2012-07-21T00:00:59Z

ThatoneguyJosh:

[[File:BANDR.jpg|thumb|right|300px|''Batman & Robin'' (1997)]]

''Batman & Robin'' is the fourth installment in the Batman film series that began with 1989's ''[[Batman]]''. In the 1997 sequel, Batman (this time played by [[George Clooney]]) and Robin ([[Chris O'Donnell]]) attempt to save Gotham City from the grips of Mr. Freeze ([[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]) and Poison Ivy ([[Uma Thurman]]). Due to disastrous reviews and poor box office, the Batman film franchise would not return to the big screen until the 2005 reboot with ''[[Batman Begins]]''.

'''The following weapons were used in the film ''Batman & Robin'':'''
__TOC__ 

==Smith & Wesson Model 19==
At the beginning of the film, security guards at the Gotham Museum of Art use [[Smith & Wesson Model 19]] revolvers to open fire on Mr. Freeze ([[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]).
[[Image:S%26WModel19-4Inch.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Smith & Wesson Model 19 - .357 magnum.]]
[[File:BANDR 01.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The Gotham Museum security guards open fire on Mr. Freeze with their Model 19s...]]
[[File:BANDR 03.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The two security guards keep firing at Mr. Freeze, while the 3rd guard prepares to draw his own Model 19.]]
[[File:BANDR 06.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The first security guard tries to squeeze off another shot, but ends up being frozen by Mr. Freeze]]
[[File:BANDR 07.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The second guard gets frozen as well as he attempts to shield himself. His Model 19 is visible in his right hand.]]

{{Batman Series}}

[[Category:Movie]]
[[Category:Action Movie]]
[[Category:Crime]]

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops II

2012-07-20T23:44:45Z

ThatoneguyJosh:

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops II

2012-07-07T22:38:49Z

ThatoneguyJosh: /* Gameplay footage */ new section

Talk:Reign of Fire

2012-06-25T07:46:34Z

ThatoneguyJosh:

Given Van Zan's tank is a Chieftain, wouldn't the mocked-up gun be an L37A1 (ie FN MAG) rather than an M2? [[User:Vangelis|Vangelis]] 09:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
:No, too big to be a MAG from what I can see of it (I'm watching the movie as I write this). [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 08:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: where did you guys get all the info about the t-rex rifle? i googled it and just got this page. just wondering.

I would also like to find out more about the T-Rex rifle, I've searched online for examples/information about Elephant Guns but can only find stuff on ammunition, no actual models/examples of guns!!!

Note the scope used on the T-Rex rifle. Leupold optics. The gold ring around the objective lens housing is the giveaway. Leupold scopes are very tough and have a good return to zero after dismounting. ''Wraith''

== Organizing firearms by type ==

I'm just organizing some pages. I'm not changing the text or screencaps, but I'm anal and I am grouping the firearms by type. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 21:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
the t rex rifle is actually a 577 tyransaur not a 577 nitro the term 577 trex refers to the 577 tyranasaur cartrige you can find it on the mini compendium big bore web page.dalemac37

== Saracen APC ==

[[Image:ROFM2HB-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|An American cocks his Browning M2HB as they aproach the British refugee castle. A Saracen APC is pictured in the Background, why would the American army use a Obsolete British Vehicle?]]

Actually, it makes sense. The americans arrived in a plane, so the space was limited for them. Then they landed and geared up with anything they could find. [[User:Markost|Markost]] 16:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does make sense for the Americans to have salvaged some British gear. But it doesn't make sense for a British tank to have a Russian DShk on it, or for American soldiers to be using the Singaporean Ultrimax 100. [[User:Pravda616|Pravda616]] 15:04 11/2/11

They aren´t soldiers. Anyway, you should ask the armorer why the DShk. Maybe he wanted to make the Chieftain more badass with that Mg. [[User:Markost|Markost]]

:Well, remember guys, in any post-apocalypse scenario, if you're a soldier or a survivor with a group of other soldiers/survivors on the move trying to survive and/or destroy whatever enemy or threat that has made the Earth into a post-apocalypse wasteland, you salvage and scavenge for whatever resources, supplies and weapons you can get your hands on in every destroyed neighborhood, town, city, state or country that you're traveling through or staying in. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 02:46, 25 June 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Battleship (2012)

2012-06-02T05:39:46Z

ThatoneguyJosh:

...Really? So, how long until that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHY8NKj3RKs Minesweeper movie] comes out? [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:24, 18 August 2011 (CDT)

Wow. Just wow. I realize Hollywood is running out of original ideas, but have they run out of movies to remake and video games to base on so quick that they're basing movies on ''board games''? What's next? Chutes & Ladders? Sorry? Scrabble? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 16:07, 22 August 2011 (CDT)
:Are you talking about the same people who made a four movie, billion dollar franchise from an amusement park ride? (Pirates of the Caribbean.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 16:14, 22 August 2011 (CDT)
::At least the PotC ride had some personality. Battleship is a two-sided tray where you try to "sink" tiny plastic ships by guessing grid numbers. And they're making an ''alien invasion'' flick of it! Battleship had zilch whatsoever to do with aliens. It's like making an Iraq War movie and calling it ''Xbox: The Movie''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 17:09, 23 August 2011 (CDT)
:::Mind you, PotC is still around because it worked. Disney also tried Country Bears and Haunted Mansion movies, and they didn't. I'm with you, when I heard that they wanted to make a movie out of the game Battleship, I thought it was ludicrous, but if you just think of it as an alien attack movie that just happens to involve a battleship, it's not as silly anymore. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 17:55, 23 August 2011 (CDT)
::::Wait, wait, wait... A thought just stuck me here about this upcoming film, folks. Usually when a movie gets made about a children's board game, it is rushed out on a direct-to-video/DVD release, and a majority of the time, it's all cartoony, campy, silly, and targeted at the children that are under 7 years old, very much like how the Candy Land films from the 90s during that board game's popularity peak were all campy, cartoony, and for the kids under 7. But from what I got when seeing this trailer, is that this film is an ''updated'' version of the board game, and it's appealing to the grownups who played and were fans of this board game when they were kids (like me for instance). It doesn't look like a film that's appealing to the 7 year old audience, but rather, to the grownups who want to take a trip down memory lane and see a more 'modernized' and 'cooler' version of their favorite board game when they were children. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 09:18, 26 August 2011 (CDT)
:::::Here's the thing though: I don't see any connection to the actual game itself other than the fact that they went out of their way to put a battleship in it. They probably could've gotten away with calling [[Under Siege]] "Battleship" if they really wanted to. Unless there's actually a scene where someone fires the battleship's guns by sticking a little peg in a hole, I don't see how it's related to the game. (And I think this has cartoony down pat.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 09:53, 26 August 2011 (CDT)

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1468290/ Well, we now know what's next]. I assume that the bad pilot who just spins in circles in the middle will die and leave it all up to a young maverick who knows his advanced space fighter has a boost button and that if you hit the edge of space you come out on the other side. In the end he enters "DIK" on the high score table and is remembered forever because he saved an area of empty space from vector graphics and annoying noises. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 07:34, 11 May 2012 (CDT)

Hate to break it but, A Monopoly film is in the works, and a remake of Clue. Whatever next? Parcheesi? Sorry? Candlyland?-[[User:The Gunslinger 3|The Gunslinger 3]] 20:17, 31 May 2012 (CDT)

==This is what I'm hoping==
(a) There is some sort of explanation why the US Navy UN-retires one or more battleships for a military exercise.
(b) Based on the trailer, the alien device creates a force field bubble that encompasses a huge portion of the Pacific (including the entire state of Hawaii if I'm not mistaken)
(c) The aliens force the US Navy into some sort of 'duel to the death' under gladiator type restrictions (why I don't know).
(d) Ultimately after conventional battle, some sort of event occurs where the ships are blinded from seeing each other and each ship has to launch a salvo based on where they 'think' the enemy is.
(e) The film ends when the hero ship ultimately sinks the last Alien war machine ... but then this assumes that we've lost thousands of Naval and Marine Corp personnel from all the other ships that were destroyed, which would SUCK.
''Just some musing that's all. In all probability, knowing Hollywood, NONE of the obvious explanations will be offered and fans will be annoyed by the lack of logic in the script, but what else is new?'' [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 13:22, 26 August 2011 (CDT)
:Well MPM, you are correct on the part where the trailer showcased the forcefield encompassing a huge portion of the Pacific including Hawaii. And I guess as far as everything else is concerned with this film, chances are it will be in the same vein as the Transformers films (since both Transformers and Battleship are owned by Hasbro); a 2 hour toy commercial. However, instead of it being about giant robots fighting, it'll be about naval warships blowing the shit out of each other. I just hope they include the classic line that the boardgame is known for ("Aargh! You sunk my Battleship!"). Also, if my assumptions serve me right, this movie is gonna be a giant advertisement tool that the U.S. Navy ''might'' use to get more and more people to enlist in that branch of the United States military. Just wait and see, there will probably be a huge increase in enlistment for the U.S. Navy after the debut of this film ;) --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 10:49, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
::*cough*''[[Top Gun|TopGun]]''*cough* [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 13:26, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
:::Exactly! --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 21:42, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
::::Didn't ''Battle: Los Angeles'' also cause an influx in recruit numbers for the Marine Corps? I vaguely remember reading something about this, but I don't recall where or when. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 08:48, 19 September 2011 (CDT)
:::::Nope, I believe it was in your overactive imagination! LOL! jk But in the case of [[Top Gun]], the U.S. navy did have a huge spike in recruitment. What I found funny was that there were guys I knew who enlisted in the Navy to become 'Top Gun' pilots, without realizing that (a) you have to get into the Naval Aviator program, which is damned hard to do, (b) you have to be really good, in fact, tops in your field and (c) it's a total crapshoot whether or not you get picked to be sent to Top Gun in the first place, even if you fulfill the first two requirements. A lot of guys with 'stars in their eyes' ended up being either logistical support in the bowels of an aircraft carrier or a minor logistical job at a land based Naval Air Station. ;) Doh!!!!!! [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 15:04, 19 September 2011 (CDT)

I'm just watching it in case Liam Neeson says, "You sank my battleship."
- [[User:Scattergun|Scattergun]]
::Apparently, from those who have supposedly seen it, that phrase IS UTTERED in the film. :D [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 02:11, 7 May 2012 (CDT)
:"It's on J-10." "But nobody ever puts anything on J-10!" "THAT'S WHY IT'LL BE THERE!" [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:42, 7 May 2012 (CDT)

Just saw this movie for myself, and well... it's a good film as far as the visuals, effects and battle sequences go, especially the U.S.S. Missouri scenes, now that was an EPIC battle, and it was a nice tribute/salute to all the retired vets who served on that ship. But the story? Well, a little lacking... but then again, that didn't surprise anyone. Also, it's really disappointing that there's NO submarines featured AT ALL in this film, cause then they could have been a real help against the alien threat through underwater combat... oh well. In closing, this is yet another "popcorn entertainment" film that yes, is a glorified, over-the-top toy commercial/subtle Navy recruitment ad/tribute to the United States Navy and to all it's active and retired servicemen. And I liked it. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 02:30, 26 May 2012 (CDT)

So now we got a Navy SEALs movie ([[Act of Valor]]), an MC movie ([[Battle: Los Angeles]]), a Navy movie ([[Battleship]]), and an AF movie ([[Top Gun]]). Hmm, I wonder what's next. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 13:12, 30 May 2012 (CDT)
:''[[Top Gun]]'' was naval aviation, not AF. The AF has... ''Tranformers''? Basically, the Navy gets around. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 13:45, 30 May 2012 (CDT)
And Army: [[Black Hawk Down]]?
::Hmm... well, I guess there could be a movie that focuses solely on the National Guard branch of the U.S. Armed Forces? --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 00:39, 2 June 2012 (CDT)

== Minigun ==

I don't think the minigun is a Dillon, as it has the wrong berrel set-up. I think it might be an earlier Garwood Industries M134G. The earlier versions had the triple barrel clamp with solid flash hider unlike the Dillon which I have only ever seen with the single barrel clamp. Or does anyone know if the earlier Dillon barrel clamps were the same design as the Garwoods?

[[File:Early Garwood M134G.jpg|thumb|450px|none|Garwood Industries M134G - 7.62x51mm NATO]]

:According to Navweapons, the Navy uses [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30-cal_GAU17.htm M134Ds]. It may be the first one on [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30-cal_GAU17_pics.htm this page.] --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:05, 18 November 2011 (CST)
::The first one on that page is a regular Dillon M134D. Note how the barrels on a DIllon have 1 thick ring in the middle and a flash hider on the end, as opposed to the movie gun which has the thick ring, two thinner rings and then the flash hider, like the M134G pic above. I have never seen anything apart from a single clamp Dillon or a GAU-17A being used by the real US Navy, so this gun caught my eye. Could be a standard GE M134 barrel clamp with a fake (and by fake I mean armourer made, will serve the same purpose as it is just a cylinder) flash hider attached. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18:28, 18 November 2011 (CST)
:::Also, just checked the Garwood website, and it isn't the early models that have the 4 flanged barrel clamp but it is a standard option for better heat dissipation. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18:37, 18 November 2011 (CST)
::The Miniguns used in this film were old GE's upgraded by Garwood Industries. --[[User:Phoenixent|phoenixent]] 19:55, 18 November 2011 (CST)

== Movie miniguns ==

You have a good eye, all of the latest movies which incorporate minigun's are either live M-134G weapons manufactured at Garwood Industries of Display minigun's manufactured specifically for the movie industry. The vast majority of movie weapons are supplied by Independent Studio Services (ISS) based in California. ISS has purchased several live minigun's and Display minigun's from G.I. for their support of the latest movies. Battle Ship 2012, Transformers, Green Hornet, Green Lantern, and the latest Predator (Backpack included) movie was supported by Garwood Industries and utilize the G.I. M-134G exclusively. The Garwood Industries M-134G has been US Military proven to be superior in performance and reliability and is used in the movie industries primarily for the fact that our system handles the blanks used in the filming without jams or failures.
Garwood Industries components are being integrated into the US DOD minigun program to upgrade the old Dillon/GE style weapons.
And yes, the version pictured is one of our earlier versions from 2004.
Regards,
Tracy Garwood
President
Garwood Industries

::Thanks for the response but not all of the Miniguns used in the latest films are Garwood Industries. Independent Studio Services gives that line that they supply all the movies. The company I do work for an developed parts for the Miniguns to work at perfectly on blanks has four times as many M134's than ISS. We supplied the M134's for [[We Were Soldiers]],[[Death Race]], [[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]],[[Terminator Salvation]], [[G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra]], [[Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen]], [[Transformers: Dark of the Moon]], [[A Man Apart]], Superman 2 and R.I.P.D. We pride ourselves on having a higher quality and a lower failure rates than ISS on our M134 weapon system.--[[User:Phoenixent|Steve]] 19:37, 12 December 2011 (CST)

:::Thank you Tracy, and I gotta pipe in here too. ISS claims they do all the movies (and they do a TON of movies) but others have mini guns as well (Cinema Weaponry for example) and I don't think everyone elses' miniguns are just sitting around all year long. ;) But it is nice to hear from a firearms industry rep. I welcome contributors from various companies to help us get better and more accurate information. :) [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 21:37, 4 February 2012 (CST)

== HK 416 in the third trailer ==

In the german [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO4CScx0HwA&feature=g-all-u&context=G274acbdFAAAAAAAAAAA trailer] for Battleship at 1:30 you can see in a short flashing sequence a HK AR15 style gun. In my opinion it may be an HK 416. The HK markings are good to identify. I took a screenshot which you can see [http://www.dragonwolves.de/files/HK416-battleship3.jpg here].

