Talk:Battle: Los Angeles: Difference between revisions
Talk:Battle: Los Angeles: Difference between revisions - Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Talk:Battle: Los Angeles: Difference between revisions
Anyone see what the corpsman's sidearm was? He never draw the weapon and it's kind of dark to see when I saw the weapon in the holster. I think it might be a SIG, which would make sense since Navy does issue M11/P228s. Can't be sure though.--[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] 15:36, 13 March 2011 (MSK)
Anyone see what the corpsman's sidearm was? He never draw the weapon and it's kind of dark to see when I saw the weapon in the holster. I think it might be a SIG, which would make sense since Navy does issue M11/P228s. Can't be sure though.--[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] 15:36, 13 March 2011 (MSK)
:Just FYI, Navy Corpsmen who are attached to Marine units are issued Marine weapons, so the proper sidearm would be an M9/M9A1. The Marine Corps does not possess or issue any SIG firearms (unfortunately, in my opinion). However, I don't remember seeing any close-up shots of "Doc's" sidearm. Next time I watch the movie I'll keep an eye out for it.[[User:Travestytrav|Travestytrav]] 19:30, 24 May 2012 (CDT)
I just got back from seeing the film, and I REALLY want to say it's an MEU SOC. Hopefully somebody can clarify this for me. Also, was it me, or were the M16A4s seeming like they were going full auto? :P -Kangabox
I just got back from seeing the film, and I REALLY want to say it's an MEU SOC. Hopefully somebody can clarify this for me. Also, was it me, or were the M16A4s seeming like they were going full auto? :P -Kangabox
:I don't recall seeing any MEU(SOC) pistols in the movie, but it would be cool if they had some in it. The MEU(SOC) is pretty rare in the Marine Corps and is usually only available in Recon and/or MARSOC units, and even then they're hard to come by. I've heard there are less than 1,000 MEU(SOC) pistols in the entire Marine Corps inventory. And as for the M16A4s seeming to fire on full-auto, yeah it did kind of seem that way in some scenes, which could just be an inaccuracy. However, that could be explained away as a hard-charging Marine just being really fast on the trigger, which is possible.[[User:Travestytrav|Travestytrav]] 19:30, 24 May 2012 (CDT)
I wounder if the aliens are going to be easy to kill as us humans with a few bullets, or talk an entire magazine from am M4 to kill.
Probably like Independence Day where they will be some what easy to kill like us...but have supior body armor or way better technolgy.--Spades of Columbia 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this photo from their website? The site doesn't want to put unauthorized BTS photos (see the discussion on the Transformers 3 page.
--Ben41 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
This behind-the-scenes shot of the M1 Abrams on this Louisiana freeway set takes place when the main characters encounter it during the tank's battle with several alien platoons on the Los Angeles freeway overpasses mid-way into the film. --ThatoneguyJosh 22:01, 30 August 2011 (CDT)
Laser Modules on M4s
By the shape, they appear to be AN/PEQ-16As. I do believe this would qualify as the film debut of the device. Spartan198 14:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was the AN/PEQ-15? Still, I do believe this is the first film appearance of that system. Orca1 9904 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Upon second look, you're right. It is a 15, not a 16A. With that revelation, this would then be the second film appearance of it. The M4s used by the security team in Resident Evil: Afterlife had PEQ-15s on them. Spartan198 09:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
FN M16?
I know FN actually makes the M16 as well, but how can you be certain the guns in the movie are FN? Excalibur01 05:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Colt and FN share the US military's M16A4 contract (I don't think they're buying M16A2s anymore). But where does it say the M16s in this film are FNs? I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Spartan198 08:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I changed it to just plainly M16A2 until whoever stated previously can prove it Excalibur01 17:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting concept behind this movie...
I know that the whole alien invasion genre of film has been done to the death so many times over to the point where most audiences will just scoff at films like this just like they scoffed at Independence Day or, but I gotta admit, this film has an interesting concept to it's backstory.
