Talk:Realistic Equivalents: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:16, 1 March 2007

As a note, an MP5 is not considered a battle rifle, as it is a submachine gun. http://www.hkpro.com/mp5.htm

GazChap - I also wouldn't really consider the AK-47 to be a realistic equivalent. I've always pictured X-COM as being a very high-tech organisation. I would have thought the AK-47 would be too... raw, for X-COM. Not enough bells and whistles on it. - 21 July 2005 14:05 BST.

Not sure why would anyone use an M-16, if there is M4A1s around. Also back the reccommendation to remove the reference to MP-5, as it is just a submachine gun.--Vagabond 05:16, 1 March 2007 (PST)

Revision as of 13:00, 21 July 2006 view source GazChap (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 124 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 13:16, 1 March 2007 view source Vagabond (talk \| contribs) 29 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:

	GazChap - I also wouldn't really consider the AK-47 to be a realistic equivalent. I've always pictured X-COM as being a very high-tech organisation. I would have thought the AK-47 would be too... raw, for X-COM. Not enough bells and whistles on it. - 21 July 2005 14:05 BST.		GazChap - I also wouldn't really consider the AK-47 to be a realistic equivalent. I've always pictured X-COM as being a very high-tech organisation. I would have thought the AK-47 would be too... raw, for X-COM. Not enough bells and whistles on it. - 21 July 2005 14:05 BST.

			Not sure why would anyone use an M-16, if there is M4A1s around. Also back the reccommendation to remove the reference to MP-5, as it is just a submachine gun.--[[User:Vagabond\|Vagabond]] 05:16, 1 March 2007 (PST)