting style. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]]

== Screen Used Beretta ==

The propstore shows a screen used beretta similar to McAvoy main weapon. But this is not the same Beretta 92 of the popular scenes, it's a normal Beretta 92FS. Note the grips with the space for the old relase button system. - [[User:Charly Driver|Charly Driver]]

[[Image:WANAvoy 1.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:WANAvoy 2.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:WANAvoy 3.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:WANAvoy 4.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
::Probably a secondary stand in weapon. It has the fingerstep triggerguard which the one in the movie does not. What sucks is that these get sold so fast to private collectors that I can't just fly out to London and photograph all of them before they disappear. I still think IMFDB's shots are better than theirs (but I can't say that lest I piss off their photographers ;) ) MPM2008

Does anyone know what type of compensator is used on the Beretta? --[[User:Taurus96|Taurus96]] 02:48, 18 December 2011 (CST)

== Fox's Jericho 941 ==

The Jericho in which Fox uses in the movie during the car chase does have a rail on the underside of the barrel.

==Why even have a custom gun?==
So Angelina is a South paw, which makes her characters left hand shooters as well. So, since this movie is all about these badass custom guns don't you think they could at least take 5 minutes out of production to add a ambi-saftey on that beautiful safari arms?--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

== Magial Browning Hi-Power ==

Wesley draws two Browning Hi-Power under the truck, and he runs with them when the rats explode, but after he jumps through the windows, they transform in two berettas.

== Side Loaders ==

I can not find anything like the side-loading pistols in this movie, are these even based off of legitamate pistols ot are they just complete fabrications

== Screen Used Flintlock Pistol ==

[[File:Wanted-2008-prop-weapons.jpg]]

This is the Flintlock Pistol seen on the table in the armory. I found this on yourprops.com.

== Compensator on Matchmaster ==

In the text box on one of the images of Fox's Safari Arms Matchmaster it describes her compensator being such that it would blind her in low light. Why would that compensator versus any other design blind in low light, and wouldn't almost any not reduced flash powder blind in low light? Sorry if this sounds like a simple question, just trying to understand? --[[User:Rebusdi|Rebusdi]] 09:08, 5 June 2012 (CDT)
:Compensators direct gas straight up to reduce recoil and allow for faster follow up shots. In normal light this is not a problem, but when it is dark the gas being directed straight up and the amount of flash the user views is greatly increased thus blinding them more than a non-compensated gun would, which directs the gas (and thus the flash) straight out of the end of the barrel. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 15:14, 5 June 2012 (CDT)

Talk:The Avengers (2012)

2012-05-16T14:18:12Z

Dover500: /* Mercenaries? (spoilers) */

== Nick Fury's pistol ==

Didn't see it in the trailer, but you saw Nick Fury with a pistol in a promo image released a while ago. Can't make it out very well, but my guess would be a [[SIG-Sauer P228]]. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:55, 11 October 2011 (CDT)
[[File:Nick-fury-avengers.jpg|thumb|600px|none|]]

== Airtronic RPG-7 ==

That is one...ugly ugly...What are all those rails for? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 20:55, 11 October 2011 (CDT)

:I guess the makers of the weapon wanted it to be all... 'tacti-cool'? But I agree, the rails on that weapon are too much. What the hell is the shooter going to put on them? ACOG sights? M68 Aimpoints? Night vision scopes? Heartbeat sensors? Sorry, those would not look right on an RPG. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 03:40, 12 October 2011 (CDT)

:You could put a PEQ2 on it. --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 00:42, 7 May 2012 (CDT)

== Hawkeye's Bow ==

It plays an important role in the film (like with Rambo & his bow). If we can identify it can we include it? --[[User:ZombieKiller|ZombieKiller]] 01:26, 14 October 2011 (CDT)
[[File:Avengers-promos-pictures-03.jpg|thumb|601px|none|]]
:I think it can be listed as it has a pretty prominent role but that is just my oppinion. I believe the bow is a modified Hoyt Buffalo, with a sight and cosmetic fake hinges added where the limbs attach (at least I assume they are fake for the working model). --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 15:25, 16 October 2011 (CDT)
:[[File:Hoyt Buffalo.jpg|thumb|300px|none|Hoyt Buffalo]]

==Weapon==
I think soem of the SHEILD Agents had SIG 552s, and there may have been an AUG A3. Can anyone confirm that?--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 18:01, 6 May 2012 (CDT)
I know I saw an AUGA3. I'm not sure about the SIG though I was too busy enjoying the film.[[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:19, 6 May 2012 (CDT)

== Hawkeye's Pistol ==

Just to be pedantic, how can we be sure Hawkeye's sidearm is a P30 and not an HK45? Because when I saw the film today I didn't see anything to swing it either way. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 15:52, 7 May 2012 (CDT)
:The HK45 has a squared trigger guard, I'm not 100% sure but Hawkeye's looked to have the curved trigger guard of the P30. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 16:10, 7 May 2012 (CDT)
:: Well I just got caught up on the fact the holster he's wearing looks like [http://www.imidefense.com/Products/Polymer-Holsters/Heckler-and-Koch/IMI-Z1220.html the one IMI makes for the HK45] (Although it's mounted on a Safariland leg rig for some reason), since it has the same style of trigger-guard retention and the cut over the ejection port that the [http://www.imidefense.com/Products/Polymer-Holsters/Heckler-and-Koch/IMI-Z1380.html P30 holster] lacks. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 16:41, 7 May 2012 (CDT)
:::You could be right, I was too engrossed in the film to be looking carefully at the guns being used to be honest. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 16:44, 7 May 2012 (CDT)
::::All HK45s have a frame safety don't though? This pistol doesn't which is why I ID'd it as a P30? Could be wrong though, was just going off that one promo image. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 16:45, 7 May 2012 (CDT)
:::::Yes, it does. Said safety can also be moved to the other side of the weapon for left-handed shooting, as appears to be the case here. Quoting from [http://www.hk-usa.com/military_products/hk45_general.asp HK USA]: "An improved USP-style control lever, a combination safety and decocking lever, is frame mounted on the HK45 and is quickly accessible. The HK45 control lever has a positive stop and returns to the “fire” position after decocking.

:::::By using the modular approach to the internal components first pioneered by HK on the USP, the control lever function of the HK45 can be switched from the left to the right side of the pistol to accommodate left-handed shooters (additional parts required). Left and right mounted control levers provide safety and/or decocking functions as required and can be fitted to the pistol simply by changing parts. For true ambidextrous use, a control lever can also be mounted on both sides of the pistol if required." [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 17:18, 7 May 2012 (CDT)

::::::I still think it is a P30. Below is a larger cropped and brightened image:
::::::[[File:Hawkeye pistol.jpg|thumb|400px|none|]]
::::::First off, I think the holster is just a Blackhawk CQC serpa holster made for the P30 (although I think it does also fit the HK45C, which is the version of the HK45 it would be if it was one). If you look at the above pistol there is a join on the grip that sweeps upwards to the back of the grip which is present on the P30, but on the HK45 there are no markings on the side of grip aside from the textured panels. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:39, 7 May 2012 (CDT)
:::::::OK, I stand corrected. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 17:48, 7 May 2012 (CDT)

== M&P ==
There's an extreme close up of it in the credits, just making a note of that. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 16:38, 7 May 2012 (CDT)

== Alien Weapons ==

Has anyone been able to get a screen capture of the alien rifles used in the movie?

Even if we did, we don't do alien guns unless it is really necessary or if it was a prop built on a real gun [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 12:18, 15 May 2012 (CDT)

:You can see them well enough in [http://www.uruloki.org/felipeblog/images2012-1/20120414_the_avengers_villanos_2-xl.jpg this] promo image (might actually be concept art but that is exactly what the weapons look like in the film) to tell that they are not based on anything, and there is no chance they would be mistaken for a real gun, so don't think they should be included. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 12:24, 15 May 2012 (CDT)

:Most of them look like sticks with blades on them, but that huge rifle Coulson used looked to at least have parts of real guns. I didn't get a good look, but I think that's the only fiction gun worth worrying about. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 04:08, 16 May 2012 (CDT)

== Mercenaries? (spoilers) ==

Right now the page describes the people accompanying Hawkeye when he attacks the heli-carrier as mercenaries, but this isn't the case is it? Unless I missed something they are brainwashed SHIELD agents aren't they? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 05:38, 16 May 2012 (CDT)

This was my thought also, I think it should be changed. --[[User:Sidewinder Forge|Sidewinder Forge]] 08:47, 16 May 2012 (CDT)

Chances are at least some of them are mercenaries '''*SPOILER*''' it is referenced in the movie when Loki is talking to Hawkeye in the cave before they go to germany that Hawkeye was able to get so many people to join Loki because of the amount of enemies SHIELD had. This implies that the people helping Loki outside of Hawkeye and Erik Selvig are not members of SHIELD. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 09:18, 16 May 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Heckler & Koch G3

2012-05-09T19:25:39Z

Dover500: /* How to tell the difference between an HK91 and SR9? */

==Image gallery - OTHER variants of the G3==

[[Image:G3a3zf.jpg|thumb|400px|none|G3A3ZF with Hensoldt 4x24 optical sight - 7.62x51mm NATO.]]
[[Image:HK51K.jpg|thumb|none|401px|Fleming HK51K - 7.62x51mm NATO]]
[[File:G3 Namibian.jpg|thumb|400px|none|Namibian G3A3 - 7.62x51mm NATO]]
[[Image:NPSHK51.JPG|thumb|400px|none|"MC51" - 7.62x51mm NATO. Note, this is NOT an offical model or name from Heckler & Koch.]]

Picture of the G3 SG/1 is incorrect, the German army G3 SG/1 was fitted with a smaller non illuminated scope on a H&K proprietary "claw" type mounting, and has complicated "set" trigger mechanism visible as a second "trigger" behind the normal trigger.

==G3A3 photo is wrong==
The G3A3 photo with the green furniture has been bugging me for a while. The G3A2-A3 rifles always had metal lowers. The Navy style all plastic lower is not an HK G3A2 or A3 lower. That photo is of the American clone, the Vektor arms copy of the G3/HK91. I'm going to photograph a REAL G3A3 soon with the proper furniture since that shot really irritates me. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 04:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

:- Heh, I didn't even think about whether it was entirely genuine or not, though something did seem off about it. Well, get us the right picture then damn it! :b [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 15:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

==HK21==
HK21 should have its own page since it has four variants of its own.--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 05:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

== Fully automatic? ==

Is the g3 when fired on fully automatic jumpy and hard to control like the FAL? Since both fire the same round.--P226
:depends on your level of training and experience. I have friends who use M14, G3, FN FAL in full auto competitions and they all find the various rifles controlable. Yeah the recoil is heavier than a 5.56mm weapon but for most combat ranges the weapons are effective on full auto. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

== HK51? ==

There are only a few pages on the site that feature this gun so it isn't really that important, but isn't the term HK51 wrong? The original manufacturer of this variant was the UK fire FR Ordnance who made three variants (MC51, MC51SD and MC51K) for British special forces. It was later manufactured by Imperial Defence Services after they bought up FR Ordnance. Isn't the term HK51 just a made up name for after-market modifications to G3s to replicate the MC51, so surely the original term is more appropriate? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:35, 31 August 2011 (CDT)

Some people seem to have the notion that the "MC51" was an airsoft original, so you'll have to deal with them first before this gets setteled. --[[User:HashiriyaR32|HashiriyaR32]] 19:12, 31 August 2011 (CDT)

No the term HK51 is apropriate as that is the term most commonly used by the manufacturers of such weapons used by the film industry. While I am familiar with the term MC51 its not the correct title for anything in the American film industry. Such as the Flemming HK51K used in Marked for Death. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 13:35, 29 January 2012 (CST)

== PSG ==

Since the PSG is its own weapon and not a Variant of the G3, doesn't it warrant it's own page? --[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] 08:17, 25 December 2011 (CST)
:Not really, it's still fundamentally a G3, just with some modifications. --[[User:Jeddostotle7|Jeddostotle7]] 9:52, 1/18/2011 (PST)

== SR9s ==

There are a few pages on here that say something like "This gun is actually a conversion of an HK91, like all of the SR9s seen in Hollywood movies" (this is from the ''[[Under Siege 2: Dark Territory]]'' page before I changed it). Is this true, as that makes no sense to me. The SR9 was a version of the G3 that was made ''specifically'' for the US market, so why would all models of it in Hollywood movies be mock ups? There were only about 4,000 made so it is relatively rare I will grant you, but I'm pretty sure rarer guns that this still turn up in films and TV. In some cases though, including the example above, you can tell that it is actually a genuine SR9 as it has the rounded handguard, which was unique to the SR9 rifles. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 09:22, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

:That is what MoviePropMaster2008 told me a long time ago - there are no genuine SR9s in Hollywood armories, just HK91s converted to SR9 specification. Since he's an armorer himself, I imagine he would have a pretty good idea of what he's talking about. As for the hand guard, that's not the best way to tell. You have to look at other details, like the lower receiver (many of the mock-up SR9s in movies have the standard HK91 trigger pack instead of the SR9 version). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 11:11, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

::MPM did personally ID [[Point_Blank_(1998)#Heckler_.26_Koch_SR9TC|an SR9]] in a page I finished, so there is at least one out there. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 11:17, 20 March 2012 (CDT)
:::I think there is alot of confusion about this variant, as on the ''[[G.I. Jane]]'' page is says it can't be a genuine SR9 as it has no forward assist. The SR9 didn't have a forward assist as it is purely a HK91 with different furniture and a few other tweaks to get around the assault weapons ban. From what i have seen from a quick look around here, most of the weapons that are likely a genuine SR9 (have the rounded handguard without the grooves along with the correct) appear to be SR9(T)s. Don't know if they are literally the same prop being used or whether this was just the most popular version. A this is the version that uses an MSG-90 stock, I think this would make it wore likely to be a genuine weapon, as to build it you would first need to have an SR9 handguard (which I'm assuming there are only as many as there were SR9s), and then the stock from an even rarer weapon (assuming it is rare in the US as it has never appeared in anything other than games). for reference, below are the genuine SR9 variants.
:::[[File:Sr9 real.jpg|thumb|500px|none|SR9]]
:::[[File:Sr9t real.jpg|thumb|500px|none|SR9(T)]]
:::[[File:Sr9tc.jpg|thumb|500px|none|SR9(TC)]]
:::I don't know if the thumbhole stock SR9 has appeared in anything, but a (TC) fitted with a HK91 forend and bipod was the rifle used in ''[[Sniper]]''. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 13:19, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

::::I think this debate is somewhat moot, but here are some things to keep in mind:

::::*Yes, you are correct that SR9s didn't have a forward assist, but MPM has specifically told me that most of the SR9s imported to the U.S. (there were 4,000 made, but some of them were sold in other countries, so the number imported here is much lower) were just HK91 conversions, because none of Hollywood's armories were able to get their hands on the real weapons before collectors snatched them up. Also, looking at the hand guard is a BAD way to tell whether the weapon is an HK91 conversion or not, because that feature is easily replaceable (I've seen HKPRO members whose HK91s have the SR9 hand guard, or SR9s with the HK91 hand guard, in topics on the HKPRO message board).

::::*If you're going by the hand guard as the identifying characteristic of genuine SR9s, why is the SR9(TC) from ''[[Sniper]]'' a genuine example? It has an HK91 hand guard and bipod (not features of the factory), and I seem to remember MPM telling me that he knows for sure that the rifle from ''[[Sniper]]'' is a converted HK91. You can ask him how he knows this (I assume he knows the armorer from that movie).

::::*One of the other things you should look for, as I mentioned beforehand, is the trigger group. There are many faux "SR9s" in movies that have the S-F trigger group (found on factory HK91s) instead of the 0-1 trigger group (which is found on factory SR9s). If you see an "SR9" in a movie that has an S-F trigger group, that's the easiest way to know that you're looking at an HK91 converted to SR9 specs (the most obvious example is the SR9(T) from ''[[The Replacement Killers]]'', where the lower receiver is shown close-up during a scene in which the rifle is assembled by [[Til Schweiger]]'s character). Not all of the Hollywood SR9s have the incorrect trigger group, but even that doesn't mean that the rifle is genuine; it just means that it is a more accurate SR9 conversion (MPM2008's personal rifles, which he photographed for our site, both have 0-1 trigger groups, and he converted them from HK91s himself). The same might be true of the SR9s in ''[[Under Siege 2: Dark Territory]]'' and ''[[G.I. Jane]]'' (both of which seem to have the 0-1 trigger group).

