Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3/Archive 2Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3/Archive 2 - Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video GamesTalk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3/Archive 2
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? 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! --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. --Ranger12 11:02, 16 November 2011 (CST)
I think he meant in the game, but that's good news too!----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. Evil Tim 09:22, 19 November 2011 (CST)
Do tell :) 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!!! --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. 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 --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. 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. Excalibur01 21:42, 10 November 2011 (CST)
Beefed up gun sounds
I am really liking the beefed up gun shots in this game 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 --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 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? --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. --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. 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 some confusing parts, such as the infamous and controversial level "No Russian"), redesigned Spec-Ops mode with the addition of a ranking system, and like everyone said, realistic gun sounds (at least the Desert Eagle doesn't sound like a revolver from the 1800s). 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. - 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. Alex T Snow 21:21, 11 November 2011 (CST)
We need more MOH up in here. -protoAuthor 18:52, 24 November 2011 (CST)
Agreed, that's one of the best storylines in modern warfare (grrr, couldn't IW find a more original title for CoD 4 back in 2007?) games, and pretty authentic. Can't wait for the next one. --Masterius 01:25, 25 November 2011 (CST)
How did I forget MOH? Oops. COD4, BF3, and MOH for modern shooters for me. I also like the Crysis games, and I'm a pretty big Halo fan :) That's about all I really play actually... EDIT: Oh, and Rock Band! :D Alex T Snow 02:00, 25 November 2011 (CST)
MP5K?
Is there actually an MP5K in the game, or is this just an MP5A2 that someone misidentified ages ago? --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. 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. 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. --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. 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. 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. --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. 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.--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. --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. - 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. Evil Tim 07:43, 15 November 2011 (CST)
CoughBlackOpsCough..... --Ranger12 07:53, 15 November 2011 (CST)
OMFG, is that a suppressed RSASS between the two RPG's? In '96? - bozitojugg3rn4ut 08:34, 15 November 2011 (CST)
CoD... CoD... -_- --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. --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? --RaNgeR 10:24, 15 November 2011 (CST)
The range involved, you'd be pushing things with just a 7.62. Evil Tim
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. --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 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. Evil Tim 03:02, 18 November 2011 (CST)
EOTech XPS Logo
There's nothing ridiculous about it, it actually is that big. [1]Spartan198 04:59, 16 November 2011 (CST)
Actually, there's still something ridiculous about that. :P Evil Tim 05:12, 16 November 2011 (CST)
How come? It's the same one. --RaNgeR 05:33, 16 November 2011 (CST)
Because it's ridiculous in real life too. Evil Tim 05:57, 16 November 2011 (CST)
Minigun
Are we sure it's Dillon Aero rather than Garwood Industries' M-134G? I can't find a Dillon with that top-mounted RIS rail, but Garwood's one has it. 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. --Ranger12 07:45, 16 November 2011 (CST)
Yeah, I meant I couldn't find a base model on their site with rails. 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. --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. --commando552 09:47, 16 November 2011 (CST)
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. --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. 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.--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). 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!--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. 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!--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. --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. --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. --commando552 12:07, 16 November 2011 (CST)
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. 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).
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? --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. - 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.--Ranger12 09:00, 17 November 2011 (CST)
Okay, guys, thanks for answering that :) --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. --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.--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:
The serrations are in the wrong place due to this, and the selector is too far back as well. --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...--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. - Mr. Wolf 19:21, 19 November 2011 (CST)
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. 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. - Kenny99 21:56, 18 November 2011 (CST)
Actually, that "SCAR-L" is an ACR. :\ BTW, I just love this commercial for some reason. =) - 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? --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"? --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. 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" --ThatoneguyJosh 07:36, 24 November 2011 (CST)
Naw, if you actually did the gun IDs properly for this trailer it'd be about the same size as the actual page. I think for this a sub-page is probably the best bet. And to be honest, if someone wanted to make the three pages you mention, I'd say the same would apply (and as to complaining, the standard "make it yourself if you want it done so bad" response would be fine). It's not like this is going to be a huge issue with games companies suddenly all having live action trailers with loads of guns in them. Evil Tim 08:16, 24 November 2011 (CST)
In my opinion, I would rather create a small section for the commercial instead of making a separate page for it in compliance with Imfdb rules. - Kenny99 03:34, 25 November 2011 (CST)
IMFDB rules say nothing about trailers, only commercials which are not trailers are forbidden. I'm saying create a sub-page for it since it would be way bigger than a "small section" if you did it properly, which is how it should be done. Evil Tim 04:26, 25 November 2011 (CST)
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!" Evil Tim 10:34, 19 November 2011 (CST)
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. --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. Evil Tim 15:08, 20 November 2011 (CST)
Cool, thanks man. SmithandWesson36 15:35, 20 November 2011 (CST)
"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. 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!" Evil Tim 01:01, 21 November 2011 (CST)
Kevin Smith? The director? 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.