==Weapons==
I saw some behind the scenes footage before the Avengers movie, there was an FN MAG/ M240 (M240G?) and a 25mm Bushmaster. Anyone scene the movie yet?--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 18:18, 6 May 2012 (CDT)

==HK416 used by the Navy?==
Ok correct me if I am wrong but I'm pretty sure the Navy were never issued HK416s. -[[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]
::You'll have to see the movie for the answers to a lot of your 'gotchas' ;) [[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]. The HK416 is used by the Hawaii County Sheriff's department in the movie, not the Navy. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 16:16, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

Yeah, you'll find that for a lot of movies with military portrayals. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes, meh. Also this is a sci fi movie. I think we can forgo worrying about if the weapons they got the Navy using were actually issued. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:42, 9 May 2012 (CDT)

Regular Navy, no. My brother does search and seizure and is generally armed with a Mk.18. I can see DEVGRU (SEAL Team Six or whatever they call themselves these days) using the 416 and I'm pretty sure they have, but normal Navy personnel would most likely be armed with an M4/M16 or an M14. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] 06:07, 10 May 2012 (CDT)

:There's really no need to think too much about it. This is a movie. The HK416 is being used in ''Battleship'' because it's currently a trendy weapon in Hollywood, not because it would be issued to Naval personnel in real life. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 11:07, 10 May 2012 (CDT)

Oh I was just asking because I knew some parts of the US Military used them but I wasn't sure. Thanks for the answer. :) -[[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]

Just an aside to the description, but the Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group was forced by the Army to turn in their 416s back in 2008, so they no longer use it. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] 04:26, 11 May 2012 (CDT)

Irrelevant as this is a movie, but the SEALs do use the HK416. It was widely reported that when SEAL Team Six killed Osama Bin Laden in 2011 they were armed with HK416 carbines. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 05:09, 11 May 2012 (CDT)

You know what else the Navy doesn't use? Battleships. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:23, 11 May 2012 (CDT)
::I also recently saw the movie. I actually REALLY LIKED it. The US Navy uses their latest missile frigates and destroyers during RIMPAC. the only time we see "Big Mo" is when the survivors of the destroyed USS JOHN PAUL JONES use it for one suicide mission against an alien ship off the coast of Oahu. I liked the fact that in the beginning of the movie, the NAVY has a ceremony and honors the largest surviving group of the former retired Sailors from the decommissioned Missouri, all old men. The battleship is sitting in Pearl Harbor as a museum (kinda like the Galactica was in Battlestar Galactica) Thus they had a group of experienced 'old men' who volunteered to show all the young navy guys how to work the old battleship. The only plot hole that was too big to ignore was why they would still have live munitions for the 16 inch guns on the ship when in the movie, the USS Missouri is a museum and tourist attraction (as it is in real life). [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 16:12, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

At least the Navy is actually '''in a movie'''. Usually in movies with the military in them usually focuses on the SEALs, Marines, or even Army Rangers (not that there is anything wrong with that). -[[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]

-Saw the Movie and the H&K 416 is not used by the navy. It was found in a Hawaii Sheriff Dept vehicle. the Navy individuals used M4s with Acogs(not that made much sense, since they were CQB inside the ship) and a shotgun that I didn't get a good look at. The 416 had no attachments just BUIS that were not H&K Diopter sites. Kinda nice to see an AR platform not loaded with accessories -insertjjs

Hate to break it but, A Monopoly film is in the works, and a remake of Clue. Whatever next? Parcheesi? Sorry? Candlyland?-[[User:The Gunslinger 3|The Gunslinger 3]] 20:17, 31 May 2012 (CDT)
:This movie has tanked at the box office, which may kill off any future board game movies. But before you condemn them as a whole, remember, ''[[Clue]]'' was GREAT. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 20:24, 31 May 2012 (CDT)

Talk:Battleship (2012)

2012-05-26T07:33:35Z

ThatoneguyJosh:

...Really? So, how long until that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHY8NKj3RKs Minesweeper movie] comes out? [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:24, 18 August 2011 (CDT)

Wow. Just wow. I realize Hollywood is running out of original ideas, but have they run out of movies to remake and video games to base on so quick that they're basing movies on ''board games''? What's next? Chutes & Ladders? Sorry? Scrabble? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 16:07, 22 August 2011 (CDT)
:Are you talking about the same people who made a four movie, billion dollar franchise from an amusement park ride? (Pirates of the Caribbean.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 16:14, 22 August 2011 (CDT)
::At least the PotC ride had some personality. Battleship is a two-sided tray where you try to "sink" tiny plastic ships by guessing grid numbers. And they're making an ''alien invasion'' flick of it! Battleship had zilch whatsoever to do with aliens. It's like making an Iraq War movie and calling it ''Xbox: The Movie''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 17:09, 23 August 2011 (CDT)
:::Mind you, PotC is still around because it worked. Disney also tried Country Bears and Haunted Mansion movies, and they didn't. I'm with you, when I heard that they wanted to make a movie out of the game Battleship, I thought it was ludicrous, but if you just think of it as an alien attack movie that just happens to involve a battleship, it's not as silly anymore. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 17:55, 23 August 2011 (CDT)
::::Wait, wait, wait... A thought just stuck me here about this upcoming film, folks. Usually when a movie gets made about a children's board game, it is rushed out on a direct-to-video/DVD release, and a majority of the time, it's all cartoony, campy, silly, and targeted at the children that are under 7 years old, very much like how the Candy Land films from the 90s during that board game's popularity peak were all campy, cartoony, and for the kids under 7. But from what I got when seeing this trailer, is that this film is an ''updated'' version of the board game, and it's appealing to the grownups who played and were fans of this board game when they were kids (like me for instance). It doesn't look like a film that's appealing to the 7 year old audience, but rather, to the grownups who want to take a trip down memory lane and see a more 'modernized' and 'cooler' version of their favorite board game when they were children. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 09:18, 26 August 2011 (CDT)
:::::Here's the thing though: I don't see any connection to the actual game itself other than the fact that they went out of their way to put a battleship in it. They probably could've gotten away with calling [[Under Siege]] "Battleship" if they really wanted to. Unless there's actually a scene where someone fires the battleship's guns by sticking a little peg in a hole, I don't see how it's related to the game. (And I think this has cartoony down pat.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 09:53, 26 August 2011 (CDT)

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1468290/ Well, we now know what's next]. I assume that the bad pilot who just spins in circles in the middle will die and leave it all up to a young maverick who knows his advanced space fighter has a boost button and that if you hit the edge of space you come out on the other side. In the end he enters "DIK" on the high score table and is remembered forever because he saved an area of empty space from vector graphics and annoying noises. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 07:34, 11 May 2012 (CDT)

==This is what I'm hoping==
(a) There is some sort of explanation why the US Navy UN-retires one or more battleships for a military exercise.
(b) Based on the trailer, the alien device creates a force field bubble that encompasses a huge portion of the Pacific (including the entire state of Hawaii if I'm not mistaken)
(c) The aliens force the US Navy into some sort of 'duel to the death' under gladiator type restrictions (why I don't know).
(d) Ultimately after conventional battle, some sort of event occurs where the ships are blinded from seeing each other and each ship has to launch a salvo based on where they 'think' the enemy is.
(e) The film ends when the hero ship ultimately sinks the last Alien war machine ... but then this assumes that we've lost thousands of Naval and Marine Corp personnel from all the other ships that were destroyed, which would SUCK.
''Just some musing that's all. In all probability, knowing Hollywood, NONE of the obvious explanations will be offered and fans will be annoyed by the lack of logic in the script, but what else is new?'' [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 13:22, 26 August 2011 (CDT)
:Well MPM, you are correct on the part where the trailer showcased the forcefield encompassing a huge portion of the Pacific including Hawaii. And I guess as far as everything else is concerned with this film, chances are it will be in the same vein as the Transformers films (since both Transformers and Battleship are owned by Hasbro); a 2 hour toy commercial. However, instead of it being about giant robots fighting, it'll be about naval warships blowing the shit out of each other. I just hope they include the classic line that the boardgame is known for ("Aargh! You sunk my Battleship!"). Also, if my assumptions serve me right, this movie is gonna be a giant advertisement tool that the U.S. Navy ''might'' use to get more and more people to enlist in that branch of the United States military. Just wait and see, there will probably be a huge increase in enlistment for the U.S. Navy after the debut of this film ;) --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 10:49, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
::*cough*''[[Top Gun|TopGun]]''*cough* [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 13:26, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
:::Exactly! --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 21:42, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
::::Didn't ''Battle: Los Angeles'' also cause an influx in recruit numbers for the Marine Corps? I vaguely remember reading something about this, but I don't recall where or when. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 08:48, 19 September 2011 (CDT)
:::::Nope, I believe it was in your overactive imagination! LOL! jk But in the case of [[Top Gun]], the U.S. navy did have a huge spike in recruitment. What I found funny was that there were guys I knew who enlisted in the Navy to become 'Top Gun' pilots, without realizing that (a) you have to get into the Naval Aviator program, which is damned hard to do, (b) you have to be really good, in fact, tops in your field and (c) it's a total crapshoot whether or not you get picked to be sent to Top Gun in the first place, even if you fulfill the first two requirements. A lot of guys with 'stars in their eyes' ended up being either logistical support in the bowels of an aircraft carrier or a minor logistical job at a land based Naval Air Station. ;) Doh!!!!!! [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 15:04, 19 September 2011 (CDT)

I'm just watching it in case Liam Neeson says, "You sank my battleship."
- [[User:Scattergun|Scattergun]]
::Apparently, from those who have supposedly seen it, that phrase IS UTTERED in the film. :D [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 02:11, 7 May 2012 (CDT)
:"It's on J-10." "But nobody ever puts anything on J-10!" "THAT'S WHY IT'LL BE THERE!" [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:42, 7 May 2012 (CDT)

Just saw this movie for myself, and well... it's a good film as far as the visuals, effects and battle sequences go, especially the U.S.S. Missouri scenes, now that was an EPIC battle, and it was a nice tribute/salute to all the retired vets who served on that ship. But the story? Well, a little lacking... but then again, that didn't surprise anyone. Also, it's really disappointing that there's NO submarines featured AT ALL in this film, cause then they could have been a real help against the alien threat through underwater combat... oh well. In closing, this is yet another "popcorn entertainment" film that yes, is a glorified, over-the-top toy commercial/subtle Navy recruitment ad/tribute to the United States Navy and to all it's active and retired servicemen. And I liked it. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 02:30, 26 May 2012 (CDT)

== Minigun ==

I don't think the minigun is a Dillon, as it has the wrong berrel set-up. I think it might be an earlier Garwood Industries M134G. The earlier versions had the triple barrel clamp with solid flash hider unlike the Dillon which I have only ever seen with the single barrel clamp. Or does anyone know if the earlier Dillon barrel clamps were the same design as the Garwoods?

[[File:Early Garwood M134G.jpg|thumb|450px|none|Garwood Industries M134G - 7.62x51mm NATO]]

:According to Navweapons, the Navy uses [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30-cal_GAU17.htm M134Ds]. It may be the first one on [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30-cal_GAU17_pics.htm this page.] --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:05, 18 November 2011 (CST)
::The first one on that page is a regular Dillon M134D. Note how the barrels on a DIllon have 1 thick ring in the middle and a flash hider on the end, as opposed to the movie gun which has the thick ring, two thinner rings and then the flash hider, like the M134G pic above. I have never seen anything apart from a single clamp Dillon or a GAU-17A being used by the real US Navy, so this gun caught my eye. Could be a standard GE M134 barrel clamp with a fake (and by fake I mean armourer made, will serve the same purpose as it is just a cylinder) flash hider attached. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18:28, 18 November 2011 (CST)
:::Also, just checked the Garwood website, and it isn't the early models that have the 4 flanged barrel clamp but it is a standard option for better heat dissipation. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18:37, 18 November 2011 (CST)
::The Miniguns used in this film were old GE's upgraded by Garwood Industries. --[[User:Phoenixent|phoenixent]] 19:55, 18 November 2011 (CST)

== Movie miniguns ==

You have a good eye, all of the latest movies which incorporate minigun's are either live M-134G weapons manufactured at Garwood Industries of Display minigun's manufactured specifically for the movie industry. The vast majority of movie weapons are supplied by Independent Studio Services (ISS) based in California. ISS has purchased several live minigun's and Display minigun's from G.I. for their support of the latest movies. Battle Ship 2012, Transformers, Green Hornet, Green Lantern, and the latest Predator (Backpack included) movie was supported by Garwood Industries and utilize the G.I. M-134G exclusively. The Garwood Industries M-134G has been US Military proven to be superior in performance and reliability and is used in the movie industries primarily for the fact that our system handles the blanks used in the filming without jams or failures.
Garwood Industries components are being integrated into the US DOD minigun program to upgrade the old Dillon/GE style weapons.
And yes, the version pictured is one of our earlier versions from 2004.
Regards,
Tracy Garwood
President
Garwood Industries

::Thanks for the response but not all of the Miniguns used in the latest films are Garwood Industries. Independent Studio Services gives that line that they supply all the movies. The company I do work for an developed parts for the Miniguns to work at perfectly on blanks has four times as many M134's than ISS. We supplied the M134's for [[We Were Soldiers]],[[Death Race]], [[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]],[[Terminator Salvation]], [[G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra]], [[Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen]], [[Transformers: Dark of the Moon]], [[A Man Apart]], Superman 2 and R.I.P.D. We pride ourselves on having a higher quality and a lower failure rates than ISS on our M134 weapon system.--[[User:Phoenixent|Steve]] 19:37, 12 December 2011 (CST)

:::Thank you Tracy, and I gotta pipe in here too. ISS claims they do all the movies (and they do a TON of movies) but others have mini guns as well (Cinema Weaponry for example) and I don't think everyone elses' miniguns are just sitting around all year long. ;) But it is nice to hear from a firearms industry rep. I welcome contributors from various companies to help us get better and more accurate information. :) [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 21:37, 4 February 2012 (CST)

== HK 416 in the third trailer ==

In the german [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO4CScx0HwA&feature=g-all-u&context=G274acbdFAAAAAAAAAAA trailer] for Battleship at 1:30 you can see in a short flashing sequence a HK AR15 style gun. In my opinion it may be an HK 416. The HK markings are good to identify. I took a screenshot which you can see [http://www.dragonwolves.de/files/HK416-battleship3.jpg here].