::::*I'm not entirely sure why we're having this debate. Although we made a note on the G3 page under the SR9 entry that most SR9s are just HK91 conversions, we do not tend to label SR9 mock-ups as such (we just call them "SR9s", since that's what they appear to be on-camera). The only thing I know is what MPM tells me, and he is pretty familiar with the habits of American armorers. So if he tells me that there are almost no genuine SR9 variants floating around the industry, I tend to trust him.

::::Of course, what MPM says applies ''only'' to American armorers. It's possible that there are genuine SR9s sitting in the inventories of armories in Canada, Europe, Asia, etc. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 14:01, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

:::::Also, if anyone here has ''[[Sniper]]'' on Blu-Ray or even DVD, it would be much appreciated if they would watch the movie and identify the trigger group on [[Billy Zane]]'s rifle. I haven't seen ''[[Sniper]]'' in a long time, but I seem to remember several scenes where the rifle's lower receiver is shown close-up when Zane's finger is on the trigger (but I never paid attention the lower receiver because I didn't know what I know now, or care). Sadly, the single screencap we have on the page for ''[[Sniper]]'' is inadequate for solving this puzzle. If his rifle has the S-F trigger group, we'll know it's a converted HK91 instead of a real SR9. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 14:07, 20 March 2012 (CDT)
::::::''Sniper'' is Netflix instant view right now. I'll take a look. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 14:19, 20 March 2012 (CDT)
To address MT2008 points:
*I don't think that is true about the number of SR9s imported into the US being "much lower" than 4000. The SR9 was made specifically for the US market so I don't know why it would be sold in significant numbers anywhere else. The number I have frequently seen quoted on forums and the like for the number of SR9s imported into the US is between 3000 and 4000. In fact, I was always under the impression that all SR9s were imported to the US at the default spec, and some of these (no idea on numbers hereAs for the handguard being a poor means of identification, I don't agree with this in the case of this rifle. As this handguard was sepecific to this particular rifle, it is different to slapping a round handguard onto a M16A1 and calling it an A2. Unless companies now make copies of the SR9 handguard in significant numbers, there are pretty much the same number of SR9 handguards out there as there are SR9s, so the way I see it is if you are looking at an SR9 handguard it is more likely than not attached to an SR9.
*Maybe the ''Sniper'' gun was a converted HK91, I have no way of knowing. I read that from [http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9:the-sr9-series&catid=14:distinctly-american-imports&Itemid=5 HKPRO's World of HK] and have also seen it stated in a few other places. They might all be sharing the same incorrect source on this though, so it could very well be an HK91. However, it was MPM2008 who [http://www.imfdb.org/w/index.php?title=Sniper_%281993%29&diff=22629&oldid=20371 identified this as an SR9TC] on the page in the first place.
*Agree with you on the trigger group thing. As you can also get aftermarket 0/1 trigger groups for the HK91 I would not use this as the sole indicator as to whether it was an SR9 as opposed to a modded HK91. Would therefore also agree that a rifle with and S/F selector was not an SR9, for example the one in the ''[[The Jackal]]'' (which looks nothing like an SR9 to me, more like an HK91 mocked up as an MSG90 with a PSG1 stock).
*The reason I asked the question was that there were a number of page here that stated that there were no genuine SR9s in movies, which seemed like an incorrect statement as in my opinion there at least seems to be SR9(T)s in several films. Call me picky, but I think it is worth distinguishing between genuine guns and those that are a mock up. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 15:42, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

[[Image:Sniper_HK_01.jpg|thumb|600px|none|]]

:I got a sightlier earlier shot where you can see the markings, which I think proves it it a genuine SR9 (not necessarily a TC, but an SR9 of some sort).
:[[File:Sniper SR9 markings.jpg|thumb|600px|none|]]
:The top line of the markings on an HK91, with X's representing the seriel number digits in "HK91 A0XXXXX", wheras on an SR9 the markings are "SR9 46-00XXXX". You can just about make out the "46", and if not that you can at least tell that it isnt "HK91". Also, the second line of the marking is too long for an HK91 which is "Cal..308" as opposed to the longer "HK Cal.7.62x51" on the SR9. I'm not saying this means every potential SR9 is one, just that this particular gun is a genuine SR9. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 20:00, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

::OK, it looks like I was wrong about something - apparently, H&K switched to the 0-1 trigger pack on ALL of its civilian long guns at some point in the 1980s (later-model HK91s, 93s, and 94s also have it), including the HK91s that MPM photographed from his inventory. But the S-F trigger pack was abandoned before the introduction of the SR9, which means that if you do see an "SR9" with an S-F lower in a movie or TV show, you are most definitely looking at a conversion of an older HK91 (the other way around, it's not so obvious).

::Point taken on the hand guards, and also the ID of the ''[[Sniper]]'' SR9. As far as the issue goes, maybe we should weaken the language of the page to say that '''most''' SR9s seen in Hollywood are HK91 conversions, leaving open the possibility that there are some genuine examples floating around in the industry. Again, I can only defer to MPM's expertise because I'm not an armorer. But when he posted his SR9 pictures, he specifically told me that his guns are converted HK91s and that this is standard practice in the industry because armorers didn't buy any of the ones imported to the U.S. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 22:45, 20 March 2012 (CDT)

== How to tell the difference between an HK91 and SR9? ==

Since it would appear that a lot of the parts are interchangeable and that H&K was inconsistent on a few features, is there a sure-fire way to determine whether or not a rifle is a converted HK91 or a genuine SR9? (Short of having an armorer chime in or a picture of the serial number, of course.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 13:48, 9 May 2012 (CDT)
:The SR9's barrel lacks threading to attach a flash hider or sound suppressor. Also the magazine well will be engraved either SR9 or SR9T instead of HK91. Last but not least SR9's are rarely imitated, as they had a rather unusual looking thumb hole stock, the look that is usually imitated is that of the SR9T which had the PSG1 pistol grip and the MSG90 stock.[[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 14:12, 9 May 2012 (CDT)
::Edit: The discussion above me actually does a better job explaining the differences, but it would seem that the barrel would be the easiest way to tell as that is the only part that I have not seen on other versions of the G3 (the PSG1 barrel is longer, and most other versions have a flash hider of some sort attached).[[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 14:25, 9 May 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Heckler & Koch G3

2012-05-09T19:12:02Z

Dover500: /* How to tell the difference between an HK91 and SR9? */

Talk:Heckler & Koch G36

2012-05-01T15:05:09Z

Dover500: /* Reliability? */

==Additional Variants==
[[Image:Mod._G36-1-.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch G36K with the stock removed and two magazines clipped together as used in the film ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:G36K-2.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch G36KV with intermediate 15.4 inch "CQB" barrel, export compromise carry handle with folding sights, and retractable butt-stock - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:G36 SEF lower.jpg|thumb|none|400px|H&K G36K with SEF lower - 5.56x45mm NATO]]
[[Image:G36KV-bk.jpg|thumb|none|400px|'''Airsoft''' Umarex "Heckler & Koch G36KV" with G36A2 type carry handle and retractable stock - (fake) 5.56x45mm]]
:Reason I called the carry handle an A2 type is it was originally designed for the G36A2 for the Bundeswehr and can't think of another name to distinguish it from regular export handle, and the retractable stock isn't fake, (well this one probably is as it is a licensed airsoft replica) it is an actual HK design which an earlier version of (without the sling loop) is used on Latvian G36KVs.
::That's exactly what I was gonna state. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 04:13, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
:::Well, I'm not entirely sure how I managed to forget there was a G36A2, but hey. The "fake" note is just because it always annoys me when you have "airsoft gun -" and then a real calibre, but listing it as "airsoft gun - 6mm BB" kinda defeats the point of listing the calibre in the first place. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 07:48, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
[[Image:H&K-SL8.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler and Koch SL8-1 with ZF 3x4° dual optical sight and Harris bipod - 5.56x45mm (.223)]]

==Question==

Just a Question about the SL8, it seems silly, but is it integrally suppressed?
:[[User:Revolver|Revolver]], not at all silly question, but no. None of the SL8s have integral silencers. They have heavy barrels but I have never seen one outfitted to take a silencer either. The three SL8 Variants you see on the page are my personal guns, so I am just working from that. ;) There may be variations somewhere that I don't know about, but I can assure you that such a modification is a custom aftermarket modification. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 09:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

:As far as I know, the only Heckler & Koch weapon that comes with a silencer from the factory is the [[Heckler & Koch MP5#Heckler & Koch MP5SD|Heckler & Koch MP5SD]] submachine gun. [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 08:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

:In the [[NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Service]] episode "Rule Fifty-One," NCIS Special Agent Ziva David used a suppressed SL8. How on Earth did she get an SL8 that had a threaded barrel?--[[User:L.J. Gibbs|L.J. Gibbs]] 03:42, 12 March 2011 (MSK)

I don't know if this counts as integrally suppressed, but on HKPRO.COM, there is something advertised as the SL9-SD.
http://www.hkpro.com/sl9sd.htm (Here is a little better description of the SL-9-SD (http://www.hksystems.com.au/rifles/SL9SD%20Whisper.htm). (Paladin308)

Kinda reminds me of the suppressed sniper rifle in Far Cry: Instincts.
hkpro.com is also a good site for pics/info pertaining to hk products, btw.
:Cool! It looks neat. It's an SL8 with a threaded barrel for their suppressor. Other than the addition of a PSG-01 style trigger, I don't see much of a difference, except they did not subdue the "bright red" HK logos on the stocks. I may have to convert one of my SL8 rifles to that configuration. ;) [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 07:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Could a G36 take the role of a Designated Marksman Rifle, if the Designated Marksman lost it rifle. in a story im writing for fun a former Designated Marksman use a G36 as his main rifle, and carys is Mark 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle for sharpshooting. I was wounding if it was a good chose REX095

Probably. Any semi-automatic weapon that can take an optic can be a DMR, as long as it has greater accuracy than a standard model; I'd probably have him use a Springfield M1A Match instead of the G36, because it's basically a civilian model of the M14 with around the same inherent accuracy. It's semi-auto only, but a DMR isn't exactly going to use a full-auto weapon either, so it works out.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

:Why would one take an M1A and a Mark 14 into battle at the same time? That makes no sense because doing so wouldn't provide any kind of advantage as you'd have two weapons that are of the same basic classification. What Rex095 is asking is if a G36 (his character's primary ''defensive'' weapon) can take over the role of DMR if his EBR (his marksman rifle, which itself is selectable between semi-automatic and full automatic) goes down. Rex, as the guy above me said, any semi-auto rifle can perform in a limited DMR role, but accuracy is likely going to be sub-par compared to a dedicated DMR. If your character has the resources, equip his G36 with a heavier barrel (e.g., an MG36 barrel) which will give better accuracy than a standard G36 barrel in case the EBR goes down and it's needed to fulfill the DMR role. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 04:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

==G36C==
:Why is this gun in just about every new action movie and video game that feature large amounts of gunplay? I'm getting tired of seeing this gun and wonder why there are barely any other of the G36 series in movies and video games-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 00:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

:Why is it I hear lots of "I'm tired of (insert fairly new weapon here) when no one ever says "I'm tired of seeing those M4s. Theyre in every new action movie and video game and I'm sick of it" when that last statement is actually true? S&W, I don't know about you, but I don't see the G36C as much as many many other kinds of weapons. Personally I'm getting very sick of seeing overly-upgraded M4 or M16 rifles and all the Beretta 92-like guns going around out there. I think seeing more of the G36 family would be a refreshing change. Any other gun that deserves more attention would be nice. Where are all the Mk. 46s and the REC-7s? I've only seen those in R6V2 and if you ask me were misrepresented terribly. And am I the only one upset over losing the G36 in MW2? I was hoping for the full size version.

I like seeing more gun variety in movies and games, so as long as it makes some sense (i.e., not stuff like random street thugs in Predator 2 pulling out Steyr AUGs). Contrary to what some naive or misinformed souls may believe, Colt is not "teh ownly gun manufacturer wurth showing" on screen or in games, and not everyone uses a M16 or an M4 or an AK-47. The G36 is a perfectly good gun to round out the arsenal on screen or in games.

By the same token:

-The FN P90 is not the only PDW/Armour-piercing SMG worth showing on screen or in games--the MP7 and SR-3 Vikhr or the OTs-14 Groza are both perfectly suitable for the same role.

-M60s and M249 SAWs are not the only light machine guns that are effective or useful--PKMs, MG36s, QBB-95s, or even older ones like the MG42 are perfectly viable and useful.

The firearms industry has always been fiercely competitive and people from different factions often use different weapons in real life. More gun variety in games usually means more possible playstyles available and less of a chance that someone will get bored looking at the same gun all the time. For instance, despite the ejection ports being in the wrong places and the reliability factors largely in favour of Warsaw pact weapons vs. NATO weapons, STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl's gun selection was good for both the variety and the various playstyles it encouraged.

Hopefully movie armourers and game developers will put in more reasonable gun variety in those two media forms. Even in real life I highly doubt any one firearms company will end up establishing an unbreakable monopoly, forcing gun monotony on us all. [[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 02:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

--
GOD, I hated Infinity Ward for taking the G36C out of MW2, as I am a HUGE G36 fan. But to your point, [[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]]: Weapons like the Remington ACR, HK G36, IMI Tavor, HK MP7, FNH F2000... Newer, more modern weapons like these don't see NEARLY enough movie use.

The way I see it, when it comes down to it, you have these as perhaps the 10 most cliched weapons in the media (not in any particular order):

1: M16/M4 Assault Rifle series

2: Beretta 92FS

3: Franchi SPAS-12

4: HK MP5A3

5: FNH P90 PDW

6: FNH M249 S.A.W.

7: Glock Safe-Action Pistols (Any model, but the 18 is the most cliched, no doubt about it)

8: Desert Eagle (Models VII and XIX)

9: Steyr AUG A1

10: Saco Defense M60

With the exception of the Desert Eagle (Gotta love it), we've seen and re-seen these guns WAY too much if you ask me, but no one ever complains about it. WTF is up with that?
On the other end of the spectrum, you have some firearms that need to see more use (also not in any particular order):

1: HK G36 Assault Rifle series

2: Remington ACR

3: FNH F2000

4: IMI Tavor

5: HK MP7A1

6: Steyr AUG A3

7: M14 (Both the Original and the Mk. 14 EBR as well)

8: Saiga 20K (PGO)

9: TDI Vector

10: FNH M249 S.P.W.

Sorry if this got a bit long, but I just wanted to put it out there.
--[[User:GamerfreakB7|GamerfreakB7]]--Destroying the world, one hippie at a time. 04:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't see a lot of the "newer" guns like the ACR, TDI Vector or the ACR because I don't think any armorer has them yet. A Canadian armorer that did Resident Evil Apocalypse had a couple Tavors, 24 showed the MP7s and F2000. It's just that you have to look at the armorers. They can't have every single gun in their collection. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The weird thing about the Beretta 92 is that no one ever seems to have a Beretta 90-two, in the newer games/films.
:Claire uses a 90-Two in Resident Evil: Afterlife and the 90-Two is the most common handgun in Heavy Rain.

Also, I've never seen a Steyr M9/A1 in ANY film. Even in Fringe, they just used the Five-seveN as a futuristic stand-in; the world is supposed to be like ours, except different. The Steyr looks superficially like the Glock, but it has pretty out-there sights and is pretty different externally when you look at it up close.

And about the Saiga, I don't think I've seen a Saiga sporter (the original model from which the Saiga-20K is derived) in any film either.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

I totally agree, when they next make a game about US soldiers in combat, they should give them all G36s, ACRs, Vektors, HK45s, and PSG1s even though they don't use them in the real world simply because the "old guns" are cliched *rolls eyes*. But, seriously, I ''am'' all for variety, but that variety needs to be sensible. LAPD SWAT or US Army SF suddenly appearing with Tavors or XM8s wouldn't make a lick of sense. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 05:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless a choice of gun makes up an important aspect of a character a gun is not a cliche. "Stay frosty" or the butler being the murderer are cliches, someone carrying a Beretta or a Colt is ''not a cliche''.--[[User:Mr-Jigsaw|Mr-Jigsaw]] 08:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

:I wouldn't mind seeing more of the UMP, I haven't see much of that. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 22:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:: the FN F2000 tactical is starting to turn up more in show

== Reliability? ==

Is the G36 reliable when put through mud, water,and dirt(ex Ak-47, HK416)? or does it face similar problems the M16 family faces?