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. --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). 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. --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. 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... --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:
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. --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... --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. 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... --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. 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. --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 :) 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.--James Woods 16:27, 22 November 2011 (CST)
And Desert Eagles... Alex T Snow 16:28, 22 November 2011 (CST)
Also seen in the hands of other SF Units and Russian Big Badsthrough the series... It's like, seriously! D:< --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.--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. 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. --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 --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. --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). Evil Tim 05:56, 23 November 2011 (CST)
Don't most units of Delta use HK 416's, weren't they the first ones to use it too? ---P226 19:00, 24 November 2011 (CST)
I know that the army is switching all of its M4's to use a gas piston conversion kit from HK, but you can't really know what a secretive spec ops unit is using unless someone from it tells you. --James Woods 20:01, 24 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. Alex T Snow 04:17, 23 November 2011 (CST)
No they shouldn't.
Error creating thumbnail: File missingStandard 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.
Error creating thumbnail: File missingUSP 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. Evil Tim 05:00, 23 November 2011 (CST)
Does the regular USP also have no bullets in the magazine, whereas the Tactical does? --commando552 05:33, 23 November 2011 (CST)
You're not an operator, you wouldn't understand. :D Evil Tim 05:53, 23 November 2011 (CST)
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). - 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:
Error creating thumbnail: File missingStandard 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.
Error creating thumbnail: File missingUSP 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.
It's the gas grenade Price throws when he's interrogating Waarabe. Looks almost like a VOG grenade with a pin stuck on one end, or an M34 after a crash diet. Evil Tim 07:21, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Desert Eagle Error
I'm editing the part that says It has an 8-round magazine, but is almost certainly still supposed to be chambered in .50 AE. under the Desert Eagle section. The magazine holds 8 rounds, therefore it is chambered in .44 Magnum. .50 AE and .44 Magnum are close enough in ballistics and power that you wouldn't be able to discern what caliber it was without checking the markings on the gun. Either one will pretty severely wreck your day! --Ranger12 07:50, 25 November 2011 (CST)
The ending comes down to three men and three Deagles. It's probably supposed to be .50AE because it's that kind of game. What that actually means is "I need to check the slide markings in better light," but it doesn't look like there's enough space for it to say "-41 / .44 Magnum Pistol." Evil Tim 08:05, 25 November 2011 (CST)
I've checked and clarified; the lettering seems to have the calibre scratched out, but it's only the ".50AE" sized space in the middle; the overall format and word size suggests it's a .50AE version with an extra round, silly as that is. Evil Tim 08:28, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Unfortunately, the caliber markings on the slide really mean nothing, because you can convert a .50 AE DE to .44 Magnum simply by swapping out a barrel and magazine. Therefore, the slide could still say .50 AE, but the gun actually could be chambered for .44 Magnum. I know handgun hunters that use the DE will do this if they are heading to an area that may not have .50 AE ammunition, but will have .44 Magnum ammo. Regardless, it's safer to say .44 Magnum than .50 AE in the Desert Eagle section. --Ranger12 08:46, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Also, a .44 DE is exactly the same size, length, and weight as a .50 AE version. Even the ejection port is the same size. There is no discernible difference between the two except for the barrel marking (will not ever be visible in game) and magazine capacity. --Ranger12 08:52, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Well yeah, but it's also worth noting that the slide markings indicate it's probably supposed to be a .50AE (it has at least four characters printed below the muzzle, and it's rather harder to convert a Deagle to .44 without swapping the barrel) even if it ends up being a .44 Magnum because of the magazine. As it says now: ". It has an 8-round magazine which would make it a .44 Magnum version, thought it is almost certainly supposed to be chambered in .50 AE; the lettering on the slide, though practically impossible to make out, is of the correct length and format for the .50AE version." Evil Tim 08:55, 25 November 2011 (CST)
What is more likely, the developers giving it an extra round for gameplay/balancing/random reasons, or they deliberately intended all of the Desert Eagles in the game to be .50 AE guns that have been converted to .44 Magnum? Magazine capacity is a fickle thing in video games, and the only visible thing on the gun is the slide marking which would suggest that the gun they used as a reference (and that is what matters, not the gun it is portrayed as being) was a .50 AE.--commando552 08:56, 25 November 2011 (CST)
On second though, why is this even a mystery, the .44 has a fluted barrel doesn't it? --commando552 09:02, 25 November 2011 (CST)
The magazine capacity is just a number not necessarily connected to the model itself. So it's a .50AE which has an incorrectly sized magazine, not a .44 mag with an incorrect model. I believe that's how we handled things like the Glock model in GTA IV. Also, what he just said. Evil Tim 09:04, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Tim: Those 4 characters could just as well be .44RM (.44 Remington Magnum). I have seen guns stamped with those letters, and given how big of a sponsor Remington was for this game, I would hardly be surprised if this was the case. Also, a barrel swap is as easy as field stripping a gun. I could do it in 30 seconds as long as I had a bullet or something to pop the slide pin.
