Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games - User contributions [en]

Talk:Crysis 2

2011-04-03T00:29:21Z

96.48.58.148: /* Chambered rounds */

There are several things that should be added

- There is no source that claims that the SCAR uses the Remington SPC

::The texture of the gun actually has written 6.8x45mm on it above the trigger, can be seen on various high-res pictures, for example: http://www.crysis-france.com/images/rsgallery/original/scar.jpg, so it really isnt the Remington SPC.

=> Yes, but it's the SCAR from crysis 1 that shoot in 6.8 x45mm. The SCAR 2 in crysis 2 uses may be the 5.56 x45mm NATO ?

::No, it isnt 5,56, check MyCrysis for that. It's still the same SCAR, so it's most probably the same caliber, too.

:::MyCrysis weapon info thing says it uses smaller ammo than 5.56, allowing for the 40 round magazines. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

- The Grendel assaut rifle uses the 6.5 mm Grendel

- The Feline SMG may be using the 5,7x28mm armor piercing PDW bullet with Surefire Hi-Cap Mags (60 rounds)

- This is not a 20mm Korean machine gun, it is rather a 7,62mm machine gun like the FN MAG, 20mm is the caliber for autocannons

== "Be Strong" Trailer weapons ==

[[Image:Crysis2 - M60.jpg|thumb|none|400px|]]
[[Image:Crysis2 - RG.jpg|thumb|none|400px|This appears to be entirely fictional.]]

--[[User:Milkovich|Milkovich]] 15:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
:The rifle in the second image is the M2014 Gauss Rifle, an update to [[Crysis]]' Gauss Rifle. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 03:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

== DSG1 semi-automatic ==

The weapon appears to be semi-automatic instead of bolt operated in all the multiplayer videos I have seen so far.--[[User:Milkovich|Milkovich]] 13:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

*The DSG-1 could never decide if it was semiauto or bolt action in the original game, if I remember rightly, you only operated the bolt if you weren't looking down the scope. [[User:Vangelis|Vangelis]] 14:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's some information I've collected so far from the videos:
*It appears that the USMC soldiers in nanosuit-like armor (identified by tan armor color) and C.E.L.L. armored soldiers (identified by greyish color and armor fabric similar to the older nanosuit in the previous game) are two teams that you can play in multiplayer.
*Much of the weapons are revamps of the previous games' weapons.
*C.E.L.L. apeears to be the new name for Crynet Ops due to their very alike appearances.
*You play as "Alcatraz," a U.S. SF soldier, throughout the game.

Hope this helps. Also, welcome back, Vangelis. It's been a hell of a long time since your last edit.- [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 02:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

== Heckler & Koch MP7 ==

Makes a return in Crysis 2.

[[Image:Crysis2 - MP7.jpg|thumb|300px|none|H&K MP7A1 PDW.]]

Does anyone know the ingame name? --[[User:Milkovich|Milkovich]] 14:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:I am not sure, but it might be easier to identify when the demo is released for PC.
-[[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 15:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

::That looks like the AY69 version, Nomad and Psycho both held the MPX8 with two hands. [[User:Vangelis|Vangelis]] 15:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

::: The question is whether it retains the same designation as in [[Crysis]]. --[[User:Milkovich|Milkovich]] 16:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:It looks like it does. It has a 40 round magazine and is possibly dual-weildable. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 23:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

::I don't remember the name, but that's gotta be the machine pistol sidearm. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 08:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:The demo's released today so I'll grab some screencaps from the demo. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 15:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

== Weapon Focus Pics ==

The weapon focus articles have nice big perfect pictures we could add, except I don't know how. So someone should do it :D [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 09:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:Just save the picture by right-clicking on it and save it to your desktop. Then, upload it as usual. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 15:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

== Company Names ==

We should have them because they are part of the weapon too. Howabout we stop having company names on all the articles then, all our Glocks will be called "17" and "26" and Berettas like "92FS". We'd have titles like "Joe the actor firing a 17" and "Jane the actress reloading a Model 66". That's dumb, and we even know the names of the real ones, these we don't. The names are very relevant. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 12:53, 10 March 2011 (MSK)