The H&K 416 is basically a G36 operating system in an AR-15. So yeah, it is reliable in those conditions. The XM8 rifle was just a revamped G36, and it topped the 416's reliability by more than 200 rounds.

Thank you for responding, also does this apply to other assualt rifles of this era too?

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

I don't know about the fifty-plus other assault rifles (I only really know about the main ones and some irregular ones like the Vektor CR-21), but the newer H&K models are mostly based on the G36. It's the same relationship as the G3 on contemporary models (PSG1, etc), you know?

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.170|72.189.150.170]]

It even beat FN SCAR as it barely beated 416

I heard about this and it really changed my opinion of this weapons system. http://www.thelocal.de/national/20120401-41697.html --[[User:Charon68|Charon68]] 20:19, 30 April 2012 (CDT)
:How so, most assault rifles heat up and loose accuracy if one puts several hundred rounds through them rapidly. That is what makes the difference between a light machine gun, witch often use heavier barrels to prolong accurate fire, and an assault rifle, which is often lighter but not really designed for prolonged continuous fire. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 10:05, 1 May 2012 (CDT)

== Just wondering ==

Does the G36C see any action at all in either american or british special forces?
---P226 21:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

im not quite shure about the american special forces but yes it is actualy used by britsh speical forces not as heavaly as shown is movies and vidio games but is still a comon weapon in there arsenal --[[User:Armyguy277|Armyguy277]] 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

:I have never heard of either American or British SF carrying G36 variants. Both use AR-series rifles. It's possible they may have purchased some G36s, but that's irrelevant, because those guys purchase a little of everything. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 00:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe this is a better question... Does the G36C model have any use in the special forces comunity at all?, and does it have any conventional military use?---P226 21:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

::I don't think anyone on here is going to be able to tell you anything more accurate than what can be found on Wikipedia. It's not like any of us are in SF units. Assuming the Wikipedia article is accurate, the G36C seems to be used almost entirely by law enforcement at present. Whereas the M4 is pretty much the weapon-of-choice for every SF unit that is in good standing with the U.S. I would highly doubt that the G36C would be used by regular infantry, given that its barrel is too short for the engagement distances that infantry expect to face. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

S019 the standard british armed police response units and british airport security both have access to and utilise G36c's, thought these UK models are restiriced to semi automatic only. In most cases in airports when Ive seen a pair of officers one wiull be carrying an Mp5 with a 15 round mag and the other a G36 with a full 30 round mag. So there you have it --[[User:Captain Snikt|Captain Snikt]] 11:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

:Mr. P226 specifically asked about ''military special forces'' (American and British). SO19 (now CO19) are not military SF. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

well i know the G36c is the standerd weapon on german special forces like GSG-9,Kommando Spezialkräfte and Fernspählehrkompanie 200 but like MT2008 said know one really knows --[[User:Armyguy277|Armyguy277]] 21:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

:Last I heard (on the HKPRO message board), the KSK traded in its G36s for HK416s a few years ago. I remember there was a picture of them training for deployment to Afghanistan while using 416s with 14.5" barrels that were all painted in desert camo. They allegedly wanted to buy M4s, but the Bundeswehr doesn't let them buy anything that isn't German-made. Also, it's still irrelevant because (as I told Captain Snikt) P226 asked about '''American''' and '''British''' special forces. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

no i was talking about his second comment --[[User:Armyguy277|Armyguy277]] 22:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
:what about Jordon's CT-71 Battalion, from what I have read it is a CT unit that is made up of Rangers, Paratroopers and Royal Guard members? ([http://www.tactical-life.com/online/tactical-weapons/all-the-king%E2%80%99s-men/ 1] ) --[[Special:Contributions/129.89.179.105|129.89.179.105]] 23:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)(thePotShot)

==Barrel lenghts==
I'm pretty sure the standard G36 has a 20" barrel and the G36C has a 9" barrel but can anyone tell me the lengths of the other variants? I've heard people claim the G36K has a barrel anywhere from 12 to 16 inches long.

12.51" according to the HK website ([http://www.heckler-koch.de/HKWeb/show/frameContent/19/4/19 Source]). It also lists the G36 as 18.89" and the G36C as 8.97". [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

== Confused about SL8 variants ==

The title says it all. Below is something I found on the HKPRO forums (which agrees with wiki not that necessarily matters) that seems to disagree with how the rifles are numbered on this page.

SL8(no -#) Canada/Europe, gray, double stack mag, long sight rail w/iron sights.
SL8-1 is US import, gray, single stack mag & receiver, long sight rail w/iron sights.
SL8-4 is Canada/Europe, black, double stack mag, short sight rail.
SL8-5 is Canada/Europe, black, double stack mag, long rail w/iron sights.
SL8-6 is US import, black, single stack mag & receiver, short sight rail. "

Would it therefore be correct to say that of the 4 pictures on the main page, all of the first 3 are SL8-1's (as it is stated in the captions that the colour is aftermarket blacking) and the last one is an SL8-6 (If you go the HK-USA civilian sales page, it advertises a gun looking exactly like this as a SL8-6). Below is a pictures of what I believe to be an SL8-4 and SL8-5.
[[Image:HK SL8-4.jpg|thumb|500px|none|SL8-4]]
[[Image:SL8-5.jpg|thumb|500px|none|SL8-5]]

I haven't changed the page yet, as I thought I would check I had understood it right, as this is all based on about 15 minutes of googling. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 19:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

== Muzzle Velocity ==

Hello! Could anyone tell me what's the muzzle velocity of both K and C variants of the G36? I only found MV of the standard G36 on HK's official website!
Thanks.

== Telling a Fake vs Real G36C ==

As a rule of thumb should I assume that if I see a G36C with a 1/2 full magazine that it is an airosoft replica? Just making sure as it seems all the airosoft replicas have 1/2 full magazines.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 18:18, 13 July 2011 (CDT)
:I think all the airsoft magazines I've ever seen were actually full (Just checking, you do know that bullets don't go all the way to the bottom of a magazine and that there needs to be space for the compressed spring at the bottom?). Have just counted in a TM magazine and there were 22 dummy bullets, but they don't go all the way to to top, there is room for about 4 or 5 more. Furthermore, an airsoft magazine is shorter than a real magazine, so add on a few more and that brings you to the full 30. A half empty magazine would be much harder for an airsoft gun, as you should then be able to see clear space through the partially uncompressed spring, rather than the gubbins for the BBs that is actually inside. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 14:52, 3 August 2011 (CDT)

== SL8 model Guide ==

Am just putting this in here as I have notice a different models getting confused with each other on several pages.
[[File:Sl8 original.jpg|thumb|500px|none|Heckler & Koch SL8]]
[[File:Hk sl8-1.jpg|thumb|500px|none|Heckler & Koch SL8-1]]
*SL8-2 is a rare prototype weapon made for the German Army that was fitted with G36 type sights and a bipod.
*Never heard of an SL8-3, if it exists it is a very rare version unlikely to appear.
[[File:HK SL8-4.jpg|thumb|500px|none|Heckler & Koch SL8-4]]
[[File:SL8-5.jpg|thumb|500px|none|Heckler & Koch SL8-5]]
[[File:Hk sl8-6.jpg|thumb|500px|none|Heckler & Koch SL8-6]]
First off, to definitely tell the variant you need to be able to see the right side of the rifle. If the magazine well along with the receiver below the ejection port is crimped in, then it is a US import version (SL8-1 or SL8-6) that can only take single stack magazines (10 round magazine protrudes out a few inches, aftermarket 20 round magazines are made which are longer than a G36 magazine). Apart from the colour of the plastic and the scope rail, the SL8-6 is exactly the same as the SL8-1. So much so, H&K used the same moulds to make the first run of the SL8-6 which resulted in the first SL8-6s being marked SL8-1. Current models of the SL8-6 are simply marked SL8.

If a rifle lacks the crimped magazine area, then it is a European/Canadian version of the Rifle. These use double stack magazines where only the baseplate of the mag protrudes from the weapon. These guns can take G36 magazines with only slight modification to the magazine (filing off a couple of ridges). The US-import versions can be converted to use G36 magazines but this requires extensive modification, including replacement of the magazine well, a new bolt head that will strip rounds from a double stack magazine, milling out of the crimped portion of the receiver and filling in this gap with epoxy.

Lastly, if the magazine of the weapon protrudes out a few centimetres before the baseplate then this is an Airsoft replica.--[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 10:19, 8 August 2011 (CDT)

== MG36 ==

Technically, an MG36 is a G36 with a Beta C drum magazine and a bipod right? So all i have to do is take my normal, original G36, add a bipod and a Beta C drum mag, and it will be considered an MG36?--[[User: Gunner5|Gunner5]]
:The MG36 also had a heavier hand picked barrel (only thicker under the handguard so impossible to tell the difference), and possibly a newer version of the sight that was 3.5x but not sure if the last part is true. Bear in mind that nobody actually bought the MG36 so less than 100 were made. It was decided that the changes to the barrel did not make enough difference to warrant the cost of making different parts, and instead the Bundeswehr did what you are suggesting and simply fitted a bi-pod handguard and drum to a regular G36 to act as an LSW. So basically, there will most likely never be a real MG36 in anything as there aren't many about, and if there was we wouldn't know as the exterior is identical. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 19:20, 11 September 2011 (CDT)
::Just to point out why I reverted the image; from what I can tell, the only production run of MG36s was in 1995, when about a hundred were delivered to the Bundeswehr for testing and rejected. The MIL-STD-1913 standard was established in February of that same year. As a result, any "MG36" with rail mounts is probably just a G36-LMG or whatever they call the drum / bipod handguard variant. This means we should probably change any videogame entries that have rails and say they're MG36s, because they're not. 01:38, 29 September 2011 (CDT)

Since this thread is already made there's no need to make a new one. Anyway I have a question for some of the military gurus. Did any military outfit ever use the MG36 or was it deemed ineffective compared to other lmgs/automatic rifles? I'm in an argument with a friend who insists he German army used the MG36 but I've said they've been using the Rhienmetall MG3. [[User:Lurker McNasty|Lurker McNasty]] 23:44, 18 October 2011 (CDT)
:The MG36 was evaluated but never adopted by the Bundeswehr. They do however use G36s with drum magazines and bipods fitted, which are externally pretty much identical to the MG36. Not sure if this is still done, or this role is now totally filled by the MG4. MG3 is also used, but that fills a different role (7.62mm GPMG as opposed to 5.56mm LSW). --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 05:05, 19 October 2011 (CDT)

Guys, the MG36 is in Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. Shouldn't we list them on the page for what guns the MG36 appears in? --[[User:Jeddostotle7|Jeddostotle7]] 01:17, 21 January 2012 (PST)
:We list what they are, not what they're called. The MW3 MG36 is a G36K, not an MG36.[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 15:36, 21 January 2012 (CST)
::Then why isn't Modern Warfare 3 in the "video game" section of the appearances of the G36K? --[[User:Jeddostotle7|Jeddostotle7]] 01:17, 21 January 2012 (PST)

== Copied from [[Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3]]:"MG36" ==

This image is from the official H&K site.
[[Image:G36K-2.jpg|thumb|none|450px|Just ignore the buttstock, willya.]]
They list it as a G36K, even tho it has a longer barrel. Maybe H&K classifies these guns based on the handguard and vent holes. It would make sense, as the barrels are interchangeable. Thoughts? - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 16:11, 3 December 2011 (CST)
:Not sure the barrels are interchangeable, as the gas block would be in the wrong place. I suppose you could put the correspondingly longer piston on (not sure if this would work but lets assume it would) but then the piston would be exposed, with the front part of it along with the gas block sticking out the front of the handguard. It would be exposed to dirt and damage, and would look weird. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:52, 3 December 2011 (CST)
H&K makes a LMG/support gunner version of the G36 (don't remember the exact name). It looks just like your photo but as far as I know it's usually outfitted with a 100 round drum magazine instead of the normal 30 rounder. The name "MG36" is really just made up so the poor sap playing this game that knows nothing about gun would immediately associate the MG with machine gun. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 16:33, 3 December 2011 (CST)

:I can't really see how a weapon with a non-carbine barrel is still a carbine, personally. Though it would hardly be the first time HK's marketing spods were guilty of making things up as they go along. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 16:49, 3 December 2011 (CST)

:Wait a minute, HK's page has the disclaimer "The pictures shown may differ from the original." Isn't that an aftermarket stock, for a start? [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 16:58, 3 December 2011 (CST)

::The barrel extends past the handguard by a similar amount (slightly less I think) as on a G36, but the G36 handguard is longer, meaning that this is actually an intermediate barrel between the 318mm barrel of the G36K and the 480mm barrel of the G36. I believe the origin of this variant was that it was submitted for Norwegian (I think) army trials, and it has something like a 16" barrel. It now goes by the name G36KV3 I think. The stock isn't an aftermarket one, I think it was designed by H&K for the Latvian army. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:00, 3 December 2011 (CST)
:::Did a bit more searching and found that it is a 15.4" barrel, and the variant also appears to go by G36CQB. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:04, 3 December 2011 (CST)
::::Ah, only place I'd ever seen that stock was on Airsoft gun pictures saying it was a G&P "KV style" stock. So, we're saying this is probably a 15.4" barrel G36K? I doubt this variant has existed long enough to have been in ''Far Cry'', mind, so we should probably leave that saying hybrid. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 17:16, 3 December 2011 (CST)
:::::Apparently the G36CQB was listed in the HK Defence Weapons Systems Brochure from 2004 to 2006, so it is possible that this is what the [[Far Cry]] rifle is based on. This is 2nd hand info from the HK Pro forums so might be wrong though. Have also read that it was first introduced in the late 90s for the US market, but only 100 or so were made so these are rare. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:31, 3 December 2011 (CST)
::::::This G36K, the one with the wierd aftermarket sights on a C rail and that stock, was made for one country specifically, though I forget which one. As for the carbine issue Tim, a carbine is simply a shortened version of the original, it can be any length as long as it's shorter. If it's a Carbine of a Carbine it's a Sub-Carbine. Not makin this up :) G36K = Carbine and G36C = Sub-Carbine. M4A1 = Carbine and Mk 18 Mod 0 = Sub-Carbine. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:42, 3 December 2011 (CST)
::::::Far Cry was march 2004, I wouldn't think they'd have time to stick a G36 variant that had existed for an absolute maximum of 3 months (and might not have existed at all yet) in the game. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 17:51, 3 December 2011 (CST)
:::::::All I could find was someone stating that it was in the 2004-2006 brochure, but could have appeared before this point. Like I said, the first versions of the G36CQB barrel appeared in the late 90s. It is probably more likely that they just made it up accidentally though. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:54, 3 December 2011 (CST)
::::::::Ok, I'll add a note there and fix this when I get home, then. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 18:02, 3 December 2011 (CST)
:::::::::I have a copy of Soldier of Fortune magazine from October 2001 that says the 15.4 inch CQB barrel is an option--[[User:Shadowkungfu|Shadowkungfu]] 20:53, 3 December 2011 (CST)
::::::::::Ah, CQB ''barrel'', that's starting to make sense. So this is a CQB barrel for the G36 that they marketed for the K under the same name, even though it made the K longer and therefore only helped you CQ if the B was using it as a lance. Also, if this can be fitted to the standard G36, might it be the cause of STALKER's short-barreled G36E? [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 02:47, 4 December 2011 (CST)
:::::::::::Could be. :| - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 07:26, 4 December 2011 (CST)
::::::::::::The G36 from STALKER is actually modelled after a SL8 converted into a G36 lookalike (can tell by the profiling at the back of the receiver with a serial number plate, the selector switch and aftermarket magazine well fitted into machined out lower receiver). As for the barrel, it looks more like a CQB than a K. The K has an open pronged flash hider (as opposed to the birdcage shown) which would protrude past the handguard on a full size G36 but none of the barrel itself would be visible. I'm going to copy this whole discussion over onto the [[Talk:Heckler & Koch G36|G36 talk page]], as I think it has reached the point that it is more relevant there than here. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18:09, 4 December 2011 (CST)

Sorry I was out of this for so long guys. As far as I remember, the G36 uses a quick-change barrel system (eventually used the the ACR and SCAR). You could go from CQB barrel to MG barrel at the flip of a tab and twist of the barrel. H&K figured out over time that they could simply market the same gun with different barrels and people would pay for two guns instead of one and a second barrel. Yes, the people at H&K are some of the biggest jerks out there. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 14:54, 4 December 2011 (CST)

:Or maybe you only wanted a full length G36 with a shorter barrel. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 17:16, 4 December 2011 (CST)

Just to reiterate what I said on the MW3 talk page for completeness, the above G36 is a KV of the Latvian armed forces. They use longer barrels than factory G36Ks. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 11:50, 28 December 2011 (CST)

== Heckler & Koch SL8 ==

Doesn't the SL8 warrant it's own page? --[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] 08:26, 25 December 2011 (CST)
:Not really, it's the "civilian" (or more commonly "neutered") version of the G36. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 11:50, 25 December 2011 (CST)
::And that is why i always defer to the experts! --[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] 12:22, 25 December 2011 (CST)
::Yeah, we have civilian AR-15s on the M16 page, so the SL8 is right where it belongs, unless it's somehow fundamentally different from the G36 in a way that I'm unaware of. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 11:53, 28 December 2011 (CST)

Talk:Safe House (2012)

2012-02-16T02:25:30Z

Dover500: /* I don't think that's a P229 */

==Car Chase Clip==
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CONzds10n10&feature=relmfu - There are quite a few nice shots of Weston's P229, the hitman's P226, the suppressed Uzi and I think an M4 in the hands of a hitman just before the chase. I'd do it myself, but I'm a bit busy, sorry ;) --[[User:Taurus96|Taurus96]] 10:49, 15 February 2012 (CST).