==Weapons==
I saw some behind the scenes footage before the Avengers movie, there was an FN MAG/ M240 (M240G?) and a 25mm Bushmaster. Anyone scene the movie yet?--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 18:18, 6 May 2012 (CDT)

==HK416 used by the Navy?==
Ok correct me if I am wrong but I'm pretty sure the Navy were never issued HK416s. -[[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]
::You'll have to see the movie for the answers to a lot of your 'gotchas' ;) [[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]. The HK416 is used by the Hawaii County Sheriff's department in the movie, not the Navy. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 16:16, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

Yeah, you'll find that for a lot of movies with military portrayals. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes, meh. Also this is a sci fi movie. I think we can forgo worrying about if the weapons they got the Navy using were actually issued. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:42, 9 May 2012 (CDT)

Regular Navy, no. My brother does search and seizure and is generally armed with a Mk.18. I can see DEVGRU (SEAL Team Six or whatever they call themselves these days) using the 416 and I'm pretty sure they have, but normal Navy personnel would most likely be armed with an M4/M16 or an M14. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] 06:07, 10 May 2012 (CDT)

:There's really no need to think too much about it. This is a movie. The HK416 is being used in ''Battleship'' because it's currently a trendy weapon in Hollywood, not because it would be issued to Naval personnel in real life. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 11:07, 10 May 2012 (CDT)

Oh I was just asking because I knew some parts of the US Military used them but I wasn't sure. Thanks for the answer. :) -[[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]

Just an aside to the description, but the Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group was forced by the Army to turn in their 416s back in 2008, so they no longer use it. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] 04:26, 11 May 2012 (CDT)

Irrelevant as this is a movie, but the SEALs do use the HK416. It was widely reported that when SEAL Team Six killed Osama Bin Laden in 2011 they were armed with HK416 carbines. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 05:09, 11 May 2012 (CDT)

You know what else the Navy doesn't use? Battleships. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:23, 11 May 2012 (CDT)
::I also recently saw the movie. I actually REALLY LIKED it. The US Navy uses their latest missile frigates and destroyers during RIMPAC. the only time we see "Big Mo" is when the survivors of the destroyed USS JOHN PAUL JONES use it for one suicide mission against an alien ship off the coast of Oahu. I liked the fact that in the beginning of the movie, the NAVY has a ceremony and honors the largest surviving group of the former retired Sailors from the decommissioned Missouri, all old men. The battleship is sitting in Pearl Harbor as a museum (kinda like the Galactica was in Battlestar Galactica) Thus they had a group of experienced 'old men' who volunteered to show all the young navy guys how to work the old battleship. The only plot hole that was too big to ignore was why they would still have live munitions for the 16 inch guns on the ship when in the movie, the USS Missouri is a museum and tourist attraction (as it is in real life). [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 16:12, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

At least the Navy is actually '''in a movie'''. Usually in movies with the military in them usually focuses on the SEALs, Marines, or even Army Rangers (not that there is anything wrong with that). -[[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]

-Saw the Movie and the H&K 416 is not used by the navy. It was found in a Hawaii Sheriff Dept vehicle. the Navy individuals used M4s with Acogs(not that made much sense, since they were CQB inside the ship) and a shotgun that I didn't get a good look at. The 416 had no attachments just BUIS that were not H&K Diopter sites. Kinda nice to see an AR platform not loaded with accessories -insertjjs

Talk:Battleship (2012)

2012-05-26T07:30:17Z

ThatoneguyJosh:

...Really? So, how long until that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHY8NKj3RKs Minesweeper movie] comes out? [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:24, 18 August 2011 (CDT)

Wow. Just wow. I realize Hollywood is running out of original ideas, but have they run out of movies to remake and video games to base on so quick that they're basing movies on ''board games''? What's next? Chutes & Ladders? Sorry? Scrabble? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 16:07, 22 August 2011 (CDT)
:Are you talking about the same people who made a four movie, billion dollar franchise from an amusement park ride? (Pirates of the Caribbean.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 16:14, 22 August 2011 (CDT)
::At least the PotC ride had some personality. Battleship is a two-sided tray where you try to "sink" tiny plastic ships by guessing grid numbers. And they're making an ''alien invasion'' flick of it! Battleship had zilch whatsoever to do with aliens. It's like making an Iraq War movie and calling it ''Xbox: The Movie''. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 17:09, 23 August 2011 (CDT)
:::Mind you, PotC is still around because it worked. Disney also tried Country Bears and Haunted Mansion movies, and they didn't. I'm with you, when I heard that they wanted to make a movie out of the game Battleship, I thought it was ludicrous, but if you just think of it as an alien attack movie that just happens to involve a battleship, it's not as silly anymore. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 17:55, 23 August 2011 (CDT)
::::Wait, wait, wait... A thought just stuck me here about this upcoming film, folks. Usually when a movie gets made about a children's board game, it is rushed out on a direct-to-video/DVD release, and a majority of the time, it's all cartoony, campy, silly, and targeted at the children that are under 7 years old, very much like how the Candy Land films from the 90s during that board game's popularity peak were all campy, cartoony, and for the kids under 7. But from what I got when seeing this trailer, is that this film is an ''updated'' version of the board game, and it's appealing to the grownups who played and were fans of this board game when they were kids (like me for instance). It doesn't look like a film that's appealing to the 7 year old audience, but rather, to the grownups who want to take a trip down memory lane and see a more 'modernized' and 'cooler' version of their favorite board game when they were children. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 09:18, 26 August 2011 (CDT)
:::::Here's the thing though: I don't see any connection to the actual game itself other than the fact that they went out of their way to put a battleship in it. They probably could've gotten away with calling [[Under Siege]] "Battleship" if they really wanted to. Unless there's actually a scene where someone fires the battleship's guns by sticking a little peg in a hole, I don't see how it's related to the game. (And I think this has cartoony down pat.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 09:53, 26 August 2011 (CDT)

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1468290/ Well, we now know what's next]. I assume that the bad pilot who just spins in circles in the middle will die and leave it all up to a young maverick who knows his advanced space fighter has a boost button and that if you hit the edge of space you come out on the other side. In the end he enters "DIK" on the high score table and is remembered forever because he saved an area of empty space from vector graphics and annoying noises. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 07:34, 11 May 2012 (CDT)

==This is what I'm hoping==
(a) There is some sort of explanation why the US Navy UN-retires one or more battleships for a military exercise.
(b) Based on the trailer, the alien device creates a force field bubble that encompasses a huge portion of the Pacific (including the entire state of Hawaii if I'm not mistaken)
(c) The aliens force the US Navy into some sort of 'duel to the death' under gladiator type restrictions (why I don't know).
(d) Ultimately after conventional battle, some sort of event occurs where the ships are blinded from seeing each other and each ship has to launch a salvo based on where they 'think' the enemy is.
(e) The film ends when the hero ship ultimately sinks the last Alien war machine ... but then this assumes that we've lost thousands of Naval and Marine Corp personnel from all the other ships that were destroyed, which would SUCK.
''Just some musing that's all. In all probability, knowing Hollywood, NONE of the obvious explanations will be offered and fans will be annoyed by the lack of logic in the script, but what else is new?'' [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 13:22, 26 August 2011 (CDT)
:Well MPM, you are correct on the part where the trailer showcased the forcefield encompassing a huge portion of the Pacific including Hawaii. And I guess as far as everything else is concerned with this film, chances are it will be in the same vein as the Transformers films (since both Transformers and Battleship are owned by Hasbro); a 2 hour toy commercial. However, instead of it being about giant robots fighting, it'll be about naval warships blowing the shit out of each other. I just hope they include the classic line that the boardgame is known for ("Aargh! You sunk my Battleship!"). Also, if my assumptions serve me right, this movie is gonna be a giant advertisement tool that the U.S. Navy ''might'' use to get more and more people to enlist in that branch of the United States military. Just wait and see, there will probably be a huge increase in enlistment for the U.S. Navy after the debut of this film ;) --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 10:49, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
::*cough*''[[Top Gun|TopGun]]''*cough* [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 13:26, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
:::Exactly! --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 21:42, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
::::Didn't ''Battle: Los Angeles'' also cause an influx in recruit numbers for the Marine Corps? I vaguely remember reading something about this, but I don't recall where or when. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 08:48, 19 September 2011 (CDT)
:::::Nope, I believe it was in your overactive imagination! LOL! jk But in the case of [[Top Gun]], the U.S. navy did have a huge spike in recruitment. What I found funny was that there were guys I knew who enlisted in the Navy to become 'Top Gun' pilots, without realizing that (a) you have to get into the Naval Aviator program, which is damned hard to do, (b) you have to be really good, in fact, tops in your field and (c) it's a total crapshoot whether or not you get picked to be sent to Top Gun in the first place, even if you fulfill the first two requirements. A lot of guys with 'stars in their eyes' ended up being either logistical support in the bowels of an aircraft carrier or a minor logistical job at a land based Naval Air Station. ;) Doh!!!!!! [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 15:04, 19 September 2011 (CDT)

I'm just watching it in case Liam Neeson says, "You sank my battleship."
- [[User:Scattergun|Scattergun]]
::Apparently, from those who have supposedly seen it, that phrase IS UTTERED in the film. :D [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 02:11, 7 May 2012 (CDT)
:"It's on J-10." "But nobody ever puts anything on J-10!" "THAT'S WHY IT'LL BE THERE!" [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:42, 7 May 2012 (CDT)

Just saw this movie for myself, and well... it's a good film as far as the visuals, effects and battle sequences go, especially the U.S.S. Missouri scenes, now that was an EPIC battle, and it was a nice little tribute/salute to all the retired vets who served on that ship. But the story? Well, a little lacking... but then again, that didn't surprise anyone. Also, it's really disappointing that there's NO submarines featured AT ALL in this film, cause then they could have been a real help against the alien threat by underwater means... oh well. In closing, this is yet another "popcorn entertainment" film that yes, is a glorified, over-the-top toy commercial/subtle Navy recruitment ad. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 02:30, 26 May 2012 (CDT)

== Minigun ==

I don't think the minigun is a Dillon, as it has the wrong berrel set-up. I think it might be an earlier Garwood Industries M134G. The earlier versions had the triple barrel clamp with solid flash hider unlike the Dillon which I have only ever seen with the single barrel clamp. Or does anyone know if the earlier Dillon barrel clamps were the same design as the Garwoods?

[[File:Early Garwood M134G.jpg|thumb|450px|none|Garwood Industries M134G - 7.62x51mm NATO]]

:According to Navweapons, the Navy uses [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30-cal_GAU17.htm M134Ds]. It may be the first one on [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30-cal_GAU17_pics.htm this page.] --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:05, 18 November 2011 (CST)
::The first one on that page is a regular Dillon M134D. Note how the barrels on a DIllon have 1 thick ring in the middle and a flash hider on the end, as opposed to the movie gun which has the thick ring, two thinner rings and then the flash hider, like the M134G pic above. I have never seen anything apart from a single clamp Dillon or a GAU-17A being used by the real US Navy, so this gun caught my eye. Could be a standard GE M134 barrel clamp with a fake (and by fake I mean armourer made, will serve the same purpose as it is just a cylinder) flash hider attached. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18:28, 18 November 2011 (CST)
:::Also, just checked the Garwood website, and it isn't the early models that have the 4 flanged barrel clamp but it is a standard option for better heat dissipation. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18:37, 18 November 2011 (CST)
::The Miniguns used in this film were old GE's upgraded by Garwood Industries. --[[User:Phoenixent|phoenixent]] 19:55, 18 November 2011 (CST)

== Movie miniguns ==

You have a good eye, all of the latest movies which incorporate minigun's are either live M-134G weapons manufactured at Garwood Industries of Display minigun's manufactured specifically for the movie industry. The vast majority of movie weapons are supplied by Independent Studio Services (ISS) based in California. ISS has purchased several live minigun's and Display minigun's from G.I. for their support of the latest movies. Battle Ship 2012, Transformers, Green Hornet, Green Lantern, and the latest Predator (Backpack included) movie was supported by Garwood Industries and utilize the G.I. M-134G exclusively. The Garwood Industries M-134G has been US Military proven to be superior in performance and reliability and is used in the movie industries primarily for the fact that our system handles the blanks used in the filming without jams or failures.
Garwood Industries components are being integrated into the US DOD minigun program to upgrade the old Dillon/GE style weapons.
And yes, the version pictured is one of our earlier versions from 2004.
Regards,
Tracy Garwood
President
Garwood Industries

::Thanks for the response but not all of the Miniguns used in the latest films are Garwood Industries. Independent Studio Services gives that line that they supply all the movies. The company I do work for an developed parts for the Miniguns to work at perfectly on blanks has four times as many M134's than ISS. We supplied the M134's for [[We Were Soldiers]],[[Death Race]], [[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]],[[Terminator Salvation]], [[G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra]], [[Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen]], [[Transformers: Dark of the Moon]], [[A Man Apart]], Superman 2 and R.I.P.D. We pride ourselves on having a higher quality and a lower failure rates than ISS on our M134 weapon system.--[[User:Phoenixent|Steve]] 19:37, 12 December 2011 (CST)

:::Thank you Tracy, and I gotta pipe in here too. ISS claims they do all the movies (and they do a TON of movies) but others have mini guns as well (Cinema Weaponry for example) and I don't think everyone elses' miniguns are just sitting around all year long. ;) But it is nice to hear from a firearms industry rep. I welcome contributors from various companies to help us get better and more accurate information. :) [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 21:37, 4 February 2012 (CST)

== HK 416 in the third trailer ==

In the german [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO4CScx0HwA&feature=g-all-u&context=G274acbdFAAAAAAAAAAA trailer] for Battleship at 1:30 you can see in a short flashing sequence a HK AR15 style gun. In my opinion it may be an HK 416. The HK markings are good to identify. I took a screenshot which you can see [http://www.dragonwolves.de/files/HK416-battleship3.jpg here].