I don't know if anyone has ever read about this, but on the night of Feburary 24-25, 1942, there was a "supposed" air raid against the city of Los Angeles where some unidentified aircraft appeared in the skies over Los Angeles, and since several other raids by Japanese aircraft and bombardments by Japanese submarines had been taking place all along the West Coast of the United States and even one attack on the coast of Vancouver, Canada had been happening throughout the beginning of 1942 (fresh after the attack on Pearl Harbor), this supposed "raid" on Los Angeles caused MASS hysteria and panic that an enemy invasion would be next after all these raids. So therefore the skies were lit up that night with anti-aircraft fire which damaged several buildings (since they fired around 1,400 shells), and caused 3 people to get killed by the anti-aircraft fire while 3 others died from the massive stress of the whole situation. However, it was revealed in the U.S. Government's "official" after-action report that there was NOTHING in the skies over Los Angeles except for a weather balloon and flares fired off from training aircraft, and that the reason why all the panic happened was because of "war nerves" causing people to mistake them for enemy aircraft and think that a raid was happeneing.
But some UFO theorists believe that the "unknown aircraft" in the skies over Los Angeles that night were alien craft, and that the government was covering it up.
So from what I have gathered, the plot behind this movie is the idea that when the Great Los Angeles Air Raid of 1942 happened, those REALLY were alien aircraft in the skies. And now, 69 years later in the movie's timeline (If it's supposed to take place in the year 2011), the aliens have returned to not only begin their invasion of Los Angeles, but to invade the rest of the world as well.
^Sounds like Harry Turtleodve's Worldwar series BeardedHoplite 14:31, 16 March 2011 (CDT)
Interesting backstory concept for this movie? I like to think so. --ThatoneguyJosh 13:24, 8 March 2011 (MSK)
It seems to be just a modernized Independence Day plot. Aliens come to invade Earth to get at our resources or something and wants to wipe us out and we fight back. Excalibur01 19:11, 8 March 2011 (MSK)
I guess this movie could be considered a more "modernized" version of Independence Day (And I'll be the critics will be comparing this film to Independence Day on it's official release), but at the same time, it takes a real life event that happened 69 years ago, and makes it into a more creative story where the event that took place really WAS the cause of aliens, and now they have returned to invade earth, with the city of Los Angeles being the steppingstone battleground to their campaign. Whereas with Independence Day, it only made passing mentions of past alien spacecraft sightings throughout history before the main invasion begins, but they never really dove into greater detail behind the reasons why in that film. And besides, this movie looks really interesting since (from what I have seen in the trailers) the aliens apparently will not always be in massive spaceships blasting the shit out of buildings, or using sneaky mind control tactics to assimilate humans, they will actually be on the ground, with weapons of their own, engaging in modern combat scenarios with a human army, and that is something (at least to my knowledge, but I could be wrong) that hasn't been (if ever) done in an alien invasion film. --ThatoneguyJosh 08:54, 9 March 2011 (MSK)
Weapons + thoughts
M9/Beretta 92 used in end battle by Aaron Eckart's character and someone else
M240 may have been on the LAV, too dark to see it clearly.
M2 on the Humvee
Unidentified mortar in the background early on, probably 81mm.
Round frag grenades (M67? M61?)
Smoke grenades (M18?)
I personaly thought that the movie was exhalent, good tactics on both sides.
Dont belive Roger Ebert's idioitic review. Seriously, go see the movie.--Mandolin 17:16, 12 March 2011 (MSK)
Well, the problem is that alot of people (being the gullible sheep that some people are) will listen to what the professional movie critics will say about movies like this, and just flat out dismiss it like they do (Even though there are some exceptions like when all the crazed fans of The Dark Knight sent death threats to the professional critics for giving that film anything less than 5 stars or A+ back in 2008... ridiculous huh?). And of course there is an even bigger majority of people who refuse to throw reality out the window these days and would rather nit-pick movies like this one to death for being "unrealistic" or whatever other bullshit arguments they bring up (Especially with movies like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull for it's "unrealistic" refrigerator nuke scene, God... the arguments on that scene were so fucking ridiculous, even more ridiculous than the "Han Solo shot first!" argument). But really, I saw Battle: LA for myself, and I agree, it is a great alien invasion movie, and it also has done something that has never been seen in a major-budget blockbuster alien invasion film from years gone by (at least to my knowledge), and besides, pretty much ALL the actors in this film actually went through boot camp training so that way they look picture-perfect playing the U.S. Marine characters that they portray in the film. So rather than people blindly agreeing with what the professional critics are saying, I say go see this film for yourself and judge it for yourself. Maybe moviegoers might like this movie, and maybe they might not, but it's still a damn good film nevertheless. --ThatoneguyJosh 04:15, 15 March 2011 (CDT)