Commando: While yes we all know IW's track record on weapon correctness and incorrectness, if there's a chance they DID get it right, I would rather have the more likely information put up than the assumed or more popular information put up. Also, a fluted barrel is an option, but not default. You can find non fluted .44's all over the place. --Ranger12 09:17, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Look, we're not going to start making weird assumptions over what is or isn't to justify judging the gun non-visually on the basis of a number we know to be completely arbitrary. Magazine capacity is not a major point of identification when it comes to videogames. Evil Tim 09:22, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Fine, we'll settle with that. HOWEVER, the Desert Eagle section is now loaded with incorrect information. The .44 magnum is EXACTLY the same size as the .50 AE, so we need to take out the part talking about correct sizing to be a .50 AE and such. THEN, we need to take out the part talking about the fluted .44 magnum barrel. Besides being completely irrelevant, it's not completely correct. There are plenty on non fluted DE's out there.--Ranger12 09:28, 25 November 2011 (CST)
The sizing of lettering is correct, unless you can find an image of a Mark XIX barrel with four characters on the muzzle which are not "50AE." Ditto the fluting; you're contradicting our own gun page on that, which says the .44 Magnum and .357 Magnum barrels for the Mark XIX are fluted. Evil Tim 09:31, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Look I'm not going to play the stupid game here. Here is a Desert Eagle Mark XIX in .44 Magnum that isn't fluted. There are tons of them for sale, just do a quick Google search. I'm sorry your page doesn't have all of the correct information; someone really needs to go fix that then.
And here is your picture which I zoomed in and red painted over the etches where the caliber marking is. A) There are only 2 markings, which is correct with how DE's are marked. (.50, .44, or .357) B) I didn't do anything funny, just traced over the etches. If you don't believe me, do it yourself in Windows paint by zooming way in on that area.
Well, then you need to go and have that debate there and get it changed. And you assume I checked only that one image? I took four dozen images and checked them before concluding there were four, and you want to prove that if you draw "44" over it it says "44?" Get lost. Evil Tim 09:54, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Four dozen images that all have exactly the same reload animation with exactly the same markings? Come on dude. I'm in school to be a gunsmith. I've been shooting guns since I was 8 years old. I know what I'm talking about. Please, check the images on paint, mark over the etches with pencil or whatever, and you'll see they all say the same thing. I'm not trying to be a nasty mean jerk here, but it's really obvious. So it isn't the iconic .50 AE round? Who cares? Based on magazine capacity and those extremely difficult to read markings, it's safe to assume it is a .44 Magnum. --Ranger12 10:06, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Let me do better. Here it is with the colours inverted and a gradient map slung over it.
Note the .44 is higher that the .50, which is wider. The letters on our MW3 Deagle are the same height as the ones in the MR trademark on the slide, much too small for the .44 version, and so there must be more of them to cover that width. There are more than two markings here. Don't stand there and tell me I don't have eyes. Evil Tim 10:12, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Particularly on the second false colour contrast image, the first digit looks like a 5 (no way is it a 4 anyway). What is throwing it off a bit I think is the fact that the length of barrel in front of the end of the slide is shorter than it should be, so I think they have cut off some of the markings because of this. --commando552 10:24, 25 November 2011 (CST)
I think the actual problem there is the slide is too big and overlaps it. Evil Tim 10:29, 25 November 2011 (CST)
A) It still only looks like 2 large markings in the game photo's you supplied. I can't see how you get .50AE out of that.
B) The first real gun photo isn't even a factory stock gun. The barrel says .44, but the slide says "Desert Eagle .50 AE Pistol" meaning it's either photoshopped or customized.
C) IMI (Israel Military Industries) slide stamp takes up less space than Magnum Research's stamp. If you take a Magnum Research produced gun with .44 Magnum stamping, you will have a Desert Eagle that exactly matches the in game Desert Eagle's stamping both on the slide and on the barrel. With all due respect- --Ranger12 10:41, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Here we go. Slide retracted, four distinct marks. Though I was wrong, it's just too small (or perspective). And the first is blatantly a 5 here. Evil Tim 10:34, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Take a break from the computer bro. Give your eyes a rest. I hardly see a 5 there. Please read my post I made at the same time as you.--Ranger12 10:46, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Look, enough. It says 50AE there. You "hardly see a 5" and you're still arguing it's a 4? And I suppose the fourth character is the version of the number 4 that has three horizontal bars on one side like a capital E? Evil Tim 10:53, 25 November 2011 (CST)
I'm not going to argue that it's a 4, but it sure doesn't look like a 5. I do see the E on the end though. I find it a bit odd though that ALL other markings on all of the other photos EXCEPT for this one point towards being a .44. Hmmmm --Ranger12 10:57, 25 November 2011 (CST)
It looks exactly like a 5. And now you're, what, accusing me of doctoring the image? Evil Tim 10:59, 25 November 2011 (CST)
Take it easy man! I'm not accusing you of anything! I'm saying that it's a what, 30x magnified frame that has been color filtered and drawn over just to clarify the caliber of a gun modeled by a company that has a nightmare track record with accurate gun information! No, it doesn't look like a 5, but the E is visible which is enough info to prove that the gun is a .50 AE with an incorrectly modeled magazine! No hard feelings bro! --Ranger12 11:05, 25 November 2011 (CST)
![[1]](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){kind=link}
