| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Hotel Rwanda: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→MG3: new section) |
Slemke1998 (talk | contribs) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:This one with the Beta-C drum looks like some kind of M16 variant. You can see the fore end of the weapon in that familiar tube and the rear sights. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 00:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | :This one with the Beta-C drum looks like some kind of M16 variant. You can see the fore end of the weapon in that familiar tube and the rear sights. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 00:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Could it be an FNC? That would be standard issue.-[[User:RedJedRevolver|RedJedRevolver]] 00:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | ::Could it be an FNC? That would be standard issue.-[[User:RedJedRevolver|RedJedRevolver]] 00:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Is that a carrying handle on it? If so, then it could not be an FNC, and it is not very likely that it is an M16 variant with a carrying handle (the forward stock does not match the Colt LMG).[[User:SAWGunner89|SAWGunner89]] 20:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | Is that a carrying handle on it? If so, then it could not be an FNC, and it is not very likely that it is an M16 variant with a carrying handle (the forward stock does not match the Colt LMG).[[User:SAWGunner89|SAWGunner89]] 20:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 15: | Line 14: | ||
It could be a Centurion --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 07:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC) | It could be a Centurion --[[User:AdAstra2009|AdAstra2009]] 07:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
:No, it's too long to be a Centurion, it's a regular 92FS. - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 19:57, 23 October 2011 (CDT) | |||
== MG3 == | == MG3 == | ||
It was not manufactured by HK, as said on this page | It was not manufactured by HK, as said on this page | ||
== Beretta 92 Section == | |||
If anyone else agrees, I think this section needs to be cleaned up. I am some what confused by the statement that it is 'only 1994', as to what was the original author's intent. It read a bit clunky and too much apocrypha. Thoughts? --[[User:Rebusdi|Rebusdi]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (CDT) | |||
:I know this is old so I'm not expecting a response but I believe that whoever made that thinks that the 92 actually came out in 1992, hence the comment about 1994. In reality the 92 was borderline obsolete by 94.Also in the section about the FN MAG the caption about right/left hand drive is off, "right hand drive" refers to the location of the steering wheel, not the flow of traffic so in a country that drives on the left side of the road, vehicles are right hand drive --[[User:Slemke1998|Slemke1998]] ([[User talk:Slemke1998|talk]]) 01:43, 26 July 2019 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:57, 26 July 2019
Unknowns
[moved from main page] --AdAstra2009 02:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Guns I can't even guess the make and model of.
it looks slightly like a High standard M10 but the barrel is to long and it has a stock both features a non-existent on all the models of this gun that I've ever seen.
- This one with the Beta-C drum looks like some kind of M16 variant. You can see the fore end of the weapon in that familiar tube and the rear sights. Excalibur01 00:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could it be an FNC? That would be standard issue.-RedJedRevolver 00:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Is that a carrying handle on it? If so, then it could not be an FNC, and it is not very likely that it is an M16 variant with a carrying handle (the forward stock does not match the Colt LMG).SAWGunner89 20:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Beretta 92FS
It could be a Centurion --AdAstra2009 07:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's too long to be a Centurion, it's a regular 92FS. - Mr. Wolf 19:57, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
MG3
It was not manufactured by HK, as said on this page
Beretta 92 Section
If anyone else agrees, I think this section needs to be cleaned up. I am some what confused by the statement that it is 'only 1994', as to what was the original author's intent. It read a bit clunky and too much apocrypha. Thoughts? --Rebusdi 18:57, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
- I know this is old so I'm not expecting a response but I believe that whoever made that thinks that the 92 actually came out in 1992, hence the comment about 1994. In reality the 92 was borderline obsolete by 94.Also in the section about the FN MAG the caption about right/left hand drive is off, "right hand drive" refers to the location of the steering wheel, not the flow of traffic so in a country that drives on the left side of the road, vehicles are right hand drive --Slemke1998 (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2019 (EDT)