Anyone see what the corpsman's sidearm was? He never draw the weapon and it's kind of dark to see when I saw the weapon in the holster. I think it might be a SIG, which would make sense since Navy does issue M11/P228s. Can't be sure though.--Wildcards 15:36, 13 March 2011 (MSK)
Just FYI, Navy Corpsmen who are attached to Marine units are issued Marine weapons, so the proper sidearm would be an M9/M9A1. The Marine Corps does not possess or issue any SIG firearms (unfortunately, in my opinion). However, I don't remember seeing any close-up shots of "Doc's" sidearm. Next time I watch the movie I'll keep an eye out for it.Travestytrav 19:30, 24 May 2012 (CDT)
I just got back from seeing the film, and I REALLY want to say it's an MEU SOC. Hopefully somebody can clarify this for me. Also, was it me, or were the M16A4s seeming like they were going full auto? :P -Kangabox
I don't recall seeing any MEU(SOC) pistols in the movie, but it would be cool if they had some in it. The MEU(SOC) is pretty rare in the Marine Corps and is usually only available in Recon and/or MARSOC units, and even then they're hard to come by. I've heard there are less than 1,000 MEU(SOC) pistols in the entire Marine Corps inventory. And as for the M16A4s seeming to fire on full-auto, yeah it did kind of seem that way in some scenes, which could just be an inaccuracy. However, that could be explained away as a hard-charging Marine just being really fast on the trigger, which is possible.Travestytrav 19:30, 24 May 2012 (CDT)
I paid special attention to the gear details of this movie when I saw it a few hours ago, and I did notice a few moments when the M16s fired on fully automatic (when Hectair's father used one for example) but through most of the
film I noted the soldiers were useing their weapons on semi-automatic, just as they damn should be, but every other
movie has ignored this to my knowledge. So either this was simply a little hollywood hickup in the movie or its
assumed that M16A5s are being used (S-S-B-A M16s proposed by some firearms company that escapes my mind right now) by the USMC by the time the invasion happens. On a very possitive note I saw that the marines were all wearing MICH
helmets rather than PSGAT (marines have a different name for it) ones and the aformentioned laser designators as well as uniforms (patterns, gloves, body armour etc.) makes me think they had military reference on sight for the making of, because this movie was totally a PR thing for the USMC like transformers or stargate was for the airforce. Only three things that I actually didn't like were:
- the AT4 having a lock on tone (damn you call of duty!).
- the laser designator having a visable beam and them not simply useing the designators on their rifles.
- and finally; why didn't the aliens just drop a small nuclear weapon on every major military base from orbit and make us helpless as an opening strike? Because then there wouldn't be a movie, so I can ignore that one haha.
Anon has spoken, this movie is epic.
I feel compelled to mention that the A5 upgrade proposed by the USMC for the M16 is the addition of a collapsible stock and a new buffer system to make it friendlier to shooters wearing body armor. I haven't heard anything about adding a 4-position trigger system. Not that I disagree with the addition of or replacement of burst with a full auto mode, though, since it would ease the squad's reliance on the M249 for suppression fire (Why do you think SOF teams tend not to carry a squad auto all the time? Because their M4s are capable of full auto). Spartan198 08:03, 23 February 2012 (CST)
I think the auto firing M16 could be the sound crew's fault too, just like how they added the lock on tone. I watched the movie again, Santos was actually aiming the AT4 at the drone's flight path, the the rocket travelled in a straight line rather than chasing after the drone like they did in the Stargate series. Also, PEQ lasers on the rifles cannot be use to paint target for missiles/LGBs, it can only illuminate the target for pilots and the pilots would need to target the weapons themselves. Most FACs and JTACs do use big ass laser designators like the ones in the movie (usually mounted on tripod).--Wildcards 03:15, 20 March 2011 (CDT)
Speaking of sound crews, don't forget about that awkward sound the SAW made when we first saw it being fired. Sounded more like stock gunfire sounds coming from an M60. Also from a more technical standpoint, I saw esentially all the Marines wearing MARPATs with the standard BDU-style cut, but if we're assuming that this film takes place in the near future, shouldn't we see at least a few of the grunts wearing the newer FROG suits? Just a thought. -Kangabox
I don't think Lenihan is adjusting the knobs on his ACOG in the picture that is up. Looks like his fingers aren't near the knobs, he's probably wiping the lense.