==Weapons==
I saw some behind the scenes footage before the Avengers movie, there was an FN MAG/ M240 (M240G?) and a 25mm Bushmaster. Anyone scene the movie yet?--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 18:18, 6 May 2012 (CDT)

==HK416 used by the Navy?==
Ok correct me if I am wrong but I'm pretty sure the Navy were never issued HK416s. -[[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]
::You'll have to see the movie for the answers to a lot of your 'gotchas' ;) [[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]. The HK416 is used by the Hawaii County Sheriff's department in the movie, not the Navy. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 16:16, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

Yeah, you'll find that for a lot of movies with military portrayals. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes, meh. Also this is a sci fi movie. I think we can forgo worrying about if the weapons they got the Navy using were actually issued. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 22:42, 9 May 2012 (CDT)

Regular Navy, no. My brother does search and seizure and is generally armed with a Mk.18. I can see DEVGRU (SEAL Team Six or whatever they call themselves these days) using the 416 and I'm pretty sure they have, but normal Navy personnel would most likely be armed with an M4/M16 or an M14. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] 06:07, 10 May 2012 (CDT)

:There's really no need to think too much about it. This is a movie. The HK416 is being used in ''Battleship'' because it's currently a trendy weapon in Hollywood, not because it would be issued to Naval personnel in real life. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 11:07, 10 May 2012 (CDT)

Oh I was just asking because I knew some parts of the US Military used them but I wasn't sure. Thanks for the answer. :) -[[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]

Just an aside to the description, but the Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group was forced by the Army to turn in their 416s back in 2008, so they no longer use it. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] 04:26, 11 May 2012 (CDT)

Irrelevant as this is a movie, but the SEALs do use the HK416. It was widely reported that when SEAL Team Six killed Osama Bin Laden in 2011 they were armed with HK416 carbines. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 05:09, 11 May 2012 (CDT)

You know what else the Navy doesn't use? Battleships. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:23, 11 May 2012 (CDT)
::I also recently saw the movie. I actually REALLY LIKED it. The US Navy uses their latest missile frigates and destroyers during RIMPAC. the only time we see "Big Mo" is when the survivors of the destroyed USS JOHN PAUL JONES use it for one suicide mission against an alien ship off the coast of Oahu. I liked the fact that in the beginning of the movie, the NAVY has a ceremony and honors the largest surviving group of the former retired Sailors from the decommissioned Missouri, all old men. The battleship is sitting in Pearl Harbor as a museum (kinda like the Galactica was in Battlestar Galactica) Thus they had a group of experienced 'old men' who volunteered to show all the young navy guys how to work the old battleship. The only plot hole that was too big to ignore was why they would still have live munitions for the 16 inch guns on the ship when in the movie, the USS Missouri is a museum and tourist attraction (as it is in real life). [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 16:12, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

At least the Navy is actually '''in a movie'''. Usually in movies with the military in them usually focuses on the SEALs, Marines, or even Army Rangers (not that there is anything wrong with that). -[[User:Mr.Ice|Mr.Ice]]

-Saw the Movie and the H&K 416 is not used by the navy. It was found in a Hawaii Sheriff Dept vehicle. the Navy individuals used M4s with Acogs(not that made much sense, since they were CQB inside the ship) and a shotgun that I didn't get a good look at. The 416 had no attachments just BUIS that were not H&K Diopter sites. Kinda nice to see an AR platform not loaded with accessories -insertjjs

Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops II

2012-05-03T03:23:41Z

ThatoneguyJosh:

ThatoneguyJosh:

See [[Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3/Archive 1]] for older discussions.

== KSG ==

Kinda surprised it never appears in singleplayer since it's supposed to be one of the "gimmick" guns for this game, has anyone seen one anywhere? [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 12:07, 10 November 2011 (CST)

::Right now it's still in production. It was apparently a HUGE hit at the 2011 SHOT Show, however on the downside Kel-Tec is a pretty small manufacturer who happens to make pretty popular products, and that results in some pretty severe backlogging. I think they are planning on releasing it in early 2012 last I heard. The best part though is it's supposedly not going to be that expensive! --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 18:14, 10 November 2011 (CST)

::: This gun is out now! It's going for between $650 and $800 depending on where you shop. I found 6 different places selling it by putting a simple search into Google. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 11:02, 16 November 2011 (CST)

I think he meant in the game, but that's good news too!--[[User:--JazzBlackBelt--|--JazzBlackBelt--]] 16:22, 18 November 2011 (CST)

:I did. And now I've got one, I get to discover they got literally ''everything'' about it wrong. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 09:22, 19 November 2011 (CST)

::Do tell :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 12:42, 19 November 2011 (CST)

::: LOL ooooooops! I haven't found the gun in single player, but I didn't do much searching either. But yea it's so messed up in the game (multiplayer). First, it's not a continuous fire shotgun. You get 7, then have to manually switch (not exactly sure how) to the other tube which holds another 7. Second, for being a 12 gauge, the damage is absurdly low. It took me an average of 3 torso hits to kill someone. Also, you would think they would give this shotgun to have slugs in one tube, and buckshot in the other! After all, that was the main idea behind the gun! Instant ammo switching or a lot of ammo in a compact package! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Way to ruin an awesome gun!!! --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 17:00, 19 November 2011 (CST)

::::In Survival it's 12 rounds and it's just treated as a standard shotgun; no switching tube mags. It's more or less just a crappier version of the Striker with even less damage and slow pump rather than semi-auto. Everything I've read implies it's 12 in multi too, which as I said on the page would only be true if it were using 3" shells; since it damages like it's using 1 1/2" shells loaded with sand, I'm just writing that up as an error. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 17:08, 19 November 2011 (CST)

== Mk 14 ==

on the pic Price's Mk 14 has a CTR stock so it is a Mod 1 --[[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 13:20, 10 November 2011 (CST)

== Soap's M1911 ==
In the pic of his holster, that's not a 1911. Looks like an M9, by the grips and slide safety groove. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 20:03, 10 November 2011 (CST)

== reload animations ==

A lot of the reloads are still carried from the previous games but what baffles me is there are plenty of guns that have a cocking handle on the left side and even some are the same gun like the MG36 and the G36 but both cock the charging handle from different sides. I was hoping the ACR would changed, but nothing really changed. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:42, 10 November 2011 (CST)

== Beefed up gun sounds ==

I am really liking the beefed up gun shots in this game [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:42, 10 November 2011 (CST)
::Lol... Everything but the ARs have good sounds, and everyone else's gunfire sounds great (ie. your standing next to them). Now I'll admit I'm only about 1/2 way through the ranking so I don't have all of the guns unlocked, so I don't know what some of the later guns sound like. I will say though, the Dragunov gunshot is incredible. I mean like 100% dead on. The L118 is the right sound, BUT NOT LOUD ENOUGH!!! That gunshot should be teeth rattling! The Barrett M107 is the same way; right but not loud enough! I just cope with it by cranking the volume when no one's home :D --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 07:36, 11 November 2011 (CST)

:::Actually, this was one of the things I really ''didn't'' like in this game, they all sound like they were made on a computer as opposed to being recorded. Think of the M200 in MW2, and a few others, they sound like, well, it's hard to describe, but something like metal hitting against metal? I dunno, but the Desert Eagle's sound in this is very bad compared to COD4 [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 14:31, 11 November 2011 (CST)

::::That's what I think the Assault Rifles and quite a few LMGs sound like. They finally fixed the pistols and sniper rifle's sounds, but totally messed up the others! What the heck? --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 14:50, 11 November 2011 (CST)

== Overall thoughts on the game ==
To be honest folks, this game turned out really good in the end. The gameplay doesn't feel as noobified like the last game was, the graphics, game engine and gameplay is more sharper and cleaner this time around as opposed to the glitches and bugs in second game, the multiplayer isn't so bland, the SpecOps feel more polished and fun, and the game's story explained a whole lot more stuff to the overall plot than Modern Warfare 2 did, and it left it on a more appropriate closure to the series. All in all, a good game. Maybe it's nothing groundbreaking in the "realism" factor (We'll leave that to Battlefield), but it still turned out to be a damn good game, and definitely worth the price. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 05:42, 11 November 2011 (CST)

::After watching the whole Singleplayer playthrough, and some MP stuff too, I agree. While (to me) it doesn't beat MW1, it sure is better than MW2 and BO. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 14:31, 11 November 2011 (CST)
:Modern Warfare 3 had the gameplay of Modern Warfare 2, but has more-balanced multiplayer content (though the multiplayer is obviously borrowed from Modern Warfare 2), gameplay, perks, satisfying story with clear parts (unlike Modern Warfare 2, which had a muddled plot), and like everyone said, realistic gun sounds. Even though it is not as successful or good as the older Call of Duty games and the other modern FPS games, it is overall the best video game set during modern times. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 20:33, 11 November 2011 (CST)

:::Well, it being the best modern shooter is your opinion, and I'm certainly not trying to say that it's ''wrong'', but for me MW1 and BF3 both take the that title. I agree with your summary though. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:21, 11 November 2011 (CST)

== MP5K? ==

Is there actually an MP5K in the game, or is this just an MP5A2 that someone misidentified ages ago? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 11:32, 12 November 2011 (CST)

:No, that is actually an MP5K (you can see the name on the right is "MP5K holographic," and the hold is with the PC's thumb covering more of the rail, implying it's shorter), it was just cut from the final game. It's quite likely that when the dev console codes come out you'll be able to call it up in singleplayer with a "give" cheat. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 11:45, 12 November 2011 (CST)

::As we all know a lot of things in Call of Duty games are copy-pasted from previous ones, and since what we see of the K looks identical to the MW3 MP5, and we can see the reload animation is copy-pasted from the MW2 K, so I'm betting they copy-pasted the whole gun, changed the model, but didn't change the name til after that video. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 14:26, 12 November 2011 (CST)
:::This MP5K (if that is what it is, am still not 101% convinced) isn't the one from MW2 as has different rail system and a solid butt. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 14:40, 12 November 2011 (CST)

::::You misunderstood, the MW3 MP5K we're looking at, and the normal MP5 in MW3 look the same. The game files for the MP5K were brought over from MW2, and it was given a new model and name, but the name hadn't been changed yet as of the video. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 16:53, 12 November 2011 (CST)

:::::I don't think so, the one labelled as an MP5K looks shorter. Edit: Actually, looking at the Spec-Ops trailer and my own caps you might be right, it's the MW3 MP5 but he's holding it like it's an MP5K because it doesn't have new hand positions yet. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 22:35, 12 November 2011 (CST)

== RSASS Secondary Sight on the Wrong Side ==

Has anybody else noticed that the red dot secondary sight is mounted in the wrong (left) side? If your holding the gun as a rightie, than it needs to be on the right side so that the hand holding the pistol grip just has to twist outwards. With it being on the left side, you have to twist your hand inwards to be able to look through the sight, and between a pistol grip in the gut, no stock surface on your shoulder, a magazine getting in the way of your support hand, and a 100% unnatural face angle, it ain't happening. But what else is new. Go figure. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 08:09, 13 November 2011 (CST)

:You'd think you'd just put it on the top or side of the scope, regardless. But the left hold kinda works if you're willing to stick your "wing" right out for it. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 08:16, 13 November 2011 (CST)

::I noticed that too but I just figured they wanted the player to see it. Even though it's wrong, I think it's still cool that they tried it. reminds me of Jerry Miculek doing a 3 gun match.--[[User:Acepeacemaker|Acepeacemaker]] 20:08, 20 November 2011 (CST)

:::That's probably it, and also probably the reason for some other subtle reasons such as the Pechang LMG feeding from the wrong side and so on. I personally know that if I couldn't see it in game, I probably would forget about it. They pretty much dropped realism for gameplay. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 20:25, 20 November 2011 (CST)

== Barrett ==

Price used an M82A1 in Pripyat as the M107 wasn't even developed 15 years before 2011. - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 07:30, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:Oh, whoops. Although a weapon not being invented yet has historically never been a problem for this series, you know. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 07:43, 15 November 2011 (CST)

::CoughBlackOpsCough..... --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 07:53, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:::OMFG, is that a suppressed RSASS between the two RPG's? In '96? - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 08:34, 15 November 2011 (CST)

::::See? SEE?! [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 08:42, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:CoD... CoD... -_- --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 09:02, 15 November 2011 (CST)

Also, the helicopter flying past is an Mi-28N (round ball above the rotor), which wasn't delivered until 2006. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 10:10, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:Exactly. I recently updated CoD4:MW's main page about that issue. But something else I would like to know if in anyway, is it matter if Price used the M82A1 rather than the L96, even though the British Army does using the M82A1? --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 10:24, 15 November 2011 (CST)

::The range involved, you'd be pushing things with just a 7.62. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]]

:::Ah, okay. --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 10:42, 15 November 2011 (CST)

::::Back then a Barrett M82A1 would be the correct weapon for an SAS sniper at long range. Although the M82A1 is still in the British army inventory, The AW50F tends to be favoured nowadays by both special forces and regulars (mainly EOD and anti material), so this weapon choice is chronologically correct although I think this is purely by accident. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 11:10, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:::::Sigh, RSASSs... At least the weapons in the two flashback missions were close to being right, at most a couple years too early, but these? Really? Of all the guns they could have picked for that scene :P [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 14:58, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:To give Blops one point, the framing device does add some scope for ridiculous weapons (the action is being recounted by a man who's half dead, dosed up to the eyeballs on drugs and being tortured), though that in turn raises the question of why the interrogator is apparently letting him describe exactly how he shot every single person. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 03:02, 18 November 2011 (CST)

==EOTech XPS Logo==
There's nothing ridiculous about it, it actually ''is'' that big. [http://webyshops.com/ns/images/EOTech/EOTech-EXPS2-2-Holographic-Sight-2-dot-Ballistic-Reticle-with-3X-Magnifier-and-FTS-Mount-Flipped-View-MPO-III-Pic1.jpg] [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 04:59, 16 November 2011 (CST)

:Actually, there's still something ridiculous about that. :P [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:12, 16 November 2011 (CST)

::How come? It's the same one. --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 05:33, 16 November 2011 (CST)

:::Because it's ridiculous in real life too. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:57, 16 November 2011 (CST)

== Minigun ==

Are we sure it's Dillon Aero rather than Garwood Industries' [http://www.garwoodindustries.com/proddetail.php?prod=M-134G M-134G]? I can't find a Dillon with that top-mounted RIS rail, but Garwood's one has it. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 06:44, 16 November 2011 (CST)
:If you go onto YouTube, you can find people shooting Dillon Aero miniguns with rails. It's more of an aftermarket thing, but they are out there. I'm also not sure why you wouldn't be able to find a photo, as 95% of handheld military arms have rails on them. Since the adoption of the M16A3/A4, rails have become pretty much standard on everything that might remotely need a sight. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 07:45, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::Yeah, I meant I couldn't find a base model on their site with rails. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 08:06, 16 November 2011 (CST)
:::Oh well you likely won't find one then. What is likely though, is the gun is probably drilled and tapped for the rail and shipped with filler screws, so that whoever receives the gun can add a rail if they want to. It's a pretty common practice on a lot of rifles. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 08:23, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::::I wouldn't worry too much about the rail, as it is mounted in the wrong place anyway. Any sight rail I have seen on a minigun has been mounted to the yoke rather than to the gun body itself. Regardless, from the slotted flash suppressor the closest match is a GAU-17/A, which incidentally also has a sight rail. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 09:47, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::::[[File:GAU-17A HH60.jpg|thumb|400px|none|GAU-17/A mounted on an HH-60H Seahawk - 7.62x51mm NATO]]
::::Looking at the screencaps again, just noticed that although it has the barrel assembly of a GAU-17/A it has dome Dillon parts, including the spade grips, the gun drive motor and gun control unit. Also, when you fire the gun, does the character press down with his thumbs, because this is what it looks like in the screenshot. If so, I think that this is incorrect as the fire buttons are on the GCU and the buttons on top of the spade grips can be optionally wired up to activate things like lasers or illuminators, or to deploy flares and chaff. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 10:16, 16 November 2011 (CST)
:::::Yes. He rests his thumbs together in the middle when not firing, that's "firing" even though you can't see a muzzle flash in that shot. But looking at Dillon's site, the wording implies that those switches can be used for other functions ''or'' as triggers, so it might not be wrong, just weird. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 10:37, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::::::The trigger on these things can be a number of different options. I've seen a butterfly trigger with 2 toggle switches (one for power, the other for rate of fire) and I have seen ones with a power toggle switch and two button triggers, both firing the the weapon but each at different rates of fire. These guns are built to order, so all that's shown on the website is a base model. Extra features can be had when someone orders it.

