Difference between revisions of "Talk:Realistic Equivalents"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| 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) | ||
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)