That actually make sense since he just got covered with laundry detergent. Once again, the sound crew messed up!--Wildcards 13:53, 24 June 2011 (CDT)
Even though i'm just reiterating everyone's point, i feel obligated to say it (or rather type it). This was a damn good movie, i know my opinion doesn't really mean a damn thing as i'm not a famous movie critic, but goddamn can this guy make a movie. The action part just as good as movies like Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down, which he says were his inspiration for it. It somehow captured the drama well without coming off as a poorly acted hacky pg-13 POS where the good guy just acts manly and goes "GODDAMMIT! I CANT LEAVE YOU!" and all that other horseshit dialogue that bad movies use. It also had something very unique and appreciated, an Alien force that acted like an actual military. If if they might have been conscripts (implied through the dialogue mentioning the alien weapon fused to the alien's arm) they still fought like trained combatants, and didn't just march forward slowly firing from the hip. They took cover, there were scenes when alien medics dragged comrades to safety, there were officers issuing orders, and aliens giving covering fire before advancing. And the director had the good sense to use a lot of particle effects instead of just 3D. 3D may look good in theaters, but when its not it comes off as the most hokey youtube 5 min edit job, turning a good movie into shit. And also surprisingly good acting, sure it wasn't Nicholson from CucKoo's Nest, but for an action flick it had some great dialogue in it. The actors training was also top-notch, they had the dedication to go to real bootcamp and learn how to properly portray themselves as highly trained U.S. Marines, it looked like even the extras playing the Army soldiers had perfect form and weapons handling. And from what the director says Aaron Eckhart broke his arm but continued filming/training. All in all- Great Movie. And if the critics don't agree- Fuck Em', this was a good movie, and i hope this review will inspire more people to go and see it.--Doc345 2:20, 27 June 2011 (CDT)
One of my favourite moments in the film was when Aaron Eckhart's character ended up shouting "NOT AGAIN!" to the Lieutenant. It really made you think about how real this character is coming across. People were talking behind his back saying how he got all his people killed but he was dealing with some heavy guilt over the situation. Also, damn Brian Tyler did an amazing job with the score. One of the best film scores of the year for me. --cool-breeze 17:35, 3 July 2011 (CDT)
I enjoyed it too. It doesn't default to the "they're aliens so nothing they do has to make sense" cliche (say, the aliens in Signs jumping around on roofs for absolutely no discernable reason), and neither are the aliens so ridiculously superior to us that it's obvious we'll never defeat them without something totally stupid happening (one of the issues I had with Independence Day is it was obvious about halfway through that the only way the good guys would win would be to cheat somehow). I rather like the way the aliens act like actual soldiers, ducking and hesistating and generally moving like they don't enjoy the prospect of dying, and I get the strong idea from their equipment that they're used to fighting wars their way and are finding out the hard way that it isn't all as effective as it was back home. I imagine the idea of the surgically grafted weapons is to ensure that they can't possibly surrender because they can't be disarmed or disarm themselves; I've heard the filmmakers said they're soldiers of some hideous fascist alien government, so I'd assume that government would take steps like that to make sure there wasn't any kind of communication between them and the natives that could jeopardise the mission to kill all of them. Unlike the terminally stupid videogame, the only really silly thing I've noticed is Eckhart's uniform keeps washing itself, and the movie aliens look way better than the zombie scarecrow robots in the game. I guess some people tend to be too cynical to just accept a story about soldiers (well, Marines in this case, I know the USMC don't like being called soldiers) as good people trying to do their best and make a difference in a hard situation. Evil Tim 17:24, 13 July 2011 (CDT)
gloves
the gloves that SSgt Nantz use throughout the film, anyone know what they are or who makes them? im looking to purchase a pair
Blackhawk if you check their website I'm sure you will spot them , I read it on the website who supplied the movie, don't remember the model though.
The model of the gloves are Blackhawk Nomex Fury Commando Gloves ($70.99)
C4
I'm pretty sure that they were using C4s in the movie. That one 2nd Lieutenant killed himself with it and they attempted killing the aliens at one point with them. Just saying. That and I believe that there was one scene where the lady was using a shotgun. It was the scene where the alien landed on the car and she shot it with the shotgun and then some alien blood splattered all over her face lol.