::::::The rail is next to useless anyway though, because the gun is intended to be walked onto target. You start firing in the general direction, then move the gun onto target by watching the tracers (every 4th or 5th round). This makes red dot sights and most lasers pretty much worthless.--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 10:58, 16 November 2011 (CST)

:::::::Well, the rail's always empty in CoD, so they might have actually got something right there. It's just there under the Black theory that adding a RIS rail makes any gun 30% better (the average gun in Black is thus roughly 270% better). [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 11:02, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::::::::LOL In the shooting community here, rails are super popular among people, but they add weight onto guns REALLY fast. Taking an AR-15 and switching out a normal handguard to a quad rail immediately adds on 8-20 ounces of weight (depending on rail length). Factor in grips, lights, and lasers, it gets heavy way too fast!--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 11:08, 16 November 2011 (CST)
:::::::::And of course the 37mm flare launcher that you tell everyone is an M203, that's a vital part of every ridiculous range toy. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 11:18, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::::::::::Pah those things are really cool but ridiculously heavy. They are quite a bit of fun at night though!--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 11:30, 16 November 2011 (CST)
I don't think those top thumb switches can be configured to fire the gun, as don't think there is an "input" into the GCU other than the main power supply. There is one plug I'm not 100% sure about, but when looking at pictures if it is attached it always goes away from the gun, possibly it is the power supply to the ammo booster if fitted but don't know. As for the rail thing, the one time a sight is handy is if you want to fire a warning shot across something, as would be a bit embarrassing to start firing and mince the target accidentally because you judged it slightly wrong. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 11:37, 16 November 2011 (CST)
:Ok 1st, I don't think anyone on earth would fire a warning shot with a minigun. That just seems stupid beyond belief. Another reason a sight is worthless is because it doesn't take into account windage, lead, and bullet drop, especially if moving. These are all things you have to eyeball in order to make a hit.
:As for those switches, they can. It's all about how the manufacturer sends the gun out and simple electronics. Just like I could wire up all the lights in the house to be turned on with a timer or from my car, but there's just no reason to do so. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 11:58, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::I am only talking about the Dillon M134D, how other manufacturer set up their fire control group is up to them, but the spade grips here are for a Dillon. The GCU has 1 input and 2 or 3 outputs. Input is main power to the gun, first two outputs are for the motor and the clutch, and the third, if connected, goes away from the gun, my guess to the ammunition booster but not 100%.
::Warning shot from a minigun is not stupid, I have done it a couple of times to discourage fast boats getting a bit too close to where they shouldn't be, and it works pretty damn well. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 12:07, 16 November 2011 (CST)

== Fun fact ==

This screenshot

[[Image:MW3-Magnum-1.jpg|thumb|600px|none|]]

Is actually ''impossible'' to get using Steam's screenshot feature, since it won't take shots during that part of the intro (loading, I guess). In the end I had to use FRAPS. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 13:25, 16 November 2011 (CST)

== Glock 18C/Glock 17 hybrid? ==

I couldn't find a good picture to verify currectly, but even so the developers remembered to add a fire selector switch this time, let's not forget that the really really actual Glock 18C has compensator cuts on both the slider and barrel, in order to reduce the recoil (if I'm not mistaken).

[[Image:MW3-Glock-2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Undeterred by this, he's soon using his Glock to blow a Russian patrol boat in half. One-handed, no less.]]

If you open the picture above in a new tab, zoom in and look closely on the slider, there are no compensator cuts. Could this be, still, the same covereted-full-auto-fire Glock 17 model from ''[[Modern Warfare 2]]'', only with a fire selector switch? --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 07:41, 17 November 2011 (CST)
:It is a Glock 18 not the 18C. Whoever wrote the "C" was wrong. Real G18C can be seen in [[GRAW]] for example. - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 08:22, 17 November 2011 (CST)
:: +1 for the normal Glock 18. The C stands for compensator, and since it doesn't have one, It won't be a Glock 18C, just a normal Glock 18.--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 09:00, 17 November 2011 (CST)

:::Okay, guys, thanks for answering that :) --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 09:58, 17 November 2011 (CST)

Just noticed, they have put the fire selector on backwards. WTF is wrong with these people, it takes conscious effort to make some of these mistakes. It's like they just mess with stuff for the hell of it. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 10:09, 17 November 2011 (CST)

:It's a little hard to tell, but it looks like it's on correctly. But as a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if they read these entries and switch stuff last minute just to mess with us lol...
:A side note that I noticed: The Glock 18 has way to little recoil for being uncompensated. The compensator removes about 1/2 the muzzle climb, however for being uncompensated and full auto, it really doesn't seem to have that much recoil.--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 11:29, 17 November 2011 (CST)
::In the above image you can see the "pointer" on the fire selector, which is pointing backwards (If you zoom in you can see part of the circle of the selector above the straight "pointer" part which you wouldn't see if it was pointing forwards correctly). On a real Glock 18 the two positions are both forwards (up for semi down for auto). An easier way to see that it is wrong is in the create a class menu:
::[[File:Weapon g18 large.jpg|thumb|400px|none|]]
::The serrations are in the wrong place due to this, and the selector is too far back as well. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 13:06, 17 November 2011 (CST)
Gotchya. I wasn't sure if in the photo it was the pointer or a shadow, but I see it now. Go figure...--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 17:28, 17 November 2011 (CST)

::Also the magazine is shorter than an actual 31/33 round magazine, but it's still too long for a 20 rounder, 19-round mags (17-round Glock mag with a +2 base plate) are flush fitting. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 19:21, 19 November 2011 (CST)

== HD Screenshots from the MW3 Commercial ==

Here's some screenshots from the MW3 Commercial starring [[Sam Worthington]] and [[Jonah Hill]]:
[[File:MW3Com 01.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The Vet ([[Sam Worthington]]) loads up his ACR during the opening battle in New York City.]]
[[File:MW3Com 03.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The Vet then switches to his dual Skorpions during the first engagement.]]
[[File:MW3Com 05.jpg|thumb|none|600px|During the battle in Germany, The n00b aims an RPG-7 at an enemy sniper, as The Vet looks on in disbelief at such a choice.]]
^That one makes me laugh my ass off every time I look at it. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:41, 22 November 2011 (CST)
[[File:MW3Com 12.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b now shows off the skills he's learned from The Vet.]]

It might be a good idea to give this its own subheading (or even sub-page, there's a lot of weapons in the trailer). Usually we cover guns that appear in trailers and previews, but it's rather unique for a game trailer to have so many real weapons in it, and it'd look weird shoehorning shots from this trailer into the main page's gun entries. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 18:28, 18 November 2011 (CST)
:Here's some more screenshots from the same commercial. Note that I accidentally uploaded an existing screenshot. The following weapons appear in the commercial: FN SCAR-L, Czech Skorpions, RPG-7, M67 grenade, Barret M82, 9-Bang, M4A1 Carbine, M1911 and its modern variants, AKMS, Remington RSASS, M60E4, M16A2, and the M203 launcher. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 21:56, 18 November 2011 (CST)
::Actually, that "SCAR-L" is an ACR. :\ BTW, I just love this commercial for some reason. =) - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 19:28, 19 November 2011 (CST)
:::Seeing Sam Worthington in it just feels weird, since he's the star of BO. Do you think it was a dig at Treyarch? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 10:57, 22 November 2011 (CST)
::::Well, the rules on IMFDB state that commercials are not allowed to have their own pages. But maybe these screenshots can have their own section on the bottom of the Modern Warfare 3 main page as a "trivia special"? --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 01:58, 23 November 2011 (CST)
:::::The thing is while commercials are not allowed, ''trailers'' usually are allowed on the main page. I think in this very unusual case this trailer has enough guns to warrant a page of it's own. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 03:52, 23 November 2011 (CST)
::::::Hmm... that would be nice to see a page about this trailer on here. But then again, we'd probably have other people complaining that it would be our obligation to also include pages for the live action trailer for Call of Duty: Black Ops, the Black Ops Zombies trailer and the Rezurrection expansion pack trailer. Personally I say put all these screenshots on the bottom of the Modern Warfare 3 page as a "trivia special", and if someone wants to add screenshots from the live action trailers for Black Ops and it's expansions, then I agree on the same deal; putting them on the bottom of the main page as a "trivia special" --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 07:36, 24 November 2011 (CST)

[[Image:MW3Noob-01.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b ([[Jonah Hill]]) realizes the mistake he's just made in pulling the pin from his M67 grenade prematurely in the opening battle in New York City.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-02.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The Vet draws his dual Skorpions. Interestingly, there are no holsters for these weapons. So how he keeps them holstered on his back is unknown.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-03.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The Vet now stares down at an attacking Mil-24 "Hind" helicopter...]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-04.jpg|thumb|none|600px|...and dodges an incoming missile from the "Hind".]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-05.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b charges onto the war-torn New York City streets in typical n00b fashion; spraying from the hip and yelling a war-cry like you're Arnold Schwarzenegger.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-06.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Unfortunately, The n00b forgot about one thing; watch out for hidden landmines!]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-07.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b and The Vet sneak up on the enemy sniper during the battle in Germany.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-08.jpg|thumb|none|600px|"Watch, and learn!" The Vet once again tries to show The n00b how to prepare for combat properly during the battle in Paris.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-09.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b learns what it's like to fight in zero gravity in a recreation of the mission "Turbulence".]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-11.jpg|thumb|none|600px|"Take a break big dog, I got this!" The n00b prepares to show that he's proven his worth on the battlefield.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-12.jpg|thumb|none|600px|During the battle in New York City, The n00b switches from his ACR to his M1911. Smart choice. Not bad for a n00b!]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-13.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b fires his M1911.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-14.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b and The Vet walk side-by-side on the battlefield, as the trailer's tagline appears on the screen.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-15.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Another n00b ([[Dwight Howard]]) comes onto the battlefield, displaying the typical n00b mannerisms.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-16.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b whoops with joy after spraying the battlefield with his M16A2/M203 combo.]]

== I can't be the only one ==

[[image:CODBO-TDIVector.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]

Whenever I look at this image I feel an urgent need to photoshop Bill and Ted in either side of him and add the caption "EXCELLENT!" [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 10:34, 19 November 2011 (CST)

:Lolz. X) - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 19:23, 19 November 2011 (CST)
Hahaha!! :D Nice one!! - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 00:44, 20 November 2011 (CST)

== Colt License ==
Did Colt have a licensing agreement with MW3, as well because if you look at the charging handle of the CM901, it has the Colt logo printed on it. --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 09:49, 20 November 2011 (CST)

:I've got an image of the thanks section from the credits which includes everyone who advertised, I'll post it up when I get home. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 15:08, 20 November 2011 (CST)

::Cool, thanks man. [[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 15:35, 20 November 2011 (CST)

[[Image:MW3-Thanksto-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]

"Colt Defense LLC." Oddities include thanking "Desert Eagle" ''and'' Magnum Research, Barrett ''and'' Barrett Rifles, and that they got help from Degroat, a company that refurbishes miniguns; I guess explaining why they're GAU-17/As with Dillon bits. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 00:31, 21 November 2011 (CST)

:I find it amazing that the developers actually included '''Bobby Kotick''' in the special thanks section. -- Long Fallen 20:25, 21 November 2011 (CST)

::"Thanks for not firing us yet!" [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:01, 21 November 2011 (CST)

Kevin Smith? The director? [[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 13:43, 21 November 2011 (CST)

== M4A1 20 round magazine ==

I find it funny that they model 30 round magazines on the M16A4, but model 20 round mags on the M4A1 with a 30 round capacity, judging by this picture below, they look like straight 30 round mags instead of curved.
[[Image:MW3-M4-4.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Master Sergeant "Sandman" prepares to throw a magazine to Westbrook at the very start of the game.]]
--[[User:Gunner5|Gunner5]]
:I don't think straight 30 round STANAG magazines exist. However, there were straight 25 round magazine in the early days of the M16 that are about this length, but they are rare as hens' teeth these days and would doubt that is what the developers intended. Think it is more likely that they just modelled it wrong deliberately or accidentally. They probably liked the aesthetic of a straight magazine, but a corect length 20 round would have looked conspicuously short compared to the other rifles in the game. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 19:10, 21 November 2011 (CST)

::I'm more inclined to say it's an oversized straight magazine than a rare one (it could also be an M4 adapted to use FAMAS F1 mags, if we're being silly). [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:19, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:::There ''are'' 30 round straight STANAG magazines out there, however they are extremely rare and also unreliable because the follower tends to hang up with the magazine frame. I have seen '''maybe''' 3 of them in my 16 years of working with guns, including on the internet. The mags in the picture however are too short to be them, and they are most certainly 20 rounders. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 07:59, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::::If you compare them to the pistol grip they're ''slightly'' too long to be 20 rounders, too, they're sorta halfway. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 08:04, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:::::Well that's kinda because the grip is at the wrong angle too... lol Go to my page and look at the AR-15 I have up and you'll see that the grip here is angled too far backwards, which may be part of the problem... --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 08:15, 22 November 2011 (CST)
::::::Do you have any links to pics of 30 round straight magazines, as have never seen one. I thought the 30 round magazine were always curved, but the original ones had a shallower, constant curve rather than the subsequent ones which are straight inside the magazine well, with a more sever curve underneath. Regardless of the grip angle, the 20 round magazine is too long:
::::::[[File:COD MW3 M4A1 class.jpg|thumb|500px|none|]]
::::::compare to this:
::::::[[File:ColtAR-15A3TacticalCarbine.jpg|thumb|500px|none|]]
::::::It also lacks the M4 profile barrel, and that flash hider is ridiculous, almost looks like a non-gun. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 09:07, 22 November 2011 (CST)

Ok here is a prototype that I have had on my files for a while.