==Minor Trivia Edit==
I'm sorry for this driveby but that is not any hitman it's a swedish/libanese actor called Fares Fares who's a close friend of the director Daniel Espinosa, just like Joel Kinnaman who's also in the movie, he and Daniel did Snabba Cash together. Mumbling over. If it doesn't fit just edit it out and I'll shut up.

== I don't think that's a P229 ==

[[Image:Unknown_Sig_Sauer.jpg]]

I don't think that Weston's SIG is a P229, kinda looks like a Pro variant, I just can't tell the exact model

I agree with you there, and analysing the other SIG pics, it looks to me like a Pro 2022 --[[User:Taurus96|Taurus96]] 18:31, 15 February 2012 (CST).

It might be a p229 E2, but It does seem to resemble a 2022 more. Ello_again

It looks more like the SP2009, as it lacks the prominent rail of the SP2022, and has the slide profile found on the Sig Pro line. While the new P229 have full length serrations the slide profile in the picture looks different from that found on the P229. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 20:25, 15 February 2012 (CST)

Talk:Heckler & Koch

2012-01-23T12:21:38Z

Dover500: /* :) */

Talk:Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

2011-12-20T14:16:05Z

Dover500: /* Random thoughts from seeing the movie in IMAX */

What is the pistol used by Simon Pegg in the 3rd SIG screenshot? Am fairly sure it isn't a P226 as stated. Might be a Glock 17, but the front profile looks too tall/narrow. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 16:37, 29 June 2011 (CDT)
:Has now been changed to say it is a Glock 17, which I admit is closer, but compare the pic of Renner with the Glock 17 to Pegg. They are both held at a similar angle, yet the front view of the guns looks drastically different, with Pegg's lookng much taller/thinner. Maybe it is just lighting though. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 16:33, 1 July 2011 (CDT)

Not a Glock - that's for sure. Though that front sight looks Glock, the bore-axis is all wrong. If I look quickly, I think P250, but then I waiver. Definitely Sig though.
--[[User:Gwhysow|Gwhysow]] 17:47, 31 October 2011 (CDT)

I don't know, if you look closely on the slide, it looks like it has Glock type markings.Plus the slide release appears to be the same as other Glocks. Possible Non Gun? [[User:Bristow8411|Bristow8411]] 17:20, 19 December 2011 (CST)
[[File:MI4 513.jpg|thumb|none|800px]]

== Some more screenshots ==

Some more weapons to be ID'ed. --[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 04:39, 4 July 2011 (CDT)

[[File:MI4 200.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]
[[File:MI4 202.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]

[[File:MI4 204.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]

:Top one looks like it could be a USP compact. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 06:34, 4 July 2011 (CDT)
::It is. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 16:39, 4 July 2011 (CDT)

USP Compact, Five-seven?, ???--[[User:--JazzBlackBelt--|--JazzBlackBelt--]] 21:33, 14 August 2011 (CDT)

*The bottom one looks like a H&K P7 with a suppressor and the slide locked back. Yay, unrealistic sparking bullets! :D - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 17:28, 15 August 2011 (CDT)

::The second one is propably a 1911 variant --[[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] 19:34, 9 September 2011 (CDT)

Another two photos from the latest trailer:

[[File:MI4-pistol-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Brandt pulls the slide off a henchman's pistol.]]
[[File:MI4-pistol-2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]

:: A Cougar --[[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] 17:11, 31 October 2011 (CDT)

== The sig p226r==
The bottom picture on the Sig p226r section is the P226 TACOPS. You can tell my the extended grip well.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 20:47, 10 September 2011 (CDT)

I don't think this pistol is a TACOPS as it lacks the beavertail. Closest thing I can come up with is that it is a P226 Super Capacity Tactical fitted with the "Magwell" grips the TACOPS has. Proof will really be in the trigger, as the SCT is an older model and has the traditional trigger, as opposed to the TACOPS (which seems to have replaced it in the current SIG line-up) which has the new short reset trigger. Trigger is not visible in the trailer though, so will have to wait for the movie to come out to be sure. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18:04, 31 October 2011 (CDT)

:If we're not sure that it's a P226 TACOPS, who the hell changed it? Personally, I don't think it is one...the screencap is too blurry to tell if the grip is extended, and Paula Patton might just not have very big hands (which most women don't). Until the movie comes out and we can confirm the identity of the pistol, let's just call it a P226R for now. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 11:04, 1 December 2011 (CST)

The picture is crappy...watch the trailer it does for sure have the extended grip and you can tell it has the tritium truglow sight on the front as well...yes it is possible someone put the extended grips onto a SCT but what would be the point of doing that? Its a Sig with all the features of the Tacops...i personally didnt change it but i think it the right gun.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 11:16, 1 December 2011 (CST)
:It doesn't have all the features of a Tacops as it lacks the beavertail, meaning that it is either a P226R with the slide changed for a Tacops one and magwell grips fitted, or it is a SCT with the grips added. Or it is a variant I am not aware of. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 11:46, 1 December 2011 (CST)

Did some looking around and it seems like Sig did produce SCT models with the magwell grips on them...that would explain the lack of beavertail and why it has the tritium truglo sights.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 11:49, 2 December 2011 (CST)
:I'm not sure if SIG actually made SCTs with the magwell grips, but it was a common aftermarket mod as shown below:
:[[File:P3300159.jpg|thumb|400px|none|SIG-Sauer P226 Super Capacity Tactical fitted with Magwell grips - 9x19mm]]
::I've also photo shopped the Magwell grips onto an SCT, think this is a better picture:
::[[File:P226 SCT shopped.jpg|thumb||none|400px|]]
::--[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 12:50, 2 December 2011 (CST)

==Kremlin==

The Russian Guards at the Kremlin wouldnt use a SKS in real life would they?--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 20:15, 30 November 2011 (CST)
:Ceremonial guards, which those soldiers are supposed to be, use the SKS while parading: [http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/12/phdstudent-1.jpg Kremlin Guards] --[[User:Markit|Markit]] 21:25, 30 November 2011 (CST)

Sad!...how embarrassing for them.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 09:28, 1 December 2011 (CST)

:!? - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 21:16, 1 December 2011 (CST)

What's embarassing? They are ceremonial guards much like the 3rd Infantry Regiment here in the U.S. at Arlington. The ones that the public sees are there for a specific purpose but the remainder of the unit is at the ready in case of an incident. Are you going to tell the guards at Arlington that you're embarrassed because they carry M1 Garands when on duty? --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] 22:25, 19 December 2011 (CST)

==Random thoughts from seeing the movie in IMAX==
Saw MI4 in IMAX this Saturday (the IMAX version was released a week early). It was an awesome visual treat, the 30 mins of IMAX footage look spectacular. The high-tech train car/safe-house that can be seen in the trailer had racks of what looked like G36Cs and and P226Rs, which have already been ID'd on the main page, and possibly the newest versions of the P229, not sure.

Question to you guys with real handgun service/repair experience, in the real world could some one reach over and remove the slide from a hand gun like Brandt does to the guard's Cougar? It seems to me that the slide should be much harder to get off, since wouldn't it fly off randomly in usage if it were as easily removed in the real world?

Also a kudos to the production team is that they seem to have gotten the actors (at least for Jeremy Renner) some decent firearms training because we see Brandt disarm Hunt of his handgun and then he releases the magazine from the gun AND releases the round in the chamber. Many actions movies seem to forget about the one already in the chamber when showing the hero removing the bullets from a handgun.

Also the fact that Jeremy Renner kept his finger off the trigger as he never intended on pulling the trigger.

:I think this is relatively easy to do with a Cougar as unlike other handguns you do not need to retract the slide at all. To remove it you just hold a button on the right side of the frame, flick the locking lever down and pull the slide forward. Not sure if you can do this with a loaded magazine in place though. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:42, 19 December 2011 (CST)

: Fixed something in that third paragraph --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] 22:10, 19 December 2011 (CST)

:: I know that pulling forward on the slide use to allow it to be pulled off, as that was one of the reasons given for police to stick with revolvers for a long time, and was even taught somewhere as a disarmament technique (I do not remember where). I do not know if something more modern would still allow you to do this, or even if it is that easy to do (never tried it) but at least at some point in the not so distant past it was. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 08:16, 20 December 2011 (CST)

Talk:Heckler & Koch HK416 rifle series

2011-12-07T02:11:49Z

Dover500: /* RIS */

== Discussion ==

"See Also

* M4A1 Firearm from which the HK416 was derived. "
As far as i know the 416/417 rifles are based on the M16/AR15 series ONLY in looks and are using similar interiors like the G36
:Utter bullshit you are spewing there as even H&K admits publically that the M416 is simply an improved M4A1 carbine. The gas piston system may possibly be adapted from that of a G36 to work on an M4 but that is all. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 19:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
:::And the gas piston on the G36 was derived from the AR-18. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 07:17, 3 December 2011 (CST)
::The HK 416 WAS meant to be a improved M4A1 from the get go!

They brought on board Larry Vickers a former Delta Force operative to help design the HK416. And it was always intended to be an improved M4A1. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 16:28, 5 July 2011 (CDT)

== HK 416c ==

someone who has an idea of the engine of imfdb.org has to add the new HK 416c
http://www.heckler-koch.com/HKWebText/detailProd/1928/475/4/19
at least the pictures would be great to upload!!

It should probably be in a movie first...but yeah cool design.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If it was used in a movie or video game. If not, then no. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:54, 3 December 2011 (CST)

== M27 IAR ==

Are there any differences between the normal HK416 and the M27 IAR, or that's just the U.S. Army name of the gun, like the M1014 is the M4 Super 90's ?? - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 03:26, 20 August 2011 (CDT)
:I think it's a HK416 with a longer barrel and handguard. Some guys in the U.S. Military (I think the Marines) got the okay from the high-ups or whoever to get these under the guise of new "SAWs" (Squad Automatic Weapons) but the Marines actually use them as assault rifles, lol. I think that's how the story goes, I just remembered it off the top of my head, shows you how much the U.S. Military wants HK416s.

:[[Image:H&K M27 IAR.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch M27 IAR]]
:[[Image:Hk416-2.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Heckler & Koch HK416 with 14.5 inch barrel]]
:- [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 07:40, 20 August 2011 (CDT)

:: Here is the Wikipedia article on the M27 IAR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

::Apparently the weapon was adopted by the Marine Corps as a replacement for the M249 SAW. The main differences are a heavier barrel to handle prolonged automatic firing and a bayonet lug. It is rated for 20 & 30-round STANAG box magazines, but tests are underway on higher-capacity magazines such as the beta-C drum mag. It also has a slower rate of fire; 560 to 640 rounds per minute vs. 700 to 900 rpm with the HK416. [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 02:03, 1 October 2011 (CDT)
:::A ''supplement'' for the M249, not a replacement. There's no way in HFIL that a magazine-fed weapon could ''replace'' a belt-fed automatic weapon in the suppression fire role. If the Corps wanted to lessen reliance on the SAW, just put FA lowers on M16A4s and M4s and be done with it. Why do you think SOF don't use a SAW? Because ''all'' of their weapons are capable of full auto. I don't see why they didn't give this an M1918A3 designation, since it's just ''BAR 2.0''. Maybe they should replace their M16s with M1 Garands and their M4s with M1 carbines, considering this backwards motion that procurement is taking. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 07:14, 3 December 2011 (CST)

::::The M27 IAR was meant as a prolonged Automatic Rifle not a Light Machine Gun. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 09:51, 4 December 2011 (CST)
:::::In application, there really isn't any difference between the two. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:05, 5 December 2011 (CST)

::As an Automatic Rifle it has only 2 inches on the standard HK416's barrel length. Sure, without a belt-feed it can still feed casket- or drum-magazines, but those usually don't net you more than a 100 rounds maximum. And for maximum accuracy wouldn't you need the full 20-inch barrel? Or would they rather use M16A4s for that? --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 11:05, 4 December 2011 (CST)

== Stock options for the HK Rifle series ==

All the photos or depictions I've seen for this rifle series depict them with telescoping M4-style buttstocks. Of course it can use a fixed buttstock, but if this rifle is based on the G36 then it stands to reason that it should be able to use the same buttstocks as a G36 can, such as a folding buttstock or just a buttcap. Wouldn't those units issued HK416s/HK417s want the added versatility of a folding buttstock if they're going to be travelling in a vehicle a lot? What about a combination folding/telescoping buttstock seen on the LR-300 rifles? --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 05:19, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

:Only the bolt and gas system are from the G36, the outside is (mostly) just like a M4A1 Carbine. A G36 stock would not fit on a M4/M16 why would it fit a HK416, I'm surprised you don't see that. :| - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 16:12, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

In any case, the G36 gas system has no need for a receiver extension (that big cylindrical thing sticking out the back if you remove a standard AR-15's buttstock) that precludes folding buttstocks. I suppose the standard M4 telescoping stock was kept for familiarity's sake, but for those who can afford to train to adapt to the difference, I'm very surprised that HK didn't go all the way and introduce a folding stock for maximum compactness. It's not exactly rocket science to make and attach a folding buttstock securely to a rifle that can take it, and this is why I'm confused as to why I haven't seen one yet for an HK416. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 19:06, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

:Well, this is what the U.S. Military wanted. :\ Most other gas-piston ARs still have the buffer-tube too. P.S. I think you meant "buffer-tube" not "receiver extension" - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 19:49, 23 October 2011 (CDT)

The bolt in an HK416 isn't from the G36, it differs very little from an AR-15 bolt. [http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/clt2/huge/DSCN2461.jpg] For that reason, it does require a buffer tube and can't take a folding stock. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:59, 3 December 2011 (CST)

:Yes, it seems from [http://www.armytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/ this flash animation] that the HK416 still (regrettably) uses a buffer tube. I still don't know why they didn't go "whole hog" for the HK416/417 since "compactness, compactness, compactness" seems to be the order of the day, since a folding buttstock makes it even shorter (without sacrificing range or accuracy like shortening a barrel does). And the G36 (according to a newer photo of an additional variant on this wiki) also had a combination buttstock earlier. Was it to make the field-stripping/maintenance process similar enough to the M4 carbine so those used to it could transition without any further training? --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 10:57, 4 December 2011 (CST)

::Because it's what Delta wanted. The point of the HK416 was to be just an upgraded M4. No more, no less. If Delta want folding stocks, I'd imagine they have a number of G36Cs (and now SCAR-L/H) laying around in their armory to use. It's pretty safe to assume that top tier units like Delta and DEVGRU have access to virtually any weapon they could ever want to use. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 15:01, 5 December 2011 (CST)

^ I agree ---P226 21:26, 5 December 2011 (CST)

== RIS ==

Can you switch out the stock RIS on this rifle for another AR15 RIS? Are they compatable?---P226 19:29, 6 December 2011 (CST)
:The 416's RIS is proprietary, its attachment system is different and it has to sit higher because of the piston. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 20:11, 6 December 2011 (CST)

Talk:Heckler & Koch XM8

2011-11-05T22:53:16Z

Dover500: /* Reasons for failure? */

==Reasons for failure?==

Supposedly this weapons system was to become the new standard rifle of the US army, but I'm at a loss as to why it was eventually cancelled. The "obvious answers" might be that "American weapons companies like having their stranglehold on equipping such a nice customer as the US army" or that "H&K didn't bid low enough" (as said by the old army truism "remember, all of our equipment was made by the lowest bidder"), but I think there's more to the story than either of those.