Yes, they were using C4 and the officer blew himself and a bunch od aliens up with it. Michele Rodreigez's character (Sgt. Santos) didn't have a shotgun, she was still using her M4A1.--Mandolin 09:07, 27 April 2011 (CDT)
I'll have to check the lettering, obviously it's not real C4 but they could be imitations of M112 "Charge, Demolition" blocks and if so we can use that image I have to ID them. Evil Tim 03:31, 14 July 2011 (CDT)
M112 demolition charge
"Elena" Santos
I just changed the poor womans name to Elena (which is the characters correct name) instead of Adriana. Where did Adriana come from?
The film was a big hit at Comic-Con when they previewed it there. I vaguely remember her name being given as Adriana rather than Elena. But I could be wrong, so take that with a grain of sand. Spartan198 21:56, 28 June 2011 (CDT)
There's a game
I played it through. It's...Well, awful. Evil Tim 01:27, 6 June 2011 (CDT)
Hey, at least it beats E.T. on the Atari XD -Kangabox
M240
This screenshot is lumped in under the M240D entry.
And being that it's an M240G rather than a D, shouldn't it be under its own entry? Spartan198 11:58, 19 June 2011 (CDT)
In fact, if you look at the screenshot in full resolution, you can see there's a heat shield on the barrel, which would make it an M240B. Spartan198 12:01, 19 June 2011 (CDT)
Battle of Los Angeles
I put a mention of the film's inspiration and link to the Wikipedia article for the Battle of LA at the top of the page beneath the film summary. It may not be totally relevant to the guns used in the movie, but I feel it worth mentioning that the film was inspired by a historic event. Spartan198 21:56, 28 June 2011 (CDT)
Good idea. Some people tend to forget that this website isn't just about guns but about the films as well. I think it would be cool if there were reviews of the various films and TV shows on here. I don't mind writing a few reviews if they are wanted. --cool-breeze 17:39, 3 July 2011 (CDT)
Notes as I watch for others / self:
Mark 19 grenade launcher at 15:47 on an AAVP7A1 on television.
Plenty of USMC Cobras flitting around, have to check if there's a clear shot of an M197.
Oh, and I think it might be worth repeating from the game article that they're showing Copperhead guided artillery rounds as missiles with exhaust flares and smoke trails, and they call them missiles a couple of times. Evil Tim 10:34, 14 July 2011 (CDT)
The missiles that was fired looked to big to be a 155mm artillery shell (looks kind of like an ATACMS), not to mention it flew sraight. It might just be the Marines/script writers mis-used the term Copperhead for the laser guided missiles in the movie. --Wildcards 18:03, 19 August 2011 (CDT)
Yeah, but this is one of the few things the videogame and the movie both agree on; they're supposed to be M712 Copperhead rounds (movie uses Copperhead, game goes so far as to call them "em-seven-twelve" when they're calling for support). They're just incorrectly shown as weird do-everything missiles rather than guided arty rounds. Evil Tim 10:21, 31 August 2011 (CDT)
In the final battle scene, marines were seen having hand-to-hand combat with aliens using M4A1 with bayonet attached. I am wondering if M4A1 are meant suitable to go with the bayonets because Ive also seen a lot montage on US Rangers/Marines storming into and clearing rooms in Afangistan, Iraq etc and they did not have bayonets attached despite expecting enemies at point-blank range. So the point Im trying to put across is that is it a movie effect, or US Army did have a training on this. And is M4A1 suitable to be attach with bayonets despite that it is heavily attached with scopes, handles etc?