[[File:30 round straight AR mag.jpg|300px]]

It lacks the cutout for the normal mag catch because it was designed for another gun (can't remember exactly what). Those 30 round straight mags may very well be converted magazines for other mags done before AR mags were widely available. Also, the grip angle looked worse in the in-game photo than the game picture of the gun. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 09:27, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:Ok upon doing further research here that magazine is actually a FAL magazine. Oops! I can't find any pictures on Gunbroker because once they archive their auctions you can't go back and get the pictures. Grrr... Sorry to let you down guys. Some research I found though was that the curve was given because of reliability issues found back with the original M16, therefore any 30 round straight magazines are going to be collector items and very rare. Just interesting... --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 09:33, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::The grip is probably at least in part due to perspective. The picture Commando posted does look to be a static render of the same in-world gun model that Sandman is carrying, it's just that one's tilted towards us while the one in my pic is tilted away. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 09:39, 22 November 2011 (CST)

Did anyone notice the gas piston block on top of the receiver? Look at the rear sight, then look forward a millimeter. It's obviously not a removable riser which leads me to the conclusion that it must have been modeled after an M4 with a gas piston operated upper receiver. Hmmm... --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 09:48, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:It's fairly well documented that their primary references are usually Airsoft guns, so it could be anything. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 09:53, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::I don't think it is based on a piston gun. The raised flat top looks more like it is due to a riser as it looks very "bitty" and slapped on top (looks a bit like the back end of whatever you call those rail systems that clamp onto the flat-top, SIR?). Also, it has a regular handguard slip ring, which I don't think you could have as it wouldn't leave enough room for the piston. The handguard itself is pretty screwed up as well, with 5 large cooling holes along the top, but 7 smaller ones along the bottom, the rail along the bottom is totally flat, and along the side isn't a rail at all, but rather a series of hollow loops much further apart than the ridges on a rail. It looks like a complete frankengun monstrosity. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 16:14, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::I agree, the riser looks like the rear part of MW2's RIS. And this RIS is the single worst RIS I have EVER seen, in so many ways. Also, it's funny you'd use a picture of an AR-15A3, as that's the "M4A1" in COD4 :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 16:24, 22 November 2011 (CST)

== Delta Force Weapons ==

Anyone else annoyed at the weapons used by the AI Delta Force members? Besides the issue of the 20 RD mags on the M4s, Delta is one of the most advanced spec ops teams in the world and better funded than most units within the military, but none of the AI's guns have any sort of attachment besides M203s. You'd think that if by now basic infantry in real life has optics on their guns, then an elite team like Delta would have ACOG's or Eotechs on all of their guns in a game set in 2016.--[[User:James Woods|James Woods]] 16:27, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:And Desert Eagles... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 16:28, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::Also seen in the hands of other SF Units and Russian [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigBad Big Bads] [http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Desert_Eagle through the series]... It's like, seriously! D:< --[[User:Masterius|Masterius]] 05:18, 23 November 2011 (CST)

:I just was researching Delta Force. I saw alot of pictures were operators had just a normal iron sighted M4 with an M203. Literally, only two of the multiple pictures i saw, they had no optics other than an m203.--[[User:Gunner5|Gunner5]]

::As they should. I would, there's nothing wrong with ironsights, it's just nowadays everyone wants a reflex sight on everything. I wouldn't want anything electronic on ''my'' gun. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 18:20, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:::They probably don't want to be caught out by an EMP again. Seriously though, unless they are trying to keep a low profile by using indigenous weapons, special forces these days would likely have gadgets. Why would they penalise themselves by not giving themselves every possible advantage? To analogise to British SAS, when they are not trying to look like conventional forces, I have seen them using C8s with silencers, AN/PEQ-2s, flashlights, vertical grips, ACOGs, coupled magazines, P226 pistols with crimson trace grips and AN/PVS-21 goggles. I would imagine it vary much depends on the mission though, but I think I have only ever seen iron sights on a British C8 once, and that was on Salisbury plane. All of this is British rather than Delta force though, but I would imagine they would carry the same number of (if not more) gadgets. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 19:29, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::::That's what back-up iron sights (BIS) are for in addition to your optics. Most people have them in case their battery dies or the optics breaks...or in this case an EMP knocks them out. The D-boys should definitely not just be iron sighting it--[[User:Shadowkungfu|Shadowkungfu]] 23:48, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::::Indeed, where are the laser sights and tactical flashlights? SF firearms look so barebones without them :\
::::At least, vertical forward grips are on. --[[User:Masterius|Masterius]] 05:18, 23 November 2011 (CST)

:The actual answer to this is a combination of resources (putting scopes on everyone's weapons would be more objects in the game world, this would be especially bad when they're chucking an infinite good guy respawn at an infinite bad guy respawn until the player kills some guys) and gameplay (players who see their teammates with cool-looking guns would hang back and wait for them to get killed so they can snag them). [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:56, 23 November 2011 (CST)

== Two USPs ==

First, sorry for my bad english! In Tha name "USP.45 Tactical Suppressed", the "Tactical" part refers to the tacticl knife, NOT the USP Tactical.the normal "USP .45" in the game has a threaded barrel too. Look at the C-A-C icon of USP on codwiki if yu don't believe. The 2 USP sections shuold be merged to become 1. --Paul, bozitojugg3nut's brother

:Good point, though it should still be noted that there are two very different USP textures. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 04:17, 23 November 2011 (CST)

::No they shouldn't.

::[[Image:MW3-USP-4.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Standard USP. Slide wording "(front cocking serration) USP .45 Auto." Has no visible projecting barrel. This is a USP 45, and the model is more or less lifted straight from the previous game.]]

::[[Image:MW3-USPTac-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|USP Tactical model. Slide says "USP Tactical .45 Auto," barrel projects forward of the front of the slide. This is a USP Tactical.]]

::They are two distinct models, not just retextures of one. The confusion arises because the C-A-C image is of the Tactical version, even though it says it isn't (you'll notice the C-A-C icon on CoDwiki also has the Tactical model's underbarrel accessory, not the USP 45's, because it is not the USP 45 model), and because the Tactical version is just called USP 45 except the one time Burns uses it. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:00, 23 November 2011 (CST)

:::Does the regular USP also have no bullets in the magazine, whereas the Tactical does? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 05:33, 23 November 2011 (CST)

::::You're not an operator, you wouldn't understand. :D [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:53, 23 November 2011 (CST)

:::::[http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/hk-because-you-suck-and-we-hate-you/ Because we suck. And HK hates us.] xD -- Long Fallen 04:44, 24 November 2011 (CST)

:I think my retarded brother is right this time:
:[[Image:MW3-0000.jpg|thumb|none|400px|]]
:And to respond to the upper image where the pistol is being reloaded on the ship or what that is: it HAS a visible projecting barrel (not on that image tho). I asked my bro to play the level where you run around in a gas mask in Paris. In better lighting conditions, the threaded barrel is perfectly visible on the 1st person model too.
:And for the last, the article says that the USP45 is ''using almost exactly the same model as the previous game''. ''EVERY'' USP in ''EVERY'' COD game has a threaded barrel. Now I am gone to kick Paul's ass for using my account and giving me a bad name (again). - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 10:18, 23 November 2011 (CST)

::You're forgetting that in-world and player-held models are not the same (and can sometimes be entirely seperate weapons as a result). Here's an angle-for-angle comparison of the player models:
::[[Image:MW3-Nottactical.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Standard USP. Slide wording "(front cocking serration) USP .45 Auto." Has ''very slightly'' visible projecting barrel (it isn't "perfectly" visible or really visible at all outside taking stills no matter what you do). This is a USP 45, and the model is more or less lifted straight from the previous game.]]
::[[Image:MW3-USPTac-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|USP Tactical model. Slide says "USP Tactical .45 Auto," has ''highly'' visible (and therefore longer) projecting barrel. This is a USP Tactical.]]
::As for being recycled, the USP model is. It also has the same LAM / light (the COD 4 model used a square Mark 23 style LAM, not this diagonal one), the same cocking serration replacing the HK logo, etc. The new one has a longer barrel and correctly calls itself a USP Tactical on the slide, while the original is just a malformed USP. The new model also has different sights (check the rear sight in particular), it's ''not'' just a straight-up retexture of the same model. They are therefore two different guns. The only retexture is Tactical Suppressed, which has an HK logo on the grip when the basic Tactical model doesn't.
::[[Image:Akimbo_usp.jpg|thumb|none|600px|MW2 USPs. Note the same LAM as the MW3 version, same sights, HK logo replaced with a cocking serration, etc.]]
::Let me just break this down:
::*Someone decided they needed a new USP model.
::*They made a new USP model which has features correct for a Tactical, and slide engraving saying it's a Tactical.
::*They decided to use the old MW2 USP model as well for no good reason.
::*They decided to call both the USP 45, also for no good reason.
::Hence, there are two gun models, the old mutant USP and the new Tactical. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 14:59, 23 November 2011 (CST)

:::My bad Tim, you're right. That's what I get for trying to ID guns at 2 in the morning :/ [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 15:28, 23 November 2011 (CST)

Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

2011-11-24T13:36:54Z

ThatoneguyJosh:

See [[Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3/Archive 1]] for older discussions.

== KSG ==

Kinda surprised it never appears in singleplayer since it's supposed to be one of the "gimmick" guns for this game, has anyone seen one anywhere? [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 12:07, 10 November 2011 (CST)

::Right now it's still in production. It was apparently a HUGE hit at the 2011 SHOT Show, however on the downside Kel-Tec is a pretty small manufacturer who happens to make pretty popular products, and that results in some pretty severe backlogging. I think they are planning on releasing it in early 2012 last I heard. The best part though is it's supposedly not going to be that expensive! --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 18:14, 10 November 2011 (CST)

::: This gun is out now! It's going for between $650 and $800 depending on where you shop. I found 6 different places selling it by putting a simple search into Google. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 11:02, 16 November 2011 (CST)

I think he meant in the game, but that's good news too!--[[User:--JazzBlackBelt--|--JazzBlackBelt--]] 16:22, 18 November 2011 (CST)

:I did. And now I've got one, I get to discover they got literally ''everything'' about it wrong. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 09:22, 19 November 2011 (CST)

::Do tell :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 12:42, 19 November 2011 (CST)

::: LOL ooooooops! I haven't found the gun in single player, but I didn't do much searching either. But yea it's so messed up in the game (multiplayer). First, it's not a continuous fire shotgun. You get 7, then have to manually switch (not exactly sure how) to the other tube which holds another 7. Second, for being a 12 gauge, the damage is absurdly low. It took me an average of 3 torso hits to kill someone. Also, you would think they would give this shotgun to have slugs in one tube, and buckshot in the other! After all, that was the main idea behind the gun! Instant ammo switching or a lot of ammo in a compact package! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Way to ruin an awesome gun!!! --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 17:00, 19 November 2011 (CST)

::::In Survival it's 12 rounds and it's just treated as a standard shotgun; no switching tube mags. It's more or less just a crappier version of the Striker with even less damage and slow pump rather than semi-auto. Everything I've read implies it's 12 in multi too, which as I said on the page would only be true if it were using 3" shells; since it damages like it's using 1 1/2" shells loaded with sand, I'm just writing that up as an error. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 17:08, 19 November 2011 (CST)

== Mk 14 ==

on the pic Price's Mk 14 has a CTR stock so it is a Mod 1 --[[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 13:20, 10 November 2011 (CST)

== Soap's M1911 ==
In the pic of his holster, that's not a 1911. Looks like an M9, by the grips and slide safety groove. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 20:03, 10 November 2011 (CST)

== reload animations ==

A lot of the reloads are still carried from the previous games but what baffles me is there are plenty of guns that have a cocking handle on the left side and even some are the same gun like the MG36 and the G36 but both cock the charging handle from different sides. I was hoping the ACR would changed, but nothing really changed. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:42, 10 November 2011 (CST)

== Beefed up gun sounds ==

I am really liking the beefed up gun shots in this game [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 21:42, 10 November 2011 (CST)
::Lol... Everything but the ARs have good sounds, and everyone else's gunfire sounds great (ie. your standing next to them). Now I'll admit I'm only about 1/2 way through the ranking so I don't have all of the guns unlocked, so I don't know what some of the later guns sound like. I will say though, the Dragunov gunshot is incredible. I mean like 100% dead on. The L118 is the right sound, BUT NOT LOUD ENOUGH!!! That gunshot should be teeth rattling! The Barrett M107 is the same way; right but not loud enough! I just cope with it by cranking the volume when no one's home :D --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 07:36, 11 November 2011 (CST)

:::Actually, this was one of the things I really ''didn't'' like in this game, they all sound like they were made on a computer as opposed to being recorded. Think of the M200 in MW2, and a few others, they sound like, well, it's hard to describe, but something like metal hitting against metal? I dunno, but the Desert Eagle's sound in this is very bad compared to COD4 [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 14:31, 11 November 2011 (CST)

::::That's what I think the Assault Rifles and quite a few LMGs sound like. They finally fixed the pistols and sniper rifle's sounds, but totally messed up the others! What the heck? --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 14:50, 11 November 2011 (CST)

== Overall thoughts on the game ==
To be honest folks, this game turned out really good in the end. The gameplay doesn't feel as noobified like the last game was, the graphics, game engine and gameplay is more sharper and cleaner this time around as opposed to the glitches and bugs in second game, the multiplayer isn't so bland, the SpecOps feel more polished and fun, and the game's story explained a whole lot more stuff to the overall plot than Modern Warfare 2 did, and it left it on a more appropriate closure to the series. All in all, a good game. Maybe it's nothing groundbreaking in the "realism" factor (We'll leave that to Battlefield), but it still turned out to be a damn good game, and definitely worth the price. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 05:42, 11 November 2011 (CST)

::After watching the whole Singleplayer playthrough, and some MP stuff too, I agree. While (to me) it doesn't beat MW1, it sure is better than MW2 and BO. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 14:31, 11 November 2011 (CST)
:Modern Warfare 3 had the gameplay of Modern Warfare 2, but has more-balanced multiplayer content (though the multiplayer is obviously borrowed from Modern Warfare 2), gameplay, perks, satisfying story with clear parts (unlike Modern Warfare 2, which had a muddled plot), and like everyone said, realistic gun sounds. Even though it is not as successful or good as the older Call of Duty games and the other modern FPS games, it is overall the best video game set during modern times. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 20:33, 11 November 2011 (CST)

:::Well, it being the best modern shooter is your opinion, and I'm certainly not trying to say that it's ''wrong'', but for me MW1 and BF3 both take the that title. I agree with your summary though. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 21:21, 11 November 2011 (CST)

== MP5K? ==

Is there actually an MP5K in the game, or is this just an MP5A2 that someone misidentified ages ago? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 11:32, 12 November 2011 (CST)

:No, that is actually an MP5K (you can see the name on the right is "MP5K holographic," and the hold is with the PC's thumb covering more of the rail, implying it's shorter), it was just cut from the final game. It's quite likely that when the dev console codes come out you'll be able to call it up in singleplayer with a "give" cheat. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 11:45, 12 November 2011 (CST)

::As we all know a lot of things in Call of Duty games are copy-pasted from previous ones, and since what we see of the K looks identical to the MW3 MP5, and we can see the reload animation is copy-pasted from the MW2 K, so I'm betting they copy-pasted the whole gun, changed the model, but didn't change the name til after that video. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 14:26, 12 November 2011 (CST)
:::This MP5K (if that is what it is, am still not 101% convinced) isn't the one from MW2 as has different rail system and a solid butt. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 14:40, 12 November 2011 (CST)