H&K's bid to make this "modular weapons system" adaptable to four battle field roles (standard carbine for standard infantry use, compact carbine for PDW use, automatic rifle with bipod and hi-capacity magazine for SAW-type use, and finally a designated marksman variant with a longer barrel and better optics) certainly sounds like a "hostile takeover" strategy of the corporate kind--was it possibly too ambitious and too threatening to corporate interested to have all those weapon types supplant all those individual weapons being used (and paid for) by the US armed forces? Asking everyone to "hand over your M4s, your M249 SAWs, your FN P90s, and your M14s--we've got something better than those which will do all 4 jobs!" definitely could cause some stocks to fall.

Finally, if the XM8 really is just the G36 in a different exterior, why didn't they make a more ambitious and less conventional design, possibly in a bullpup formation? The SA80 (also designed by H&K) had its hiccups early on but appears to be a reliable weapon today, and with the experience gained from its development and deployment I don't see why a better version could be made for the XM8 project. The ambidexterity problem could even be solved with a little ingenuity, kind of like how the FN-F2000 is ambidextrous not because it ejects down like the FN P90 does, but because it dribbles rather than spits spent casings.

I would like to see more of this rifle in movies and games, possibly even with more use of its "transformational capabilities" as well. Seeing a film character rapidly change his XM8 compact carbine variant to a DMR variant could be nice.

Any answers from those in the know would be appreciated. [[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 04:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

look like arming an army is more complected then it seems. Rex095

My take is it failed for a number of reasons. I am a bit of a fan of the XM8 but the biggest design flaw I see is that it lacks Picatinny rails. It only has the Picatinny Attachment Points for mounting of optics. The advantage to that is optics don't need to be zeroed quite as much, but in the real world that's useless because you can't put any existing optics on. Plus, no rails on the side or bottom, so no attachment of lasers (although I've heard the XM8 has an infrared laser built into the optic, feel free to correct me) and you can't attach the M203. While its reloading method is possibly the most ergonomic I've seen, it feeds from G36 mags, and the U.S. uses the STANAG magazine found in the M4/M16.

And yes, cost does have a huge effect to it. I've never seen the cost per unit for the XM8, but I can imagine that it can be pretty expensive. Also, the M16 platform has been in use for so long and it's been drilled so far into the heads of some people that they have trouble letting go of it or accepting that any other design completely different from it might work. Sorry, that was just personal opinion.

One last big malfunction it had is that the reciever melted during extended automatic fire. The sad part is that if HK had put more money into that I'm sure they could've solved it.

I think the biggest thing is just the fact that the U.S. military just doesn't like to change anything and they find no new need for a new rifle. Colt themselves said it took them over a decade to get an extractor spring changed on the M4. The M16/M4 is probably here to stay for a very very long time. [[User:Mandaloin|Mandaloin]] 09:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The production cost for an XM8 is about 400$... The cost for an M4 is 600$ and that of an M16 is 800-900$

:WHOA WHOA WHOA! That is NOT true, The company HAS to sell something to make money on, it costs I would estimate $200-$400 dollars for both the M16 and M4, the Military buys them at a cheaper price than the price we see on the shelves at the gunstore. The way HK does business I'm sure the XM8 would have sold for more to the military.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Weight and the LMG version were the official reasons for its cancelation. The receiver melting occurred when they were trying to reduce the weight of the weapon to around 4 lbs. Current test/prototype models have increased the weight and the problem has supposedly gone. The LMG aspect also caused issue as there was no easy way to swap barrels if the barrel overheated (though barrels overheating in and of itself was never an issue). Also it failed to improve over the M4/M16 100% in all aspects of weapons performance, which was a mandate put out by the government. One last thing was while most versions of the XM8 used the proprietary mounting system (the circles on the side of the gun), their were some concept models late in testing with traditional rails.

There is a better modular weapons system coming out anyway the Remington ACR.

It failed because, simply put, testing proved it wasn't what the Army wanted. New weapon systems aren't funded and fielded simply because they run a little cleaner. It would be a massive waste of money when you add up the costs (the new weapons themselves, new spare parts, new magazines, retraining of troops to know how it ticks... we're talking in the hundreds of billions of dollars here) and compare that to the negligible advantage it provides (it's got a piston and... wait, what else?). And switching to completely new weapon systems in the middle of two wars poses the real possibility of logistical complications (i.e., getting M16 magazines and spare M4 barrels when your entire unit has XM8s) rendering combat units utterly defenseless in hostile territory. It may look all space-age like a laser gun, but the DoD simply does not want or need it when the M4 does the job just as efficiently. Until some country decides to adopt it, it's going to remain ''dead''. If the big green Army wanted a gas piston so bad, M4s and M16s are easily converted with new upper receivers without the need for retraining. And not to mention the SCAR will eventually filter down into regular combat units as time goes on. I'm not saying there aren't better small arms out there, but the XM8 doesn't provide much of an advantage of the current issue M16/M4. And like is pointed out in the post above mine, the Remington ACR takes everything the XM8 is and throws the full modularity of the M4 into it. And please, people, '''sign your posts'''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I could see the XM8 still being useful to small teams n' such, being able to swap out parts and magazines with your squadmates in the field no matter what role they play because they have the same base weapon as you could be a big advantage. But the ACR could probably do the same thing and it's supposedly better, but my point still stands. Good for small teams, bad for an entire military. I expect that we won't phase out the M4 or M16 until the next revolutionary change to the gun world. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 07:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the 416 is coming close to doing that, wouldn't you agree?
--[[Special:Contributions/67.86.148.125|67.86.148.125]] 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

*It's an AR-15 with a gas piston. I believe that specific "revolutionary" development has been done before quite a few times, starting in about 1969. To be exact, it's a gas system stolen wholesale from the AR-18. [[User:Vangelis|Vangelis]] 15:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the 416 as a next revolutionary step in firearm design, I was trying to state that the HK416 is coming close to replacing the M16 family, at least some branches of the US military.
:The same can be said of the of the SCAR. It's already being used by the Rangers and Border Patrol. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 16:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right. But that's the only way I could think of the XM8 being of any use to our military, but if the SCAR already has that role then it's pretty much worthless to us. [[User:That's One Angry Duck|That's One Angry Duck]] 18:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

:If the HK 416 is that much better, I don't understand why it scored lower than the XM8 in the "extreme dust environment" test. Still, the XM8 system had a lot of potential that could have been harnessed in its extra reliability and modularity. Changing the internals to accept STANAG magazines, and to be more heat resistant as well as using standard rail systems could be done relatively easily. I'm surprised that more "Private Military Contractors" or SF operators haven't picked up on this gun given its modularity and thus its ability to be reconfigured easily between the demands of different missions. Even if this gun disappears into history like the OICW did, it'd be nice to see it in more games and movies. It's a nice break from AKs and AR-15s. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 03:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The HK 416 scored lower because AR-15s weren't designed to take a piston; that's what the AR-18 was for. The main reason why the XM8 failed was because aside from reliability (which is still a debatable point, given that the US has been running DI M16s/M4s for decades without mass failure), the XM8 only really met par with M16/M4 effectiveness. When it comes down to it, you're still firing a 5.56mm NATO round out of a carbine, and that isn't worth phasing out so many M16/M4s that do the exact same thing. What I'd have liked to have seen from the "dust environment" test would be an HK G36A1 in the mix; for all we know, the XM8 was just an "updated" G36 that HK tried to sell to the US. The XM8 inherited its proprietary magazines and ambidextrous cocking handle from it, and who knows what else.

They've entered the XM8 into the Individual Carbine competition, and my guess is that it'll fail there too.

[[Special:Contributions/72.189.150.127|72.189.150.127]]AUA

I think there were heating issues with the XM8 during testings and they never resolved the problem. Also I've seen pics of the XM8 being fielded in Iraq but I don't think these guys were US military. They weren't dressed in any familiar uniforms. Maybe they were contractors. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 17:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

:I recently discovered an article from the Army Times website that [http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/army_xm8_rifle_070531/ blames the Army bureaucracy] for the demise of the XM8. The pressure to open up the bids to competition probably came in part because FN didn't want their lucrative M249 contracts with the army to be superseded by the LMG form of the XM8, though I'm sure Colt was pretty ticked that H&K might be elbowing into its commercial territory too. Can anyone tell me just how (un)true this article is? --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 05:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

::Army Times isn't owned or affiliated with the ''actual'' US Army, so I'd take what they claim with a grain of sand. It's doubtful we'll ever know the ''concretely true'' reason for its failure, but it's a fact that the XM8 and M4 are pretty much on par in terms of effectiveness and that isn't going to justify buying a million new carbines that do the M4's job no better than the M4 already does. Besides, try attaching a vertical forgrip, ACOG, PEQ-15, and Surefire light to an XM8. You ''can't'', because none of those mods (mods which won't be going away anytime soon) are backwards compatible with PCAP and the gun's existing RDS is permanently attached. As a result, you have to buy from HK, in addition to the carbines themselves, all new accessories amounting to even more millions of dollars. People claim Colt has a stranglehold on the US military, adopting the XM8 would have been HK wrapping a noose around the US military's neck and putting their hand on the lever which opens the trapdoor beneath its feet. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 17:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

:Is the US Army collaborating so much with H&K really such a bad thing? Didn't the British government collaborate with them a lot way back in the 80s when the time came to refit their SA80 rifles? They also bought a controlling share during those days, too, so the British government called the shots then, not H&K. Nothing bad happened there with that close collaboration then. What problems do you foresee with a similar collaboration between the USA and H&K?

:I also remember two of the major "user feedback" points of the M4 Carbine were that they wanted a lighter and more reliable weapon. The XM8 delivered on both. The accessory problems you mentioned would not have been difficult to overcome. The PCAP system was supposedly developed because it kept the "zero" of accessories more securely (not really an issue with foregrips, but definitely an issue with laser pointers, grenade launchers, and scopes/non-iron sights), but the earlier XM8 prototypes did have conventional rail systems which could be reverted to if necessary. Subcontracting another company to build PCAP-compatible accessories could be another option. Further, changing the chambering to 6.8x43mm or the like shouldn't be too much of a problem (if it's done before mass production is approved) if a caliber change is deemed to be necessary. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

::I don't see how changing the caliber to 6.8 would be any improvement either when you consider that a number of piston ARs in that caliber are readily available already. In addition, FN has a forthcoming 6.8mm caliber conversion for the SCAR system and the ACR is easily converted to 6.8mm at the user level. All three platforms are pretty much on par with the XM8 in terms of effectiveness ''and'' are compatible with currently fielded accessories (why buy millions of new accessories when the currently fielded ones work just fine?). The weight decrease is negligible at best with the current weight of the carbine variant at 6.4 lbs [http://www.hksystems.com.au/xm8.htm] compared to 6.9 lbs for most loaded AR-type carbines. True, the ACR and SCAR-L are a bit heavier at around 7 lbs or so each, but both offer much more adaptability OTS than the XM8. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem as well with the XM8 is that the US Marine Corp has a serious problem about changing their rifles. If the XM8 was adopted by the Army, it would have taken a while before the Marines would abandon their M16s and M4s. They always seem to be the last guys to change their current weapons for the new thing. Also the SCAR's been having problems as well getting adopted [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

:The Marines don't have the budget to blow on weapons programs left and right like the Army does, though. When the Corps adopts a new piece of kit, they need to get as much use out of it as possible because they don't have the cash to replace it right away should it fail. Think of how many combined billions of dollars the US Army sank into the Advanced Combat Rifle, XM29, XM8, XM307, and XM312 programs only for none to be adopted, then consider that now they're (A) set on upgrading all their M4s and (B) simultaneously running a competition for a completely new carbine to supersede the M4. Add to that the LSAT program and the XM25 airburst grenade launcher (the only so-far salvageable part of the OICW program). And that's just in the ''small arms'' category alone. Running development programs all willy-nilly like that would ''bankrupt'' the USMC. But I wouldn't say the Marines are ''always'' last to adopt the new stuff. The M16A2 and A4 were born within the USMC, after all. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 07:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:::From what i heard from a friend of mine, and im not sure if this is true or not, and someone might have already said this, but the XM8 was too expensive too manufacture, which confuses me because i thought the rifle was made out of plastic. Can someone confirm that or is my friend full of s**t?--[[User:Gunner5|Gunner5]]
::::Just because a rifle is made from composite that doesn't by any means make it cheaper to manufacture. The bare rifle itself was more expensive than an M4, I believe in the order of twice the price. It was also actually heavier than the M4 despite having a 2" shorter barrel. However, the sighting unit included a sight, lasers and illuminators so with this fitted, an M4 with equivalent capability would have been heavier and more expensive. I think most of this has been said above, but have heard there were several reasons why it was dropped, including the cost issue, overheating problems in desert testing, lack of significant improvement over current weapons, non STANAG magazine, abandonment of MIL-STD-1913 rails and replacement with PCAP (Picatinny Combat Attachment Points) system and political problems with using a non American made weapon (mostly stirred up by Colt I believe). --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 21:32, 3 November 2011 (CDT)

:::::"Political problems with using a non American made weapon" Most of the weapon used in the US Military are made by *cough* FN *cough*, even M16s nowadays are made by FN! - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 16:03, 4 November 2011 (CDT)
::::::Most weapons are still made by Colt, as all M4s so far have been Colt made and not all M16s are made by FN, and I believe a lot more M4s are around than M16s these days (at least from what I've seen). Regardless, there is a big difference between a US designed weapon having some of the manufacturing contracted out to someone else than adopting a foreign designed weapon, at least politically speaking. Would be taken by some as admitting that the Germans are better at designing guns than the Americans. Don't think this whole facet was the main reason the XM8 went away (got the impression from what I've read that it was an issue created by Colt to try and play the patriotic card), but certainly didn't help its chances. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:24, 4 November 2011 (CDT)

:::::::I'm not arguing with you. :) I think H&K would have been more successful if they just entered they're regular G36, I think it would cost atleast as much as an FN SCAR if not less. What do you know/think? I thought I remember seeing a source saying the G36V cost $950~1000 USD. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 14:45, 5 November 2011 (CDT)

::::::::But the FN SCAR and XM8 were developed in completely different programs. The XM8 was supposed to be light, with a target weight around 4 lbs. They were never able to get it that light and when they got close the weapon developed problems overheating and even melting, which is why the XM8 had all the overheating problems while the G36 did not. The SCAR, on the other hand, was developed under the idea of having one weapon system with multiple calibers to allow solders to preform multiple different rolls while only needing to be familiar with one weapon platform. The individual weapon cost between the SCAR, XM8, and HK416 vs the M4 are not significant, however there are lots of surplus M4 parts that the army has accumulated over the years so maintenance costs on the M4 would be less than what it would be for a new gun, which is something that has to be considered when changing out a weapon system on such a large scale as the US Army or Marines.[[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 17:53, 5 November 2011 (CDT)

== Hopefully no more seeing these in movies ==

I really hope a lot of action movies and even games of the future to come would stop using the XM8 to be the image of "the rifle of the future" look. Even I made the naive mistake once and thought this rifle was cool, I hope that new comers into the world of firearms will wise up quick and see just because it looks kinda cool and spacy...doesn't mean it's NOT a complete piece of crap. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How is the XM8 a piece of crap? Nobody seems to think there's an middleground with the XM8. Either you love it or you think it's a disgrace not worthy to even be thought of. Why do you hate it so much?

Probably just another M16/4-Series Fanboy whose jaw would drop to the ground in awe, when the XM8 blows the M4 to pieces in reliability-tests.
:Till the XM8 starts melting.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

why is there a wierd cartoonish/not-real picture of the XM8 on some pages.itlooks like it has been digitally made ona computer [[user:smish34|smish34]]
:Probably because a "weird cartoonish/not-real" picture is easier to make than a picture of one of the couple hundred prototypes in existence is to get. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::I believe those pictures are from the official Army press releases. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:XM8-Poster.jpg] --[[User:Funkychinaman|funkychinaman]] 01:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I still think that the XM8 will still apear in film, and game based couple years in to the future.