As far as I know standard M4A1 rifles have bayonet lugs. --cool-breeze 14:42, 31 October 2011 (CDT)
The M4 carbine can take both the M9 and OKC-3S bayonets. The US Army doesn't do very much bayonet training any more (USMC still does though), due to the fact that the last time there was a bayonet assault was during Korea. I imagine the reason they aren't used for house clearing is the fact that when a bunch of guys are bursting through a door one behind the other, the last thing you want is for them to have knives on the end of their rifles. Bayonets also mess up the barrel harmonics, making the rifle less accurate. Only time I'm aware of bayonets being used in recent times was in an incident where a British Army convoy was ambushed outside of Basra, ran short on ammunition and bayonet charged the enemy position. This were pretty exceptional circumstances though. I haven't seen the movie, but if the soldier were short on ammunition then it is justifiable. --commando552 17:22, 31 October 2011 (CDT)
They were severely outnumbered, outgunned, and very nearly overran. Considering those circumstances, it would make sense for some to mount bayonets just in case. But my question is, is it correct that Santos has an OKC-3S? She's Air Force and I thought the OKC-3S was unique to the Marines? Spartan198 23:31, 24 November 2011 (CST)
The Marine she was with could have given her his bayonet, he doesn't attach one to his rifle if I remember correctly. --cool-breeze 02:12, 25 November 2011 (CST)
No, he has his attached, too. Spartan198 16:45, 28 November 2011 (CST)
They're a small, outnumbered force trapped behind enemy lines. They're definitely going to be scrounging to get extra supplies, gear, ammo, etc. Heck, they even show them scrounging stuff in the store and at the abandoned airbase. It's quite possible that she took the OKC-3S bayonet off of a dead Marine as she was looking for additional ammo, etc. Travestytrav 08:31, 29 November 2011 (CST)
Possible, but we don't see it. That kind of thing is referred to as "plot spackle" by fanfiction writers, I believe; you're not supposed to have to make things up to fill in "cracks" in the information you're given. Evil Tim 08:45, 29 November 2011 (CST)
Sneaky M249 Para
It can briefly be spotted in the opening scene within the 1 minute mark as the Marines are rushing toward the helicopters.
I took it on my phone (best I can do until I get my hands on the blu-ray come Christmas). Should I go ahead and upload it as a temporary cap or does someone with the blu-ray want to handle this? Spartan198 15:03, 28 November 2011 (CST)
I don't think it's a Para. --Ben41 15:30, 28 November 2011 (CST)
I think that that gun has the M249E1 tubular steel stock, Para barrel and M249E2 handguard, so is a bit of a mix. I think it is a match for the one pictured below, which was described where I found it as the "Minimi PIP", but am fairly sure that is wrong as one of the things in the PIP was the synthetic stock with the buffer. --commando552 16:40, 28 November 2011 (CST)
It's hard to tell the difference between stocks since the buttpad area looks vaguely similar on them and it's all we see of this one, but the above pic seems to me like a good compromise in this case. There appears to be a second M249 with the new style M4-ish collapsible stock on the left edge of the third screencap above, though. Spartan198 17:06, 28 November 2011 (CST)
I think it is the original metal one, as if it were the plastic one the bottom of the stock would go straight forward from he bottom of the butt plate, whereas on this gun it appears to slope upwards. The butt plates themselves are essentially the same though, so is very hard to tell. --commando552 17:34, 28 November 2011 (CST)
The most widely available M249 buttstock, by far, in the Marine Corps is the collapsible one similar to an M4 buttstock. The actual super short Para SAW buttstock is not widely used by the USMC. It's mainly an Army issued thing. The Marines also still have some of the older contoured synthetic stocks like the M240's for some SAWs, but those have mostly been relegated to training and reserve units. I personally never saw one in the fleet, and I've NEVER seen one of the tubular stocks on a Marine SAW. I'm fairly sure only the FN MINIMIs used by foreign militaries, and maybe some Army M249s have those. However, like Commando said, all SAW buttstocks have essentially the same butt plate, so it's impossible to tell which one is shown in the screen shot the way the Marine is carrying it, which by the way IS the proper way to carry a SAW when it's not in action (Kudos to the production company for ensuring some accuracy in their portrayal). Travestytrav 13:32, 29 November 2011 (CST)
Well, since there doesn't seem to be any more discussion on it, I'm going to go ahead and add the M249 Para with the M4-style buttstock to the main page. Since a SAW with said stock can be seen in one of the screenshots above, I'm just going to presume the one in question has the same stock. Spartan198 01:35, 8 April 2012 (CDT)
AN/PEQ-15
I know i might sound stupid, but im not familiar with laser designators, why is it most interesting that the marines are using AN/PEQ-15's on their rifles?--gunner5
The older PEQ-2 tends to be used much more frequently. Spartan198 00:59, 18 February 2012 (CST)