::::You misunderstood, the MW3 MP5K we're looking at, and the normal MP5 in MW3 look the same. The game files for the MP5K were brought over from MW2, and it was given a new model and name, but the name hadn't been changed yet as of the video. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 16:53, 12 November 2011 (CST)

:::::I don't think so, the one labelled as an MP5K looks shorter. Edit: Actually, looking at the Spec-Ops trailer and my own caps you might be right, it's the MW3 MP5 but he's holding it like it's an MP5K because it doesn't have new hand positions yet. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 22:35, 12 November 2011 (CST)

== RSASS Secondary Sight on the Wrong Side ==

Has anybody else noticed that the red dot secondary sight is mounted in the wrong (left) side? If your holding the gun as a rightie, than it needs to be on the right side so that the hand holding the pistol grip just has to twist outwards. With it being on the left side, you have to twist your hand inwards to be able to look through the sight, and between a pistol grip in the gut, no stock surface on your shoulder, a magazine getting in the way of your support hand, and a 100% unnatural face angle, it ain't happening. But what else is new. Go figure. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 08:09, 13 November 2011 (CST)

:You'd think you'd just put it on the top or side of the scope, regardless. But the left hold kinda works if you're willing to stick your "wing" right out for it. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 08:16, 13 November 2011 (CST)

::I noticed that too but I just figured they wanted the player to see it. Even though it's wrong, I think it's still cool that they tried it. reminds me of Jerry Miculek doing a 3 gun match.--[[User:Acepeacemaker|Acepeacemaker]] 20:08, 20 November 2011 (CST)

:::That's probably it, and also probably the reason for some other subtle reasons such as the Pechang LMG feeding from the wrong side and so on. I personally know that if I couldn't see it in game, I probably would forget about it. They pretty much dropped realism for gameplay. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 20:25, 20 November 2011 (CST)

== Barrett ==

Price used an M82A1 in Pripyat as the M107 wasn't even developed 15 years before 2011. - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 07:30, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:Oh, whoops. Although a weapon not being invented yet has historically never been a problem for this series, you know. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 07:43, 15 November 2011 (CST)

::CoughBlackOpsCough..... --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 07:53, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:::OMFG, is that a suppressed RSASS between the two RPG's? In '96? - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 08:34, 15 November 2011 (CST)

::::See? SEE?! [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 08:42, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:CoD... CoD... -_- --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 09:02, 15 November 2011 (CST)

Also, the helicopter flying past is an Mi-28N (round ball above the rotor), which wasn't delivered until 2006. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 10:10, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:Exactly. I recently updated CoD4:MW's main page about that issue. But something else I would like to know if in anyway, is it matter if Price used the M82A1 rather than the L96, even though the British Army does using the M82A1? --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 10:24, 15 November 2011 (CST)

::The range involved, you'd be pushing things with just a 7.62. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]]

:::Ah, okay. --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 10:42, 15 November 2011 (CST)

::::Back then a Barrett M82A1 would be the correct weapon for an SAS sniper at long range. Although the M82A1 is still in the British army inventory, The AW50F tends to be favoured nowadays by both special forces and regulars (mainly EOD and anti material), so this weapon choice is chronologically correct although I think this is purely by accident. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 11:10, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:::::Sigh, RSASSs... At least the weapons in the two flashback missions were close to being right, at most a couple years too early, but these? Really? Of all the guns they could have picked for that scene :P [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 14:58, 15 November 2011 (CST)

:To give Blops one point, the framing device does add some scope for ridiculous weapons (the action is being recounted by a man who's half dead, dosed up to the eyeballs on drugs and being tortured), though that in turn raises the question of why the interrogator is apparently letting him describe exactly how he shot every single person. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 03:02, 18 November 2011 (CST)

==EOTech XPS Logo==
There's nothing ridiculous about it, it actually ''is'' that big. [http://webyshops.com/ns/images/EOTech/EOTech-EXPS2-2-Holographic-Sight-2-dot-Ballistic-Reticle-with-3X-Magnifier-and-FTS-Mount-Flipped-View-MPO-III-Pic1.jpg] [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 04:59, 16 November 2011 (CST)

:Actually, there's still something ridiculous about that. :P [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:12, 16 November 2011 (CST)

::How come? It's the same one. --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 05:33, 16 November 2011 (CST)

:::Because it's ridiculous in real life too. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:57, 16 November 2011 (CST)

== Minigun ==

Are we sure it's Dillon Aero rather than Garwood Industries' [http://www.garwoodindustries.com/proddetail.php?prod=M-134G M-134G]? I can't find a Dillon with that top-mounted RIS rail, but Garwood's one has it. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 06:44, 16 November 2011 (CST)
:If you go onto YouTube, you can find people shooting Dillon Aero miniguns with rails. It's more of an aftermarket thing, but they are out there. I'm also not sure why you wouldn't be able to find a photo, as 95% of handheld military arms have rails on them. Since the adoption of the M16A3/A4, rails have become pretty much standard on everything that might remotely need a sight. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 07:45, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::Yeah, I meant I couldn't find a base model on their site with rails. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 08:06, 16 November 2011 (CST)
:::Oh well you likely won't find one then. What is likely though, is the gun is probably drilled and tapped for the rail and shipped with filler screws, so that whoever receives the gun can add a rail if they want to. It's a pretty common practice on a lot of rifles. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 08:23, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::::I wouldn't worry too much about the rail, as it is mounted in the wrong place anyway. Any sight rail I have seen on a minigun has been mounted to the yoke rather than to the gun body itself. Regardless, from the slotted flash suppressor the closest match is a GAU-17/A, which incidentally also has a sight rail. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 09:47, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::::[[File:GAU-17A HH60.jpg|thumb|400px|none|GAU-17/A mounted on an HH-60H Seahawk - 7.62x51mm NATO]]
::::Looking at the screencaps again, just noticed that although it has the barrel assembly of a GAU-17/A it has dome Dillon parts, including the spade grips, the gun drive motor and gun control unit. Also, when you fire the gun, does the character press down with his thumbs, because this is what it looks like in the screenshot. If so, I think that this is incorrect as the fire buttons are on the GCU and the buttons on top of the spade grips can be optionally wired up to activate things like lasers or illuminators, or to deploy flares and chaff. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 10:16, 16 November 2011 (CST)
:::::Yes. He rests his thumbs together in the middle when not firing, that's "firing" even though you can't see a muzzle flash in that shot. But looking at Dillon's site, the wording implies that those switches can be used for other functions ''or'' as triggers, so it might not be wrong, just weird. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 10:37, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::::::The trigger on these things can be a number of different options. I've seen a butterfly trigger with 2 toggle switches (one for power, the other for rate of fire) and I have seen ones with a power toggle switch and two button triggers, both firing the the weapon but each at different rates of fire. These guns are built to order, so all that's shown on the website is a base model. Extra features can be had when someone orders it.

::::::The rail is next to useless anyway though, because the gun is intended to be walked onto target. You start firing in the general direction, then move the gun onto target by watching the tracers (every 4th or 5th round). This makes red dot sights and most lasers pretty much worthless.--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 10:58, 16 November 2011 (CST)

:::::::Well, the rail's always empty in CoD, so they might have actually got something right there. It's just there under the Black theory that adding a RIS rail makes any gun 30% better (the average gun in Black is thus roughly 270% better). [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 11:02, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::::::::LOL In the shooting community here, rails are super popular among people, but they add weight onto guns REALLY fast. Taking an AR-15 and switching out a normal handguard to a quad rail immediately adds on 8-20 ounces of weight (depending on rail length). Factor in grips, lights, and lasers, it gets heavy way too fast!--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 11:08, 16 November 2011 (CST)
:::::::::And of course the 37mm flare launcher that you tell everyone is an M203, that's a vital part of every ridiculous range toy. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 11:18, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::::::::::Pah those things are really cool but ridiculously heavy. They are quite a bit of fun at night though!--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 11:30, 16 November 2011 (CST)
I don't think those top thumb switches can be configured to fire the gun, as don't think there is an "input" into the GCU other than the main power supply. There is one plug I'm not 100% sure about, but when looking at pictures if it is attached it always goes away from the gun, possibly it is the power supply to the ammo booster if fitted but don't know. As for the rail thing, the one time a sight is handy is if you want to fire a warning shot across something, as would be a bit embarrassing to start firing and mince the target accidentally because you judged it slightly wrong. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 11:37, 16 November 2011 (CST)
:Ok 1st, I don't think anyone on earth would fire a warning shot with a minigun. That just seems stupid beyond belief. Another reason a sight is worthless is because it doesn't take into account windage, lead, and bullet drop, especially if moving. These are all things you have to eyeball in order to make a hit.
:As for those switches, they can. It's all about how the manufacturer sends the gun out and simple electronics. Just like I could wire up all the lights in the house to be turned on with a timer or from my car, but there's just no reason to do so. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 11:58, 16 November 2011 (CST)
::I am only talking about the Dillon M134D, how other manufacturer set up their fire control group is up to them, but the spade grips here are for a Dillon. The GCU has 1 input and 2 or 3 outputs. Input is main power to the gun, first two outputs are for the motor and the clutch, and the third, if connected, goes away from the gun, my guess to the ammunition booster but not 100%.
::Warning shot from a minigun is not stupid, I have done it a couple of times to discourage fast boats getting a bit too close to where they shouldn't be, and it works pretty damn well. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 12:07, 16 November 2011 (CST)

== Fun fact ==

This screenshot

[[Image:MW3-Magnum-1.jpg|thumb|600px|none|]]

Is actually ''impossible'' to get using Steam's screenshot feature, since it won't take shots during that part of the intro (loading, I guess). In the end I had to use FRAPS. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 13:25, 16 November 2011 (CST)

== Glock 18C/Glock 17 hybrid? ==

I couldn't find a good picture to verify currectly, but even so the developers remembered to add a fire selector switch this time, let's not forget that the really really actual Glock 18C has compensator cuts on both the slider and barrel, in order to reduce the recoil (if I'm not mistaken).

[[Image:MW3-Glock-2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Undeterred by this, he's soon using his Glock to blow a Russian patrol boat in half. One-handed, no less.]]

If you open the picture above in a new tab, zoom in and look closely on the slider, there are no compensator cuts. Could this be, still, the same covereted-full-auto-fire Glock 17 model from ''[[Modern Warfare 2]]'', only with a fire selector switch? --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 07:41, 17 November 2011 (CST)
:It is a Glock 18 not the 18C. Whoever wrote the "C" was wrong. Real G18C can be seen in [[GRAW]] for example. - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 08:22, 17 November 2011 (CST)
:: +1 for the normal Glock 18. The C stands for compensator, and since it doesn't have one, It won't be a Glock 18C, just a normal Glock 18.--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 09:00, 17 November 2011 (CST)

:::Okay, guys, thanks for answering that :) --[[User:RaNgeR|RaNgeR]] 09:58, 17 November 2011 (CST)

Just noticed, they have put the fire selector on backwards. WTF is wrong with these people, it takes conscious effort to make some of these mistakes. It's like they just mess with stuff for the hell of it. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 10:09, 17 November 2011 (CST)

:It's a little hard to tell, but it looks like it's on correctly. But as a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if they read these entries and switch stuff last minute just to mess with us lol...
:A side note that I noticed: The Glock 18 has way to little recoil for being uncompensated. The compensator removes about 1/2 the muzzle climb, however for being uncompensated and full auto, it really doesn't seem to have that much recoil.--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 11:29, 17 November 2011 (CST)
::In the above image you can see the "pointer" on the fire selector, which is pointing backwards (If you zoom in you can see part of the circle of the selector above the straight "pointer" part which you wouldn't see if it was pointing forwards correctly). On a real Glock 18 the two positions are both forwards (up for semi down for auto). An easier way to see that it is wrong is in the create a class menu:
::[[File:Weapon g18 large.jpg|thumb|400px|none|]]
::The serrations are in the wrong place due to this, and the selector is too far back as well. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 13:06, 17 November 2011 (CST)
Gotchya. I wasn't sure if in the photo it was the pointer or a shadow, but I see it now. Go figure...--[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 17:28, 17 November 2011 (CST)

::Also the magazine is shorter than an actual 31/33 round magazine, but it's still too long for a 20 rounder, 19-round mags (17-round Glock mag with a +2 base plate) are flush fitting. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 19:21, 19 November 2011 (CST)

== HD Screenshots from the MW3 Commercial ==

Here's some screenshots from the MW3 Commercial starring [[Sam Worthington]] and [[Jonah Hill]]:
[[File:MW3Com 01.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The Vet ([[Sam Worthington]]) loads up his ACR during the opening battle in New York City.]]
[[File:MW3Com 03.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The Vet then switches to his dual Skorpions during the first engagement.]]
[[File:MW3Com 05.jpg|thumb|none|600px|During the battle in Germany, The n00b aims an RPG-7 at an enemy sniper, as The Vet looks on in disbelief at such a choice.]]
^That one makes me laugh my ass off every time I look at it. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 10:41, 22 November 2011 (CST)
[[File:MW3Com 12.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b now shows off the skills he's learned from The Vet.]]