That's because when designers look to a "future" gun, instead of being original and making one up, they pick a gun that is not on any production scale at all. They might as well have the G11 star in games and future war movies again because it was so future like when that thing came out [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
:Do me a favor and look at the Ghost Recon: Future Soldier talk page. ''Those'' monstrosities are what results when game designers try to be original and make a gun up. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 17:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

:XM8 might be better if it wasn't all fucking plastic,pardon my language. In fact,a lot of weapons would be better,but wouldn't be used in mass production if you know,more steel work would be involved. Of coures,there are holes in the design for steel worked weapons as well as there are synthetic weapons and weapon parts. But this is an opinion from someone who thought there was no difference between clip and magazine,which there are several.--[[Special:Contributions/50.42.75.36|50.42.75.36]] 02:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::Yeah for one thing they are not the same thing. Anyway, the fact that the XM8 is made of "plastic" as you call it isn't the problem. Many successful rifles are made of "plastic". The AUG, the G36, the F2000, the Tavor, the QBZ series. There is nothing wrong with the polymer material. It can be as strong as steel and make the weapon lighter and that is what the infantry needs. Lighter weapon means lighter the load and more ammo they can carry into battle without the fatigue. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 05:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Well,not to be Randy P. Goatboy,but why the heck did SCAR succeed the XM8? Was it more...adaptable? With the SCAR-H,SCAR-L,the subtypes of those...was that the reason it won? So to speak?--[[User:Pump Shotty Justice|Pump_Shotty_Justice]]

Talk:SIG-Sauer P220 pistol series

2011-10-07T15:25:54Z

Dover500: /* P239 Slide */

__TOC__<br clear=all>

==Other Variants==
[[Image:SIGP220R LiveFreeDieHard.jpg|thumb|none|400px|SIG-Sauer P220R - .45 ACP. This is the screen used gun carried and fired by [[Bruce Willis]] in ''[[Live Free or Die Hard]]''.]]
[[Image:Line of Fire Eastwood Gun Left.jpg|thumb|none|400px|'''World IMFDB Exclusive:''' Screen-used live firing '''SIG-Sauer P228'''. This weapon is verified as screen used from the film ''[[In the Line of Fire]]'', and was carried and fired by [[Clint Eastwood]] in the film. IMFDB thanks [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/ The Golden Closet] for providing this photo; also see their sales page for the weapon, [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/merchant/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=6ef04a13fbe759cbdcbdc6bc4c4b809f&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=P00276&Store_Code=TGC&search=228&offset=0&filter_cat=&PowerSearch_Begin_Only=&sort=&range_low=&range_high= here].]]
[[Image:Line of Fire Eastwood Gun Right.jpg|thumb|none|400px|The '''SIG-Sauer P228''' from ''[[In the Line of Fire]]'' (seen from the right).]]
[[Image:VirtuosityP228.jpg|thumb|none|400px|A two-tone '''SIG-Sauer P228''' (9x19mm) with Wilcox Industries UITC laser and barrel compensator, as used by [[Denzel Washington]] in the film ''[[Virtuosity]]''. The weapon pictured here is the actual screen-used gun from the movie, one of four that were made for the film. One of these guns is re-used in the film ''[[Barb Wire]]''.]]
[[Image:X-Five-LW-detail.jpg|thumb|none|400px|SIG Sauer X5 LW - 9x19mm]]
[[Image:IMFDB P00268 Sopranos Tony Soprano Sig 226.jpg|thumb|none|400px|'''World IMFDB Exclusive:''' Screen used SIG-Sauer P226 - 9x19mm. This blank firing weapon is verified as screen used by actor [[James Gandolfini]] in '''[[The Sopranos]]'''. This specific gun was the one fired onscreen when he, Paulie, and Silvio kill Pussy in Funhouse (2.13). More detailed images and purchasing information on this item can be found at [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/ The Golden Closet]; see [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/merchant/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=6ef04a13fbe759cbdcbdc6bc4c4b809f&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=P00268&Store_Code=TGC&search=Sopranos&offset=0&filter_cat=&PowerSearch_Begin_Only=&sort=&range_low=&range_high= this link].]]
[[Image:IMFDB P00273 Sopranos Paulie Sig P228.jpg|thumb|none|400px|'''World IMFDB Exclusive:''' Screen used SIG-Sauer P228 pistol with non-functional prop silencer - 9x19mm. This live firing weapon is verified as screen used by actor [[Tony Sirico]] in '''[[The Sopranos]]'''. This gun was fired onscreen in the episode A Hit Is A Hit (1.10) during the scene where Paulie and other members of the Sopranos crew pose as furniture movers and ambush a drug cartel bagman and steal his money. After the hold up, Paulie shoots the man in the head at point blank range before making off with his drug money (IMFDB thanks [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/ The Golden Closet] for providing the documentation on this gun. Contact them via their website for more detailed images and purchasing information on this item.)]]
[[Image:P00619.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Screen used SIG-Sauer P229 - 9x19mm. This blank firing weapon is verified as screen used from the film ''[[Salt]]''. The gun has been modified to fire blank rounds only. This item is currently being sold by [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/ The Golden Closet]; see[http://www.thegoldencloset.com/merchant/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=6ef04a13fbe759cbdcbdc6bc4c4b809f&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=P00619&Store_Code=TGC&search=Salt&offset=0&filter_cat=&PowerSearch_Begin_Only=&sort=&range_low=&range_high= this link].]]
[[Image:M&MSSIGP229.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Two of the SIG-Sauer P229 pistols used in the film ''[[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]]'' - 9x19mm.]]
[[Image:Sig-sauerP229DAK.jpg|thumb|none|400px|SIG-Sauer P229R - 9x19mm (also chambered for .40 S&W & .357 SIG)]]
[[Image:SigP226TwoTone01.jpg|thumb|none|400px|A reverse Two-Tone SIG-Sauer P226 - 9x19mm (identical configuration to the gun from ''[[2 Fast 2 Furious]]''; this weapon was assembled and photographed specially for IMFDB by [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]]).]]
[[Image:p226_tactical.jpg|thumb|none|400px|SIG-Sauer P226R fitted with a weaponlight - 9x19mm]]

==P245==
I like the P245. I bought one back in 2000. I owned both the P220 and the P245 for many years and I always found that I shot better with the P245. Eventually traded the P220, but I still have the P245. It's a nice little shooter. But truth be told I did purchase the eight round magazine from Sig. So I guess the P220 Compact just makes more sense. From a business aspect. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

==P228==
I'm a bit confused about the P228. I thought that it has been discontinued for about 10 years. But that the Military uses them and I know that SIG recently came out with a P228R model. So my question is: Is it still being produced or not? -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 00:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

:The P228R is a limited production run weapon. SIG had lots of surplus P228 slides, so they modified them to fit P229R frames (even though the 229 has always been a bit wider than the 228). As for the military's use of the P228, that's just because they bought so many of them in the 1990s that they still have lots in inventory. But the original, non-rail P228 (the version still seen in most movies today) has been out of production since 2000, when the P229 in 9mm was introduced. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]

::Ok thank you for clearing that up for me. Much appreciated! -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 05:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== P220 ==
Is the P220 still manufactured in any caliber other than 45 ACP? I know the .38 super and .30 luger variants were discontinued but many nations have adopted the 9mm version for Police and Military use so it seems odd they would have discontinued it, yet SIG-Sauer's websight only lists it as comming in .45. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

Everywhere I've looked for info says no. All modern (Railed I assume) P220's are strictly .45 ACP.
Personally I like this line of thinking, a single stack 9x19mm seems pointless when you can get a P226, or a P229 and carry more rounds. --[[User:Crazycrankle|Crazycrankle]] 10:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Swiss military is a big user of the P-220 pistol. I wonder if they might have their own production line somewhere (as they did with the Luger) and just do not offer them commercially anymore. Also, SIG as the monolith that it once was is no more, having broken up into various other companies: the SIG-Sauer brand, now based out of Germany (and responsible for the P-220-5, P-226, P229, SIG-556, and all other continued SIG-Sauer firearms), and Swiss Arms, the manufacturer of the SIG-550 series firearms (the 550, 551, 552, and 553), and others. It is possible that the Swiss government procured the machinery after the demise of SIG to produce the P/75 (as I believe the Swiss military calls it) and is producing them for their own uses. This seems all the more likely when it is considered that an officer in the Swiss military is given the option of purchasing his own service sidearm once he leaves the military (and thus a finite stockpile might soon quickly expire). Just for information's sake, an enlisted person within the Swiss military is given the option of actually purchasing his own service weapon once he leaves the service (this is done by sending it back to the manufacturer were it is converted to a semi-automatic only rifle and then sent to the former soldier). The Chilean government had its own license to produce these domestcally through FAMAE (according to Ian Hogg) though this seems to have expired and FAMAE now produces a variant of the CZ-75 and the Japanese government also license produced the design at one point (perhaps through Howa Industries), although this too seems to have expired, and this is once again according to Mr. Hogg. Just some potential explanations.[[User:SAWGunner89|SAWGunner89]] 15:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

== P6 hammer notch ==

As I actually own a P6, I, as I am sure many other P6 owners have, became curious of and susequently investigated the notch in the P6's hammer. I have heard various reasons for the P6 hammer's notch, including the theory that it was meant to indicate that the gun was dropped or was meant to prevent an accidental firing if it was indeed dropped. Hoever, I have come across another explanation that to me seems a bit more plausible, that it was meant to stick the loop of a retaining holster into, thereby securing the gun into the holster and preventing a drop. To me this seems to be a more potential explanation as who would want to replace a hammer each time the weapon was dropped, espiecially a SIG (not the cheapest of all firearms) and espiecially a model that SIG discontinued quite some time ago. Even finding extra (affordable) magazines for a P-225/P6 is an ordeal, so why would you try and replace a hammer every time somebody might actually drop it. I don't know, but it just does seem the best explanation to me. Also, I do not speak German, so there might be a resource out there that that I cannot utilize that expressly states the reasons for this peculiarity. Once again, just another potential explanation, what do you guys think?[[User:SAWGunner89|SAWGunner89]] 15:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

== Your picture of a SIG-Sauer P228 ==

Your main picture of a SIG-Sauer P228 looks more like a airsoftversion than a real one. The hammer has a slightly different shape than a real P228.

:I don't think it's an airsoft weapon. It was photographed for us by MoviePropMaster2008, who is a movie armorer, so that is a real weapon converted to blank-fire, from his company's inventory. However, he mentioned to me that this particular gun was dropped during a movie shoot and badly damaged, so it had a whole bunch of repairs. He is trying to find a P228 in better condition that he can photograph (preferably, one that was used in a big movie). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 16:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

== Just wondering? ==

Why do many enthusisests and military forces(Navy seals,SAS,ect) perfer this gun? Is it reliability? the different calibers?

Its exceptionally well made and accurate right out of the box, they're durable, there are a variety of options from cosmetic to alternate materials to alternate barrels and rail systems, and there are a wide variety of calibers to choose from. They're solidly built, reliable, and effective weapon platforms. The only real issue is price but if you're buying something that you want to be able to defend yourself with...any time...in any corner of the world.... then the P22# series is a prime choice.
-Double Agent M

==Confirmation==
I feel stupid for asking this but just to make sure, SIG-Sauer P220 series guns have decockers but no manual safeties right? -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

There are some SIG 220 series that come with manual safeties. The P220SAO comes to mind.-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 04:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And I assume the DAK versions don't have decockers. I should have specified that I was wondering about the DA/SA variants. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

Ah, there are no manual safeties on non SAO SIGs.-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 05:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

No problemo.

==P228 vs. 229==
What are the differences between the SIG P228 and P229 other than the fact that the 229 comes in .40 S&W and .357 SIG? -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

The P226 and P228 were originally manufactured using a stamped-steel slide on an aluminum alloy frame. The P229 consists of a CNC-milled stainless steel slide, typically colored black with a Nitron finish. The P229's milled steel slide was introduced to handle the higher slide velocities created by the .357 SIG and .40 S&W loads, which the stamped slide of the P228 could not handle without the use of a much stiffer recoil spring.
:So stamped vs. milled slide. Alright, thanks. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

==Quick question about SIGs in films and television==

I understand why SIGs are used by the military, police and weapons enthusiasts but I'm just wondering why they turn up so much in films and TV. Are they easy to convert to blanks and thus is the main go-to guns for armorers or is it SIG doing some covert advertising? I remember in the late 90s to early 00s that Glock had an equivalent presence in film and television. It's nice to see SIGs in action but can't they use a wider range of brands? - [[User:GunEnthusiast|GunEnthusiast]]

:In movies and TV, SIGs typically are typically shown in the hands of either FBI Agents (which actually issued them in real life) or military Special Forces (many of which also use them frequently). I would imagine that they are common for this reason alone - there are a lot of movies about elite units and federal agents.

:I don't think it has anything to do with them being easy to convert to blanks, because SIGs have a covered barrel whose lock-up at ejection port needs to be milled down in order for blanks to function reliably (unlike Berettas, which have a reputation for ease of blank conversion due to their open-top slides). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 20:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

==SIG-Sauer model used in recent Mythbusters==
I have a short question, in most recent episode of Mythbusters, the trio team testes a myth from Kiss The Girls movie - whether a gun can ignite a room full of gas. They used .44 Magnum, 3rd Gen Glock 17 9x19mm (if I ID'd it correctly) and a SIG-Sauer. The question is what model of SIG-Sauer was used, I'm not sure if it was P239 9x19mm? Also on a side note, they tend to mix the footage of Glock and SIG and also Tory calls the SIG a Glock... (wlw @ 27.11.2010)

== SEALS ==
Does anyone know why the Navy SEALS chose the SIG 226 for their handgun of choice, what handgun it replaced, and why it was chosen over that handgun?--[[User:MarineCorps1|MarineCorps1]] 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When the US held pistol trial to replace the 1911 in the 80's, the final two were the m9 and the P226. The M9 won based on cost alone. The SEALS originally used the M9, but after several catastrophic failures they switched to the runner-up, the 226. That was in the 80's, and they are still using it. Says a lot for SIG... I don't know what the SEALS used before, but I would assume it's some 1911 variant. --[[User:--JazzBlackBelt--|--JazzBlackBelt--]] 04:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:The Navy SEALS also used the Heckler & Koch Mark 23 for a while before switching to the SiG-Sauer P226. Reason being? The H&K Mk 23 was deemed to be a bit of a piece of shit. With a heavy trigger pull and a clunky, unwieldy feel and ability to use, the SEALS kicked that pistol to the curb pretty quick. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 20:53, 4 June 2011 (CDT)
::Form what I heard from people who actually own Mark 23s the trigger pull is better than the USP. :/ I would own a Mark 23 but that's just me, I like big, heavy (actually the Mark 23 only weighs as much as a M1911 handgun), over-engineered weapons that can survive a nuclear explosion. :P - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 20:15, 5 June 2011 (CDT)

What kind of catastrophic failures was the M9 going through and why didn't other branches replace the M9 with the SIG aside from price?--[[User:MarineCorps1|MarineCorps1]] 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
: The Slides had a tendency to break; officially as a result of the SEALs using hotter rounds than the weapon was rated for.[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 18:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
::The other branches didn't feel the need to replace the M9, probably because the SEALS have higher standards for their sidearms. Also, the SIGs were extremely durable, you could take them through saltwater, drag them through sand, even pound it with a jackhammer and they would still fire. The other branches didn't use their sidearms nearly as much as the SEALS. Presently the Coast Guard is using the SIG-Sauer P229, and the actual agency NCIS (naval criminal investigative service, pretty much cops for the navy and marines) use P229s as well. Also, I don't know where you live, but if u live in america go on youtube and search for "nutnfancy p226 part 1" its the first one that shows up. He talks about the history of the P226 and its use with the SEALS.--[[User:--JazzBlackBelt--|--JazzBlackBelt--]] 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The SIG P229 is a fine weapon, from my experiance its the best shooting handgun for me. Wonder if the P220 works aswell because I want one.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 03:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

== New P226 ==

Has anyone seen the new production line SIG P226s? What do you guys think of the new grips? They've got the same grips that the E2 has now. I like them but I will miss the old P226 grips. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 15:34, 7 June 2011 (CDT)
:I honestly think that I am the only one who does not like them. I like how they try to appeal to smaller-handed shooters, but I think they should have kept the "classic" style availiable as well. I handled a classic P226 with the E2 grips installed, and it just didn't feel right to me. They did this to the P229 (my favorite gun) and changed the slide style as well. I will miss the classic grips. (It feels so weird calling the SIGs I know and love the classic version)--[[User:--JazzBlackBelt--|--JazzBlackBelt--]] 02:46, 12 June 2011 (CDT)

Being a Brit the closest I get to handling a real gun are my airsoft ones, but if I manage to move to America (which is one of my lifes goals) I'd like to get some real guns. One of them is a SIG Sauer P226 but I prefer the classic unrailed frame. I wish SIG still produced those for sale as well. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 04:35, 12 June 2011 (CDT)

You can still get the old grips for SIGs. They sell them on their website, and i'm sure that various other distributors bought ass-loads of them to sell. The new grips give more options to a wider range of shooters. --[[User:TheDon|TheDon]] 09:56, 25 July 2011 (CDT)

:I've been thinking about ordering a pair for a while. Even though I can get my hand around my 226's grip just fine (the smaller circumference doesn't matter much to me), I've never liked the texture of the previous generation grips. The E2 grip texture is designed to be a lot like the grips on the very earliest P226s (the checker-pattern grips).

