| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
User talk:Ultimate94ninja: Difference between revisions
Pyr0m4n14c (talk | contribs) (→RE: Battle Rifle Category: new section) |
(→Re:Grenade ID: new section) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification. I was a bit unsure as to whether or not guns were allowed to "double-dip", so to speak. Actually, this does raise another question: Should the [[M1918A2 BAR]] stay? I mean, it was meant as an LMG, but in practical application, it was commonly used more like a heavy battle rifle. Thoughts? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 09:48, 7 October 2018 (EDT) P.S.: Also, would you have any objection to me changing "Semi-Auto/Full-Auto" to "Select-Fire" and pulling in the [[Breda PG]] (and possibly the M1918A2 as well - it ''is'' selective fire, it's just full-auto or faster full-auto)? Having 2 separate categories with 3 guns between them right at the end just looks wrong, IMO. | Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification. I was a bit unsure as to whether or not guns were allowed to "double-dip", so to speak. Actually, this does raise another question: Should the [[M1918A2 BAR]] stay? I mean, it was meant as an LMG, but in practical application, it was commonly used more like a heavy battle rifle. Thoughts? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 09:48, 7 October 2018 (EDT) P.S.: Also, would you have any objection to me changing "Semi-Auto/Full-Auto" to "Select-Fire" and pulling in the [[Breda PG]] (and possibly the M1918A2 as well - it ''is'' selective fire, it's just full-auto or faster full-auto)? Having 2 separate categories with 3 guns between them right at the end just looks wrong, IMO. | ||
== Re:Grenade ID == | |||
Hi! I tend to think that isn't not a genuine RGD-5 as its body have two belts while original RGD-5s (all versions, live and dummy) have a single belt. Cyrillic letters "ИН" (IN) on the body may stand for "Inertnaya" (dummy) but such marking is placed below the belt on the body. I think that it's a mockup, possibly made of parts of genuine grenade. [[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 09:19, 13 October 2018 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 13:19, 13 October 2018
re: BO edit
I don't mind as saying that it is a GAU-5A/A with an imaginary flat top, but the thing I would object to is actually titling the section "GAU-5A/A" rather than "Commando". When a section is titled after a real gun that is us saying that the gun in question is that gun. That is not the case here, as the Commando is essentially a fictional gun that may (or in fact may not) be based on a GAU-5A/A. In these cases it is our convention to title the section whatever the gun is called in game with quoatation marks, so in this case "Commando". Also, on the topic of this edit what specifically made you say that the AK is an AK-74 prototype? To me, one of the things that we can tell for sure is that it is definitely not that, as it has the hardware for a folding stock on the receiver (button at the back, catch at the front to hold the folded stock) so it is either based on an AKS-74, AK-74M, or a 100 series AK. The problem is that all of those have 90 degree gas blocks whilst this gun has a 45 degree one, and all of those guns have AK-74 front sights and muzzle brakes and this gun doesn't (I can't tell what front sight it has, in the 3rd person image it looks like a wide AK-47 type one but i think this is just weird scaling and it is actually a narrow AKM type one). When you add on to this the fact that it has smooth wood handguard without a palm swell, a type 2 AK fixed stock, and a type 3 AK receiver mounted rear sling loop, I think it is pretty fair to call this thing a composite. --commando552 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2018 (EDT)
- The main obvious difference between an AKM and AK-74 FSB is that the latter has a bayonet lug, but it isn't just stuck on there, it is on an extension coming out the back of it. There are other differences like how the cleaning rod is retained, but the most obvious is the bayonet lug. Here is an AKM one, and here is an AK-74 one for comparison. In these image you can also see that there is a big difference with how the muzzle threads are, as on the AKM the barrel is threaded but with the 74 the front sight block holds the threading which is larger diameter. There is another front sight block which is the Romanian one which looks a bit more like an AKM one with just the bayonet lug stuck underneath (here) which doesn't have the lug coming off of the back due top how the Romanian brake is narrow so is slightly longer. I'll have a go at fixing the entries in the page later when I'm home from work to try and clear things up a bit. --commando552 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2018 (EDT)
Categorization
So, if you're wondering why I moved the M2 Carbine and Thompson Carbine back into the Assault Rifles category, here's my reasoning: .30 Carbine is an intermediate rifle cartridge. You yourself acknowledged that by placing the Hyde Carbine images under the "Rifle-Caliber" section of Category:Carbine. Therefore, the M2 and the Thompson are both select-fire rifles firing intermediate cartridges from detachable magazines, which is (according to the introduction of the Category:Assault Rifle page) the very definition of an assault rifle. As for separating out the Rifles, Carbines & Battle Rifles section, I don't think that that would be a good idea. Splitting off the carbines would lead to all sorts of debates as to what is and isn't a carbine (e.g. whether or not the M38 Mosin should be there, whether or not the Winchester Model 1873 should be there, or if only the carbine-length version and not the rifle-length version should, etc.), and splitting out battle rifles could cause similar problems (e.g. does the SKS qualify, and if it does, then why doesn't, say, the ACR qualify). So, for simplicity's sake, I say we just leave it as-is for now. Oh, and by the way, thank you for creating the H3VR redirect. I'd been meaning to do that for a while now, but I'd never gotten around to it, in large part because I didn't have the damnedest clue how. Cheers, Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2018 (EDT) P.S.: Do you know how to link to a category page? I would've linked the ones mentioned here, but any attempts to do so resulted in the site instead classifying your talk page as an assault rifle.
- Fair enough, I can see why, and although I would question why the 300-meter effective range requirement is considered part of the definition (especially considering how it's essentially meant to exclude this one exact case, effective range isn't a consideration in any other category, and there are some things put there that don't have that long of a range - the APS Underwater Assault Rifle, SR-3M Vikhr, and KAC PDW I know for sure, and I seriously doubt that something like the AAC Honey Badger or CSA SA vz. 58 Compact can manage 300 meters either), that's not something to bring up with you in this discussion. And thanks a ton for the formatting/wikitext help. See ya, Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2018 (EDT)
PM-06 Identification
Well, you maybe are right about not creating guns pages before correct ID, but I am almost sure that the gun in WW3 is a PM-06. The rails aren't included in civilian models, (something that is also seen in PR-15 Ragun civilian version, so maybe is a FB thing) but I thing I seen the flashlight/grip combination peculiar of the PM-06. So if you don't see it, you are right.--Dannyguns (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
RE: Battle Rifle Category
Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification. I was a bit unsure as to whether or not guns were allowed to "double-dip", so to speak. Actually, this does raise another question: Should the M1918A2 BAR stay? I mean, it was meant as an LMG, but in practical application, it was commonly used more like a heavy battle rifle. Thoughts? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2018 (EDT) P.S.: Also, would you have any objection to me changing "Semi-Auto/Full-Auto" to "Select-Fire" and pulling in the Breda PG (and possibly the M1918A2 as well - it is selective fire, it's just full-auto or faster full-auto)? Having 2 separate categories with 3 guns between them right at the end just looks wrong, IMO.
Re:Grenade ID
Hi! I tend to think that isn't not a genuine RGD-5 as its body have two belts while original RGD-5s (all versions, live and dummy) have a single belt. Cyrillic letters "ИН" (IN) on the body may stand for "Inertnaya" (dummy) but such marking is placed below the belt on the body. I think that it's a mockup, possibly made of parts of genuine grenade. Greg-Z (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2018 (EDT)