It might be a good idea to give this its own subheading (or even sub-page, there's a lot of weapons in the trailer). Usually we cover guns that appear in trailers and previews, but it's rather unique for a game trailer to have so many real weapons in it, and it'd look weird shoehorning shots from this trailer into the main page's gun entries. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 18:28, 18 November 2011 (CST)
:Here's some more screenshots from the same commercial. Note that I accidentally uploaded an existing screenshot. The following weapons appear in the commercial: FN SCAR-L, Czech Skorpions, RPG-7, M67 grenade, Barret M82, 9-Bang, M4A1 Carbine, M1911 and its modern variants, AKMS, Remington RSASS, M60E4, M16A2, and the M203 launcher. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 21:56, 18 November 2011 (CST)
::Actually, that "SCAR-L" is an ACR. :\ BTW, I just love this commercial for some reason. =) - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 19:28, 19 November 2011 (CST)
:::Seeing Sam Worthington in it just feels weird, since he's the star of BO. Do you think it was a dig at Treyarch? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 10:57, 22 November 2011 (CST)
::::Well, the rules on IMFDB state that commercials are not allowed to have their own pages. But maybe these screenshots can have their own section on the bottom of the Modern Warfare 3 main page as a "trivia special"? --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 01:58, 23 November 2011 (CST)
:::::The thing is while commercials are not allowed, ''trailers'' usually are allowed on the main page. I think in this very unusual case this trailer has enough guns to warrant a page of it's own. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 03:52, 23 November 2011 (CST)
::::::Hmm... that would be nice to see a page about this trailer on here. But then again, we'd probably have other people complaining that it would be our obligation to also include pages for the live action trailers for Call of Duty: Black Ops and it's 4 expansion packs. Personally I say put all these screenshots on the bottom of the Modern Warfare 3 page as a "trivia special", and if someone wants to add screenshots from the live action trailers for Black Ops and it's expansions, then I agree on the same deal; putting them on the bottom of the main page as a "trivia special" --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] 07:36, 24 November 2011 (CST)

[[Image:MW3Noob-01.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b ([[Jonah Hill]]) realizes the mistake he's just made in pulling the pin from his M67 grenade prematurely in the opening battle in New York City.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-02.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The Vet draws his dual Skorpions. Interestingly, there are no holsters for these weapons. So how he keeps them holstered on his back is unknown.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-03.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The Vet now stares down at an attacking Mil-24 "Hind" helicopter...]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-04.jpg|thumb|none|600px|...and dodges an incoming missile from the "Hind".]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-05.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b charges onto the war-torn New York City streets in typical n00b fashion; spraying from the hip and yelling a war-cry like you're Arnold Schwarzenegger.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-06.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Unfortunately, The n00b forgot about one thing; watch out for hidden landmines!]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-07.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b and The Vet sneak up on the enemy sniper during the battle in Germany.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-08.jpg|thumb|none|600px|"Watch, and learn!" The Vet once again tries to show The n00b how to prepare for combat properly during the battle in Paris.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-09.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b learns what it's like to fight in zero gravity in a recreation of the mission "Turbulence".]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-11.jpg|thumb|none|600px|"Take a break big dog, I got this!" The n00b prepares to show that he's proven his worth on the battlefield.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-12.jpg|thumb|none|600px|During the battle in New York City, The n00b switches from his ACR to his M1911. Smart choice. Not bad for a n00b!]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-13.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b fires his M1911.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-14.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b and The Vet walk side-by-side on the battlefield, as the trailer's tagline appears on the screen.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-15.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Another n00b ([[Dwight Howard]]) comes onto the battlefield, displaying the typical n00b mannerisms.]]
[[Image:MW3Noob-16.jpg|thumb|none|600px|The n00b whoops with joy after spraying the battlefield with his M16A2/M203 combo.]]

== I can't be the only one ==

[[image:CODBO-TDIVector.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]]

Whenever I look at this image I feel an urgent need to photoshop Bill and Ted in either side of him and add the caption "EXCELLENT!" [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 10:34, 19 November 2011 (CST)

:Lolz. X) - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 19:23, 19 November 2011 (CST)
Hahaha!! :D Nice one!! - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 00:44, 20 November 2011 (CST)

== Colt License ==
Did Colt have a licensing agreement with MW3, as well because if you look at the charging handle of the CM901, it has the Colt logo printed on it. --[[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 09:49, 20 November 2011 (CST)

:I've got an image of the thanks section from the credits which includes everyone who advertised, I'll post it up when I get home. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 15:08, 20 November 2011 (CST)

::Cool, thanks man. [[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 15:35, 20 November 2011 (CST)

[[Image:MW3-Thanksto-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px]]

"Colt Defense LLC." Oddities include thanking "Desert Eagle" ''and'' Magnum Research, Barrett ''and'' Barrett Rifles, and that they got help from Degroat, a company that refurbishes miniguns; I guess explaining why they're GAU-17/As with Dillon bits. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 00:31, 21 November 2011 (CST)

:I find it amazing that the developers actually included '''Bobby Kotick''' in the special thanks section. -- Long Fallen 20:25, 21 November 2011 (CST)

::"Thanks for not firing us yet!" [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:01, 21 November 2011 (CST)

Kevin Smith? The director? [[User:SmithandWesson36|SmithandWesson36]] 13:43, 21 November 2011 (CST)

== M4A1 20 round magazine ==

I find it funny that they model 30 round magazines on the M16A4, but model 20 round mags on the M4A1 with a 30 round capacity, judging by this picture below, they look like straight 30 round mags instead of curved.
[[Image:MW3-M4-4.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Master Sergeant "Sandman" prepares to throw a magazine to Westbrook at the very start of the game.]]
--[[User:Gunner5|Gunner5]]
:I don't think straight 30 round STANAG magazines exist. However, there were straight 25 round magazine in the early days of the M16 that are about this length, but they are rare as hens' teeth these days and would doubt that is what the developers intended. Think it is more likely that they just modelled it wrong deliberately or accidentally. They probably liked the aesthetic of a straight magazine, but a corect length 20 round would have looked conspicuously short compared to the other rifles in the game. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 19:10, 21 November 2011 (CST)

::I'm more inclined to say it's an oversized straight magazine than a rare one (it could also be an M4 adapted to use FAMAS F1 mags, if we're being silly). [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:19, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:::There ''are'' 30 round straight STANAG magazines out there, however they are extremely rare and also unreliable because the follower tends to hang up with the magazine frame. I have seen '''maybe''' 3 of them in my 16 years of working with guns, including on the internet. The mags in the picture however are too short to be them, and they are most certainly 20 rounders. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 07:59, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::::If you compare them to the pistol grip they're ''slightly'' too long to be 20 rounders, too, they're sorta halfway. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 08:04, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:::::Well that's kinda because the grip is at the wrong angle too... lol Go to my page and look at the AR-15 I have up and you'll see that the grip here is angled too far backwards, which may be part of the problem... --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 08:15, 22 November 2011 (CST)
::::::Do you have any links to pics of 30 round straight magazines, as have never seen one. I thought the 30 round magazine were always curved, but the original ones had a shallower, constant curve rather than the subsequent ones which are straight inside the magazine well, with a more sever curve underneath. Regardless of the grip angle, the 20 round magazine is too long:
::::::[[File:COD MW3 M4A1 class.jpg|thumb|500px|none|]]
::::::compare to this:
::::::[[File:ColtAR-15A3TacticalCarbine.jpg|thumb|500px|none|]]
::::::It also lacks the M4 profile barrel, and that flash hider is ridiculous, almost looks like a non-gun. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 09:07, 22 November 2011 (CST)

Ok here is a prototype that I have had on my files for a while.

[[File:30 round straight AR mag.jpg|300px]]

It lacks the cutout for the normal mag catch because it was designed for another gun (can't remember exactly what). Those 30 round straight mags may very well be converted magazines for other mags done before AR mags were widely available. Also, the grip angle looked worse in the in-game photo than the game picture of the gun. --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 09:27, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:Ok upon doing further research here that magazine is actually a FAL magazine. Oops! I can't find any pictures on Gunbroker because once they archive their auctions you can't go back and get the pictures. Grrr... Sorry to let you down guys. Some research I found though was that the curve was given because of reliability issues found back with the original M16, therefore any 30 round straight magazines are going to be collector items and very rare. Just interesting... --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 09:33, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::The grip is probably at least in part due to perspective. The picture Commando posted does look to be a static render of the same in-world gun model that Sandman is carrying, it's just that one's tilted towards us while the one in my pic is tilted away. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 09:39, 22 November 2011 (CST)

Did anyone notice the gas piston block on top of the receiver? Look at the rear sight, then look forward a millimeter. It's obviously not a removable riser which leads me to the conclusion that it must have been modeled after an M4 with a gas piston operated upper receiver. Hmmm... --[[User:Ranger12|Ranger12]] 09:48, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:It's fairly well documented that their primary references are usually Airsoft guns, so it could be anything. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 09:53, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::I don't think it is based on a piston gun. The raised flat top looks more like it is due to a riser as it looks very "bitty" and slapped on top (looks a bit like the back end of whatever you call those rail systems that clamp onto the flat-top, SIR?). Also, it has a regular handguard slip ring, which I don't think you could have as it wouldn't leave enough room for the piston. The handguard itself is pretty screwed up as well, with 5 large cooling holes along the top, but 7 smaller ones along the bottom, the rail along the bottom is totally flat, and along the side isn't a rail at all, but rather a series of hollow loops much further apart than the ridges on a rail. It looks like a complete frankengun monstrosity. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 16:14, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::I agree, the riser looks like the rear part of MW2's RIS. And this RIS is the single worst RIS I have EVER seen, in so many ways. Also, it's funny you'd use a picture of an AR-15A3, as that's the "M4A1" in COD4 :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 16:24, 22 November 2011 (CST)

== Delta Force Weapons ==

Anyone else annoyed at the weapons used by the AI Delta Force members? Besides the issue of the 20 RD mags on the M4s, Delta is one of the most advanced spec ops teams in the world and better funded than most units within the military, but none of the AI's guns have any sort of attachment besides M203s. You'd think that if by now basic infantry in real life has optics on their guns, then an elite team like Delta would have ACOG's or Eotechs on all of their guns in a game set in 2016.--[[User:James Woods|James Woods]] 16:27, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:And Desert Eagles... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 16:28, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::Also seen in the hands of other SF Units and Russian [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigBad Big Bads] [http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Desert_Eagle through the series]... It's like, seriously! D:< --[[User:Masterius|Masterius]] 05:18, 23 November 2011 (CST)

:I just was researching Delta Force. I saw alot of pictures were operators had just a normal iron sighted M4 with an M203. Literally, only two of the multiple pictures i saw, they had no optics other than an m203.--[[User:Gunner5|Gunner5]]

::As they should. I would, there's nothing wrong with ironsights, it's just nowadays everyone wants a reflex sight on everything. I wouldn't want anything electronic on ''my'' gun. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 18:20, 22 November 2011 (CST)

:::They probably don't want to be caught out by an EMP again. Seriously though, unless they are trying to keep a low profile by using indigenous weapons, special forces these days would likely have gadgets. Why would they penalise themselves by not giving themselves every possible advantage? To analogise to British SAS, when they are not trying to look like conventional forces, I have seen them using C8s with silencers, AN/PEQ-2s, flashlights, vertical grips, ACOGs, coupled magazines, P226 pistols with crimson trace grips and AN/PVS-21 goggles. I would imagine it vary much depends on the mission though, but I think I have only ever seen iron sights on a British C8 once, and that was on Salisbury plane. All of this is British rather than Delta force though, but I would imagine they would carry the same number of (if not more) gadgets. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 19:29, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::::That's what back-up iron sights (BIS) are for in addition to your optics. Most people have them in case their battery dies or the optics breaks...or in this case an EMP knocks them out. The D-boys should definitely not just be iron sighting it--[[User:Shadowkungfu|Shadowkungfu]] 23:48, 22 November 2011 (CST)

::::Indeed, where are the laser sights and tactical flashlights? SF firearms look so barebones without them :\
::::At least, vertical forward grips are on. --[[User:Masterius|Masterius]] 05:18, 23 November 2011 (CST)

:The actual answer to this is a combination of resources (putting scopes on everyone's weapons would be more objects in the game world, this would be especially bad when they're chucking an infinite good guy respawn at an infinite bad guy respawn until the player kills some guys) and gameplay (players who see their teammates with cool-looking guns would hang back and wait for them to get killed so they can snag them). [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:56, 23 November 2011 (CST)

== Two USPs ==

First, sorry for my bad english! In Tha name "USP.45 Tactical Suppressed", the "Tactical" part refers to the tacticl knife, NOT the USP Tactical.the normal "USP .45" in the game has a threaded barrel too. Look at the C-A-C icon of USP on codwiki if yu don't believe. The 2 USP sections shuold be merged to become 1. --Paul, bozitojugg3nut's brother

:Good point, though it should still be noted that there are two very different USP textures. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 04:17, 23 November 2011 (CST)

::No they shouldn't.

::[[Image:MW3-USP-4.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Standard USP. Slide wording "(front cocking serration) USP .45 Auto." Has no visible projecting barrel. This is a USP 45, and the model is more or less lifted straight from the previous game.]]

::[[Image:MW3-USPTac-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|USP Tactical model. Slide says "USP Tactical .45 Auto," barrel projects forward of the front of the slide. This is a USP Tactical.]]

::They are two distinct models, not just retextures of one. The confusion arises because the C-A-C image is of the Tactical version, even though it says it isn't (you'll notice the C-A-C icon on CoDwiki also has the Tactical model's underbarrel accessory, not the USP 45's, because it is not the USP 45 model), and because the Tactical version is just called USP 45 except the one time Burns uses it. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:00, 23 November 2011 (CST)

:::Does the regular USP also have no bullets in the magazine, whereas the Tactical does? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 05:33, 23 November 2011 (CST)

::::You're not an operator, you wouldn't understand. :D [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:53, 23 November 2011 (CST)

:::::[http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/hk-because-you-suck-and-we-hate-you/ Because we suck. And HK hates us.] xD -- Long Fallen 04:44, 24 November 2011 (CST)

:I think my retarded brother is right this time:
:[[Image:MW3-0000.jpg|thumb|none|400px|]]
:And to respond to the upper image where the pistol is being reloaded on the ship or what that is: it HAS a visible projecting barrel (not on that image tho). I asked my bro to play the level where you run around in a gas mask in Paris. In better lighting conditions, the threaded barrel is perfectly visible on the 1st person model too.
:And for the last, the article says that the USP45 is ''using almost exactly the same model as the previous game''. ''EVERY'' USP in ''EVERY'' COD game has a threaded barrel. Now I am gone to kick Paul's ass for using my account and giving me a bad name (again). - [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 10:18, 23 November 2011 (CST)

::You're forgetting that in-world and player-held models are not the same (and can sometimes be entirely seperate weapons as a result). Here's an angle-for-angle comparison of the player models:
::[[Image:MW3-Nottactical.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Standard USP. Slide wording "(front cocking serration) USP .45 Auto." Has ''very slightly'' visible projecting barrel (it isn't "perfectly" visible or really visible at all outside taking stills no matter what you do). This is a USP 45, and the model is more or less lifted straight from the previous game.]]
::[[Image:MW3-USPTac-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|USP Tactical model. Slide says "USP Tactical .45 Auto," has ''highly'' visible (and therefore longer) projecting barrel. This is a USP Tactical.]]
::As for being recycled, the USP model is. It also has the same LAM / light (the COD 4 model used a square Mark 23 style LAM, not this diagonal one), the same cocking serration replacing the HK logo, etc. The new one has a longer barrel and correctly calls itself a USP Tactical on the slide, while the original is just a malformed USP. The new model also has different sights (check the rear sight in particular), it's ''not'' just a straight-up retexture of the same model. They are therefore two different guns. The only retexture is Tactical Suppressed, which has an HK logo on the grip when the basic Tactical model doesn't.
::[[Image:Akimbo_usp.jpg|thumb|none|600px|MW2 USPs. Note the same LAM as the MW3 version, same sights, HK logo replaced with a cocking serration, etc.]]
::Let me just break this down:
::*Someone decided they needed a new USP model.
::*They made a new USP model which has features correct for a Tactical, and slide engraving saying it's a Tactical.
::*They decided to use the old MW2 USP model as well for no good reason.
::*They decided to call both the USP 45, also for no good reason.
::Hence, there are two gun models, the old mutant USP and the new Tactical. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 14:59, 23 November 2011 (CST)

:::My bad Tim, you're right. That's what I get for trying to ID guns at 2 in the morning :/ [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 15:28, 23 November 2011 (CST)