:Also, SIG just introduced the "P226 German", which is a rail frame P226 that has the German-manufactured stamped slide of the oldest model P226s. I might have to get one some day - the old stamped slides are WAY superior to the milled slides that have been standard since the late-90s. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 10:27, 25 July 2011 (CDT)

When I saw the "P226 German" on their website I was hoping it would be a classic P226 without a rail but it has the rail. I don't understand why they don't still produce unrailed framed P226s. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 12:55, 25 July 2011 (CDT)

I must admit that I thought the same thing when I saw the German on their site. And i'm sure many other people were just as disappointed when they saw the rail... honestly, I can see where they could be useful, but aesthetically I prefer SIGs without rails. Like the P229 SAS, for instance. --[[User:TheDon|TheDon]] 22:40, 25 July 2011 (CDT)

They could be useful but SIGs look so much better without them. And there's nothing wrong with the Harries technique in my opinion if you need a flash light. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 06:11, 26 July 2011 (CDT)

== P239 Slide ==

As far as I can tell, there are two different slide designs for the P239, the first being the one similar to the P228 that is seen on the gun images for this page, but then you also have a design similar to the P229 that can be seen on the pages for [[Chuck]] and [[Nikita (2010)]] for example. Does this indicate different manufacture date, or does the slide change with calibre? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 02:23, 7 October 2011 (CDT)
::I think the slide changes as to whether its a 9mm or 40 cal. The reason why the 228 was discontinued in favor of the 229 was that they couldn't make the 228 strong enough to take 40 cal and the 'marketplace' expected any 9mm to be available in .40 SW as well. So I believe the frame can take the stresses of both 9mm and 40 cal and (obviously) the barrel and slides are different. :) Of course, now I expect someone out of the blue to completely prove me wrong .... sigh....[[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 03:52, 7 October 2011 (CDT)
:::I believe that is right, just remember that the slides are reversed in the 239 (half serration = 9mm, full serration = 40SW or 357SIG) compared to the 228/229. Also the frame of the 228 is slightly smaller than that of the 229, and old model 229's in 9mm have a slightly smaller frame than those in 40SW, though, if I understand it right, the new model 229's (full cocking serration) use the same frame for both 9mm and 40SW. The size does not make that big of a difference unless you try to put E2 grips onto a 228, where the size difference will prevent them from fitting (unless you got a late model 228 that used 229 frames). Hope that helped rather than confused. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 07:42, 7 October 2011 (CDT)
::::Thanks, that helps. Assumed it was calibres as the SIG website has current pics of both types, but assumed it was the same way round as P228/P229 and wondered why the most common version in TV is .40 rather than 9mm. Second part has thrown me though, as didn't realise that P229s now had full height serrations. Is there anyway (from a distance without examining frame thickness) to tell the difference between a current P229 and a P228R? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 09:02, 7 October 2011 (CDT)
:::::The new P229's have the E2 grip which is smaller than the old grip, lack grip screws, and are one piece as opposed to the older 2 piece model. But since the P228R uses a P229 frame and E2 grips can be attached to older P229 frames, and the new P229's can still have the old grip style swapped in if the user so desires, there is no real way without holding it or seeing the stamp on the slide to know for sure.[[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 10:25, 7 October 2011 (CDT)

Talk:SIG-Sauer P220 pistol series

2011-10-07T12:42:47Z

Dover500: /* P239 Slide */

__TOC__<br clear=all>

==Other Variants==
[[Image:SIGP220R LiveFreeDieHard.jpg|thumb|none|400px|SIG-Sauer P220R - .45 ACP. This is the screen used gun carried and fired by [[Bruce Willis]] in ''[[Live Free or Die Hard]]''.]]
[[Image:Line of Fire Eastwood Gun Left.jpg|thumb|none|400px|'''World IMFDB Exclusive:''' Screen-used live firing '''SIG-Sauer P228'''. This weapon is verified as screen used from the film ''[[In the Line of Fire]]'', and was carried and fired by [[Clint Eastwood]] in the film. IMFDB thanks [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/ The Golden Closet] for providing this photo; also see their sales page for the weapon, [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/merchant/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=6ef04a13fbe759cbdcbdc6bc4c4b809f&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=P00276&Store_Code=TGC&search=228&offset=0&filter_cat=&PowerSearch_Begin_Only=&sort=&range_low=&range_high= here].]]
[[Image:Line of Fire Eastwood Gun Right.jpg|thumb|none|400px|The '''SIG-Sauer P228''' from ''[[In the Line of Fire]]'' (seen from the right).]]
[[Image:VirtuosityP228.jpg|thumb|none|400px|A two-tone '''SIG-Sauer P228''' (9x19mm) with Wilcox Industries UITC laser and barrel compensator, as used by [[Denzel Washington]] in the film ''[[Virtuosity]]''. The weapon pictured here is the actual screen-used gun from the movie, one of four that were made for the film. One of these guns is re-used in the film ''[[Barb Wire]]''.]]
[[Image:X-Five-LW-detail.jpg|thumb|none|400px|SIG Sauer X5 LW - 9x19mm]]
[[Image:IMFDB P00268 Sopranos Tony Soprano Sig 226.jpg|thumb|none|400px|'''World IMFDB Exclusive:''' Screen used SIG-Sauer P226 - 9x19mm. This blank firing weapon is verified as screen used by actor [[James Gandolfini]] in '''[[The Sopranos]]'''. This specific gun was the one fired onscreen when he, Paulie, and Silvio kill Pussy in Funhouse (2.13). More detailed images and purchasing information on this item can be found at [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/ The Golden Closet]; see [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/merchant/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=6ef04a13fbe759cbdcbdc6bc4c4b809f&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=P00268&Store_Code=TGC&search=Sopranos&offset=0&filter_cat=&PowerSearch_Begin_Only=&sort=&range_low=&range_high= this link].]]
[[Image:IMFDB P00273 Sopranos Paulie Sig P228.jpg|thumb|none|400px|'''World IMFDB Exclusive:''' Screen used SIG-Sauer P228 pistol with non-functional prop silencer - 9x19mm. This live firing weapon is verified as screen used by actor [[Tony Sirico]] in '''[[The Sopranos]]'''. This gun was fired onscreen in the episode A Hit Is A Hit (1.10) during the scene where Paulie and other members of the Sopranos crew pose as furniture movers and ambush a drug cartel bagman and steal his money. After the hold up, Paulie shoots the man in the head at point blank range before making off with his drug money (IMFDB thanks [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/ The Golden Closet] for providing the documentation on this gun. Contact them via their website for more detailed images and purchasing information on this item.)]]
[[Image:P00619.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Screen used SIG-Sauer P229 - 9x19mm. This blank firing weapon is verified as screen used from the film ''[[Salt]]''. The gun has been modified to fire blank rounds only. This item is currently being sold by [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/ The Golden Closet]; see[http://www.thegoldencloset.com/merchant/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=6ef04a13fbe759cbdcbdc6bc4c4b809f&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=P00619&Store_Code=TGC&search=Salt&offset=0&filter_cat=&PowerSearch_Begin_Only=&sort=&range_low=&range_high= this link].]]
[[Image:M&MSSIGP229.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Two of the SIG-Sauer P229 pistols used in the film ''[[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]]'' - 9x19mm.]]
[[Image:Sig-sauerP229DAK.jpg|thumb|none|400px|SIG-Sauer P229R - 9x19mm (also chambered for .40 S&W & .357 SIG)]]
[[Image:SigP226TwoTone01.jpg|thumb|none|400px|A reverse Two-Tone SIG-Sauer P226 - 9x19mm (identical configuration to the gun from ''[[2 Fast 2 Furious]]''; this weapon was assembled and photographed specially for IMFDB by [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]]).]]
[[Image:p226_tactical.jpg|thumb|none|400px|SIG-Sauer P226R fitted with a weaponlight - 9x19mm]]

==P245==
I like the P245. I bought one back in 2000. I owned both the P220 and the P245 for many years and I always found that I shot better with the P245. Eventually traded the P220, but I still have the P245. It's a nice little shooter. But truth be told I did purchase the eight round magazine from Sig. So I guess the P220 Compact just makes more sense. From a business aspect. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

==P228==
I'm a bit confused about the P228. I thought that it has been discontinued for about 10 years. But that the Military uses them and I know that SIG recently came out with a P228R model. So my question is: Is it still being produced or not? -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 00:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

:The P228R is a limited production run weapon. SIG had lots of surplus P228 slides, so they modified them to fit P229R frames (even though the 229 has always been a bit wider than the 228). As for the military's use of the P228, that's just because they bought so many of them in the 1990s that they still have lots in inventory. But the original, non-rail P228 (the version still seen in most movies today) has been out of production since 2000, when the P229 in 9mm was introduced. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]

::Ok thank you for clearing that up for me. Much appreciated! -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 05:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== P220 ==
Is the P220 still manufactured in any caliber other than 45 ACP? I know the .38 super and .30 luger variants were discontinued but many nations have adopted the 9mm version for Police and Military use so it seems odd they would have discontinued it, yet SIG-Sauer's websight only lists it as comming in .45. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

Everywhere I've looked for info says no. All modern (Railed I assume) P220's are strictly .45 ACP.
Personally I like this line of thinking, a single stack 9x19mm seems pointless when you can get a P226, or a P229 and carry more rounds. --[[User:Crazycrankle|Crazycrankle]] 10:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Swiss military is a big user of the P-220 pistol. I wonder if they might have their own production line somewhere (as they did with the Luger) and just do not offer them commercially anymore. Also, SIG as the monolith that it once was is no more, having broken up into various other companies: the SIG-Sauer brand, now based out of Germany (and responsible for the P-220-5, P-226, P229, SIG-556, and all other continued SIG-Sauer firearms), and Swiss Arms, the manufacturer of the SIG-550 series firearms (the 550, 551, 552, and 553), and others. It is possible that the Swiss government procured the machinery after the demise of SIG to produce the P/75 (as I believe the Swiss military calls it) and is producing them for their own uses. This seems all the more likely when it is considered that an officer in the Swiss military is given the option of purchasing his own service sidearm once he leaves the military (and thus a finite stockpile might soon quickly expire). Just for information's sake, an enlisted person within the Swiss military is given the option of actually purchasing his own service weapon once he leaves the service (this is done by sending it back to the manufacturer were it is converted to a semi-automatic only rifle and then sent to the former soldier). The Chilean government had its own license to produce these domestcally through FAMAE (according to Ian Hogg) though this seems to have expired and FAMAE now produces a variant of the CZ-75 and the Japanese government also license produced the design at one point (perhaps through Howa Industries), although this too seems to have expired, and this is once again according to Mr. Hogg. Just some potential explanations.[[User:SAWGunner89|SAWGunner89]] 15:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

== P6 hammer notch ==

As I actually own a P6, I, as I am sure many other P6 owners have, became curious of and susequently investigated the notch in the P6's hammer. I have heard various reasons for the P6 hammer's notch, including the theory that it was meant to indicate that the gun was dropped or was meant to prevent an accidental firing if it was indeed dropped. Hoever, I have come across another explanation that to me seems a bit more plausible, that it was meant to stick the loop of a retaining holster into, thereby securing the gun into the holster and preventing a drop. To me this seems to be a more potential explanation as who would want to replace a hammer each time the weapon was dropped, espiecially a SIG (not the cheapest of all firearms) and espiecially a model that SIG discontinued quite some time ago. Even finding extra (affordable) magazines for a P-225/P6 is an ordeal, so why would you try and replace a hammer every time somebody might actually drop it. I don't know, but it just does seem the best explanation to me. Also, I do not speak German, so there might be a resource out there that that I cannot utilize that expressly states the reasons for this peculiarity. Once again, just another potential explanation, what do you guys think?[[User:SAWGunner89|SAWGunner89]] 15:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

== Your picture of a SIG-Sauer P228 ==

Your main picture of a SIG-Sauer P228 looks more like a airsoftversion than a real one. The hammer has a slightly different shape than a real P228.

:I don't think it's an airsoft weapon. It was photographed for us by MoviePropMaster2008, who is a movie armorer, so that is a real weapon converted to blank-fire, from his company's inventory. However, he mentioned to me that this particular gun was dropped during a movie shoot and badly damaged, so it had a whole bunch of repairs. He is trying to find a P228 in better condition that he can photograph (preferably, one that was used in a big movie). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 16:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

== Just wondering? ==

Why do many enthusisests and military forces(Navy seals,SAS,ect) perfer this gun? Is it reliability? the different calibers?

Its exceptionally well made and accurate right out of the box, they're durable, there are a variety of options from cosmetic to alternate materials to alternate barrels and rail systems, and there are a wide variety of calibers to choose from. They're solidly built, reliable, and effective weapon platforms. The only real issue is price but if you're buying something that you want to be able to defend yourself with...any time...in any corner of the world.... then the P22# series is a prime choice.
-Double Agent M

==Confirmation==
I feel stupid for asking this but just to make sure, SIG-Sauer P220 series guns have decockers but no manual safeties right? -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

There are some SIG 220 series that come with manual safeties. The P220SAO comes to mind.-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 04:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And I assume the DAK versions don't have decockers. I should have specified that I was wondering about the DA/SA variants. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

Ah, there are no manual safeties on non SAO SIGs.-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 05:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

No problemo.

==P228 vs. 229==
What are the differences between the SIG P228 and P229 other than the fact that the 229 comes in .40 S&W and .357 SIG? -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

The P226 and P228 were originally manufactured using a stamped-steel slide on an aluminum alloy frame. The P229 consists of a CNC-milled stainless steel slide, typically colored black with a Nitron finish. The P229's milled steel slide was introduced to handle the higher slide velocities created by the .357 SIG and .40 S&W loads, which the stamped slide of the P228 could not handle without the use of a much stiffer recoil spring.
:So stamped vs. milled slide. Alright, thanks. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

==Quick question about SIGs in films and television==

I understand why SIGs are used by the military, police and weapons enthusiasts but I'm just wondering why they turn up so much in films and TV. Are they easy to convert to blanks and thus is the main go-to guns for armorers or is it SIG doing some covert advertising? I remember in the late 90s to early 00s that Glock had an equivalent presence in film and television. It's nice to see SIGs in action but can't they use a wider range of brands? - [[User:GunEnthusiast|GunEnthusiast]]

:In movies and TV, SIGs typically are typically shown in the hands of either FBI Agents (which actually issued them in real life) or military Special Forces (many of which also use them frequently). I would imagine that they are common for this reason alone - there are a lot of movies about elite units and federal agents.

:I don't think it has anything to do with them being easy to convert to blanks, because SIGs have a covered barrel whose lock-up at ejection port needs to be milled down in order for blanks to function reliably (unlike Berettas, which have a reputation for ease of blank conversion due to their open-top slides). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 20:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

==SIG-Sauer model used in recent Mythbusters==
I have a short question, in most recent episode of Mythbusters, the trio team testes a myth from Kiss The Girls movie - whether a gun can ignite a room full of gas. They used .44 Magnum, 3rd Gen Glock 17 9x19mm (if I ID'd it correctly) and a SIG-Sauer. The question is what model of SIG-Sauer was used, I'm not sure if it was P239 9x19mm? Also on a side note, they tend to mix the footage of Glock and SIG and also Tory calls the SIG a Glock... (wlw @ 27.11.2010)

== SEALS ==
Does anyone know why the Navy SEALS chose the SIG 226 for their handgun of choice, what handgun it replaced, and why it was chosen over that handgun?--[[User:MarineCorps1|MarineCorps1]] 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When the US held pistol trial to replace the 1911 in the 80's, the final two were the m9 and the P226. The M9 won based on cost alone. The SEALS originally used the M9, but after several catastrophic failures they switched to the runner-up, the 226. That was in the 80's, and they are still using it. Says a lot for SIG... I don't know what the SEALS used before, but I would assume it's some 1911 variant. --[[User:--JazzBlackBelt--|--JazzBlackBelt--]] 04:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
:The Navy SEALS also used the Heckler & Koch Mark 23 for a while before switching to the SiG-Sauer P226. Reason being? The H&K Mk 23 was deemed to be a bit of a piece of shit. With a heavy trigger pull and a clunky, unwieldy feel and ability to use, the SEALS kicked that pistol to the curb pretty quick. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 20:53, 4 June 2011 (CDT)
::Form what I heard from people who actually own Mark 23s the trigger pull is better than the USP. :/ I would own a Mark 23 but that's just me, I like big, heavy (actually the Mark 23 only weighs as much as a M1911 handgun), over-engineered weapons that can survive a nuclear explosion. :P - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 20:15, 5 June 2011 (CDT)

What kind of catastrophic failures was the M9 going through and why didn't other branches replace the M9 with the SIG aside from price?--[[User:MarineCorps1|MarineCorps1]] 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
: The Slides had a tendency to break; officially as a result of the SEALs using hotter rounds than the weapon was rated for.[[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 18:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
::The other branches didn't feel the need to replace the M9, probably because the SEALS have higher standards for their sidearms. Also, the SIGs were extremely durable, you could take them through saltwater, drag them through sand, even pound it with a jackhammer and they would still fire. The other branches didn't use their sidearms nearly as much as the SEALS. Presently the Coast Guard is using the SIG-Sauer P229, and the actual agency NCIS (naval criminal investigative service, pretty much cops for the navy and marines) use P229s as well. Also, I don't know where you live, but if u live in america go on youtube and search for "nutnfancy p226 part 1" its the first one that shows up. He talks about the history of the P226 and its use with the SEALS.--[[User:--JazzBlackBelt--|--JazzBlackBelt--]] 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The SIG P229 is a fine weapon, from my experiance its the best shooting handgun for me. Wonder if the P220 works aswell because I want one.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 03:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

== New P226 ==

Has anyone seen the new production line SIG P226s? What do you guys think of the new grips? They've got the same grips that the E2 has now. I like them but I will miss the old P226 grips. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 15:34, 7 June 2011 (CDT)
:I honestly think that I am the only one who does not like them. I like how they try to appeal to smaller-handed shooters, but I think they should have kept the "classic" style availiable as well. I handled a classic P226 with the E2 grips installed, and it just didn't feel right to me. They did this to the P229 (my favorite gun) and changed the slide style as well. I will miss the classic grips. (It feels so weird calling the SIGs I know and love the classic version)--[[User:--JazzBlackBelt--|--JazzBlackBelt--]] 02:46, 12 June 2011 (CDT)

Being a Brit the closest I get to handling a real gun are my airsoft ones, but if I manage to move to America (which is one of my lifes goals) I'd like to get some real guns. One of them is a SIG Sauer P226 but I prefer the classic unrailed frame. I wish SIG still produced those for sale as well. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 04:35, 12 June 2011 (CDT)

You can still get the old grips for SIGs. They sell them on their website, and i'm sure that various other distributors bought ass-loads of them to sell. The new grips give more options to a wider range of shooters. --[[User:TheDon|TheDon]] 09:56, 25 July 2011 (CDT)

:I've been thinking about ordering a pair for a while. Even though I can get my hand around my 226's grip just fine (the smaller circumference doesn't matter much to me), I've never liked the texture of the previous generation grips. The E2 grip texture is designed to be a lot like the grips on the very earliest P226s (the checker-pattern grips).

:Also, SIG just introduced the "P226 German", which is a rail frame P226 that has the German-manufactured stamped slide of the oldest model P226s. I might have to get one some day - the old stamped slides are WAY superior to the milled slides that have been standard since the late-90s. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 10:27, 25 July 2011 (CDT)

When I saw the "P226 German" on their website I was hoping it would be a classic P226 without a rail but it has the rail. I don't understand why they don't still produce unrailed framed P226s. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 12:55, 25 July 2011 (CDT)

I must admit that I thought the same thing when I saw the German on their site. And i'm sure many other people were just as disappointed when they saw the rail... honestly, I can see where they could be useful, but aesthetically I prefer SIGs without rails. Like the P229 SAS, for instance. --[[User:TheDon|TheDon]] 22:40, 25 July 2011 (CDT)

They could be useful but SIGs look so much better without them. And there's nothing wrong with the Harries technique in my opinion if you need a flash light. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 06:11, 26 July 2011 (CDT)

== P239 Slide ==

As far as I can tell, there are two different slide designs for the P239, the first being the one similar to the P228 that is seen on the gun images for this page, but then you also have a design similar to the P229 that can be seen on the pages for [[Chuck]] and [[Nikita (2010)]] for example. Does this indicate different manufacture date, or does the slide change with calibre? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 02:23, 7 October 2011 (CDT)
::I think the slide changes as to whether its a 9mm or 40 cal. The reason why the 228 was discontinued in favor of the 229 was that they couldn't make the 228 strong enough to take 40 cal and the 'marketplace' expected any 9mm to be available in .40 SW as well. So I believe the frame can take the stresses of both 9mm and 40 cal and (obviously) the barrel and slides are different. :) Of course, now I expect someone out of the blue to completely prove me wrong .... sigh....[[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 03:52, 7 October 2011 (CDT)
::::I believe that is right, just remember that the slides are reversed in the 239 (half serration = 9mm, full serration = 40SW or 357SIG) compared to the 228/229. Also the frame of the 228 is slightly smaller than that of the 229, and old model 229's in 9mm have a slightly smaller frame than those in 40SW, though, if I understand it right, the new model 229's (full cocking serration) use the same frame for both 9mm and 40SW. The size does not make that big of a difference unless you try to put E2 grips onto a 228, where the size difference will prevent them from fitting (unless you got a late model 228 that used 229 frames). Hope that helped rather than confused. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 07:42, 7 October 2011 (CDT)

Talk:FN P90

2011-09-17T11:22:06Z

Dover500: /* P90 Tactical */

== P90 TR and PS90 ==

Do FN actually offer a TR version? As I understood it, the TR version is a figment of airsoft gunmaker Toyko Marui's imagination which was created to allow them to resume production after the mould for their standard P90 sight block broke. I have seen real P90s with triple rail sight blocks in photos, but described as aftermarket parts. Airsoft P90s are so close to the real thing, and P90s are so rarely seen actually firing on film, that I feel it is likely that all or nearly all P90TRs on film are actually airsoft guns.

With the PS90, I thought that was semi-auto only in factory form, sold as the civilian-legal version of the P90, hence the long barrel, much as an HK94 is to an MP5. I'm not certain about either of these things, so I thought it best to ask the pros before changing the page.

The PS90 is according to FN a Semi-Automatic only weapon. As for the P90TR that is offered by FNUSA as a Standard Production Model.[[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

: The PS90 is really friggin' front heavy-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 05:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::Wasn't when I held it.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 00:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

==Magazines==
FN only offers 30 round magazines for the civilian version of this gun but I have heard that the 50 round magazines are fairly easy to find after market. Can anyone confirm or deny this? -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]
:I found a few on impactguns and gunbroker, you can also buy directly from their site fnhusa, and I'm pretty sure you can find some from google.--[[User:ThePotShot|ThePotShot]] 04:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::Still don't understand why they ship with 30 round mags instead of 50. All that happens is the new owner of this gun gets it with the 30 rounder, then buys 50s after that.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 00:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats the point, if they just gave you a 50rd mag then thats one less thing your gonna buy from em. They can nickel and dime ya to death hah.-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 10:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

:But then theres the aftermarket magazines plus the tooling needed to make those magazines. Its really pointless.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 20:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

==TR==
TR stands for Triple Rail not Tactical Rail as it is on the page. I just checked FNH USA's website it is there. --[[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 17:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

== Question ==

How powerful is the 5.7x28mm round anyway? Can it penetrate through your standard bulletproof vest? Or can it also penetrate the more heavier bulletproof vests? --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 17:55, 17 March 2011 (CDT)
:The P90 can penetrate through light bulletproof vests (mostly Level II) like those wrapped in Kevlar with ease, but it cannot actually penetrate through the move heavier bulletproof vests. The 5.7x28mm rounds are similar to the 4.6x30mm rounds fired by the MP7. In fact, both the MP7 and the P90 are technically and generally similar in terms of accuracy, compactness, stopping power, and weight (though the P90 is more bulkier than the MP7). The 5.7x28mm rounds are overall powerful, light, and a similar size to the 9mm rounds fired by most submachine guns. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 22:09, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
::It can actually penetrate a IIIA vest, or the CRISAT target (1.6mm titanium plate with 20 layers of Kevlar) at 200m. Basically, it will penetrate any soft armour and most helmets at this range, but will be stopped by the hard plates used in most military vests. The MP7 has similar penetration. Of course, this only applies to military ammunition, not the civilian stuff. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 03:33, 17 September 2011 (CDT)

== Taxi Listing ==

The movie page [[Taxi]] doesn't have a P90 entry, so either it's missing it or the entry for it here needs to be removed. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 12:41, 28 June 2011 (CDT)

== P90 Tactical ==

[[File:P90 tact d 500px.jpg|thumb|400px|none|FN P90 Tactical - 5.7x28mm]]
Firstly, what is the deal with the Tactical model? It is the railed top model listed on the FN Herstal website, but the FNH USA page only lists the TR version. Is the Tactical a Europe only version, or is it just that the US website is "behind the times"?

Secondly, does it deserve its own section? The only show I've found that has used it is [[Nikita (2010)|Nikita]] (only checked the TR section though so could be more), is that enough? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:54, 16 August 2011 (CDT)
:It seems to be a regular P90 with the reflex scope replaced with a rail. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 20:40, 16 August 2011 (CDT)
::That is what it is, but it isn't an aftermarket modification, FN sells it like that as the P90 Tactical as opposed to the regular P90 Standard. They don't appear to offer the P90 TR anymore, this is the only "flat top" model. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 03:36, 17 August 2011 (CDT)
:::Not that it necessarily pertains to this conversation, but the P90 in the P90 TR section with the aimpoint and sound suppressor looks like it could be a Tactical instead of a TR, as the scope is sitting higher and the flashlight seems further back than it should be on the TR. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 06:22, 17 September 2011 (CDT)

Talk:SIG SG 550

2011-09-01T00:38:34Z

Dover500: /* Additional Variants */

=Additional Variants=

[[Image:SIG SG 553.jpg|thumb|450px|none|SIG SG 553 - 5.56x45mm]]
[[Image:SIG SG 553-2.jpg|thumb|450px|none|SIG SG 553 with railed handguard, vertical foregrip, flashlight, and ACOG scope - 5.56x45mm]]

The top image looks like a 552, with the round bar charging handle, instead of a 553, which has a charging handle shaped like the one found on the 550/551. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 19:38, 31 August 2011 (CDT)

Talk:Castle

2011-08-28T21:38:09Z

Dover500:

This is ridiculous 173.24.175.63, one of us has to win. --[[User:Crazycrankle|Crazycrankle]] 03:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:What's going on here? -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 03:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I though I'd fix it up make it proper (At least in my eyes), and apparently we had similar thoughts around the same time. But very different ideas. --[[User:Crazycrankle|Crazycrankle]] 03:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't seem as bad as I though it was, just the one edit conflict. I though there was two or three for some reason. --[[User:Crazycrankle|Crazycrankle]] 03:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

== Gun in episode 2x17 Tick, Tick, Tick... ==

I believe that the killer in Tick, Tick, Tick... is using a STI gun when he kills the character Ben Conrad.
Don't know the exact model, but it has a full length dust cover, an a mag well.
Possible model: M2011 Edge. http://www.stiguns.com/guns/Edge/Edge.php

they said it was a .45 and it looked like a colt M1911 but I could be wrong

== M4A1 ==
What is the marking on Esposito's M4's receiver? --[[User:Charon68|Charon68]] 09:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

== Scope on MP5 ==

Does anybody know which scope that is on the MP. Or is a RDS?

== Smith & Wesson Model 625 ==

[[Image:Castle-Revolver-1.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Nothing better unfortunately. - ''Episode: Hedgefund Homeboys'']]
In what world is that a .45 revolver? Little small lads. --[[User:Jackie.45Cal|Jackie.45Cal]] 09:36, 7 April 2011 (CDT)

== Lucky Stiff (Season 3, Ep. 14) ==

What is the victim of the episode killed with? I remember the forensics saying he was killed by a 9x19mm bullet through the heart. The 9x33mmR revolver is dismissed by Beckett by visual inspection itself saying the revolver is too big to be the murder weapon. Aren't both bullets of same diameter therefore wouldn't the entry wounds be same? [[User:Devang.home47|Devang.home47]] 01:46, 17 June 2011 (CDT)

== Unknown Sniper Rifle ==

It looks like a M14 SOPMOD, based on the rail that runs all the way across the top of the gun and the collapsable stock combined with the mag and the iron sights that look similar to that found on a M14/M1a. [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 16:38, 28 August 2011 (CDT)

Talk:The Other Guys

2011-08-28T20:01:21Z

Dover500: /* SIG 556 Classic */

== Pearl Grip 1911 ==
It's an m1911 see picture below, you can see the beavertail grips? The gold symbol on the pearl grips could mean its a Colt MK IV Series 70/80?
http://trailers.apple.com//705/us/media/galleries/sony_pictures/theotherguys/DF-06887_720.jpg
Yeah, In those pre-production shots, I thought Highsmith had a Nickel Revolver, I thought a King Cobra.

[[Image:M1911A1-AutoOrdChrome PF.jpg|thumb|none|400px|This is the screen used [[M1911 pistol series#Auto Ordnance M1911A1|Auto Ordnance 1911A1]] that was carried and fired by ''[[John Travolta]]'' in the movie. ]]
[[Image:Colt-MKIV-Series70.jpg|thumb|450px|none|Colt Mk IV Series 70]]

http://trailers.apple.com//705/us/media/galleries/sony_pictures/theotherguys/DF-06887_720.jpg

It's very clear in the Linked Image, that it's a 1911 and not a Browning High-Power.

They appear to be pearl grips from the still, but have a look at [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/merchant/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=6ef04a13fbe759cbdcbdc6bc4c4b809f&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TGC&Product_Code=P00654&Category_Code=OtherGuys this]. --[[User:Polk|Polk]] 11:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

== Three Desert Eagles and a... SIG? ==
Looks like a P220 Sport, but the Comp has a rail attached to the bottom. And if anyone says it's not a .45, look at the barrel size... I guess those are .357 Desert Eagles then...
[[Image:Theotherguysposter.jpg|thumb|450px|none|]]

== Other Weapons ==
I just saw the movie, I noticed that there was a Daewoo K3. It could possibly be a M249 or Minimi, I'm guessing the Daewoo based on how common the K3 is and how minor the part it is used.

There was also possibly a USAS 12 shotgun with a scope... -[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 06:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:The Daewoo K3 is only common in movies filmed in British Columbia, Canada, because Felcan Enterprises (the major film armory located in that neck of the woods) only seems to have K3s in inventory and uses them as M249 stand-ins. ''[[The Other Guys]]'' was not filmed in British Columbia (it was filmed entirely on location in New York City), and American armorers have lots of real Minimi/M249s. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 09:37, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

== SIG 556 Classic ==

At least one of the helicopter shooters at the end uses a SIG 556 Classic.

The pic looks more like a standard 556 with m4 style stock and a 551 hand guard (the 556 classic hand guard has smaller vents that go the full length of it, while the 551 has three large vents at the front of the hand guard). [[User:Dover500|Dover500]] 15:01, 28 August 2011 (CDT)

== Oh the irony ==

After the captain takes Gamble's Glock saying he'll get it back when he learns to handle it properly his finger is on the trigger and Ferrell has good finger safety throughout the film.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 04:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

== Desert Eagles==

Used .357s Desert Eagles Can be easily had for under 1000 dollars... The rest of the posters opinion is irrelevant and unnecessary. Will Ferrells comment is accurate enough for casual conversation. --Furious Oyster