*Depends on the weapon; we don't typically do it for heavy weapons (eg M202 FLASH, M72 LAW, etc) and there isn't a lot of point to it if the manufacturer is fictional anyway. [[User:Vangelis2|Vangelis2]] 15:05, 10 March 2011 (MSK)

:I dunno, think it's just as useful (or useless) as fictional calibres, or this whole article for that matter. Can we at least have them in the discription then? It's not like Halo where you have to know the backstory to know Misriah Armories makes most of the weapons, in Crysis 2 singleplayer it tells you to company when you go to pick up the weapon. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 01:03, 13 March 2011 (MSK)

::Actually Glocks would be "G17" and "G26". They use that designation, it is not just some Rainbow Six and Modern Warfare 2 thought to avoid copyright issues. Go to glock(dot)com and you can see that they refer to their models with "G+number" or "G+number+C". [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 02:52, 13 March 2011 (MSK)

:::Okay, fair enough, but can we still put them in the descriptions (as opposed to the titles) with the other fictional info? It's not like it's the weapon's history or anything, it's pretty much part of the name, and it's not gonna hurt us to have it. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 10:33, 13 March 2011 (MSK)

== All Weapons Videos ==

This guy has vids of all the weapons for those who want to see

http://www.youtube.com/user/NinjasStoleMyTV#g/u

[[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 18:18, 14 March 2011 (CDT)

==SCAR==
one thing tha bugs me so far is that there is the atachment opsions on the SCAR. on the SCAR you can only attach under-slung weapons and scopes. the SCARAB can't use under-slung weapons, or the long range scopes, but can use a suppressor. I though the SCAR was the jack of all trade weapon but you need certain version for certain situational. other than that im enjoying the game

:What? Please make sense... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 00:19, 25 March 2011 (CDT)
::What he means is that the SCAR can use almost all attachments except the suppressor while the SCARAB can only have a suppressor and mid-range optics and originally thought of the SCAR as a jack of all trades weapon. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 02:31, 27 March 2011 (CDT)
:::Oh, well it seems it was only removed because the SCAR had nine attachments, but there are only eight challange things for weapons, meaning, unless you got the Hologram with a brand new copy of the game (which most people would have) then there would forever be one attachment you couldn't get. Why the suppressor and not, say, the PEQ box I don't know... [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:25, 27 March 2011 (CDT)

==Alex==

We're not writing for a Wikia based on the game here, please don't word entries like the weapons are real if they're not. It's confusing to potential readers to say that a weapon that doesn't exist is manufactured by such and such a company and so on; describe it in terms of what ''real'' weapon it is or resembles. Keep the game background minimal and only mention it ''after'' talking about the gun's identity, we're not here to document that kind of thing. [[User:Vangelis2|Vangelis2]] 09:16, 26 March 2011 (CDT)

:I do realize that, I just figure this would be a good place to show how much detail they put into their weapon design, because most other companies, as we know well, don't. I'll take out the company names, but can the calibers stay? They at least seem relevant. EDIT: Done, is it better now? [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 14:12, 26 March 2011 (CDT)

==L-TAG==
Just to clear this up so there isn't an edit war: it WAS Airburst, but in the final game it's Armed. Why? I dunno, I think Airburst sounds better, or Tactically Armed, as they are smart grenades. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:25, 27 March 2011 (CDT)

*As far as I can tell, because they yanked any ability to set the grenade's fuse to actually airburst. It seems to just go off on impact or with a timer. [[User:Vangelis2|Vangelis2]] 07:41, 27 March 2011 (CDT)

:: when I used the L-TAG it look like if it hit an enemy it detonated, if it just hit the ground or a wall it would detonated when an enemy was near by. if there were no enemy near by it would just blow up after a short amount of time. but I could be wrong
:Well, the L-TAG has two fire modes: a sticky grenade fire mode and a non-sticky timed grenade fire mode. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 14:24, 27 March 2011 (CDT)

==Kenny: M2014 Customisation==
I'm not trying to jump on you if you just hadn't gotten it up yet, but I noticed this was the only weapon you didn't put a customise pic for. The easiest way to get one is in "Masks Off", just before you kick the door to get outside the Prism there's one against the wall. And for the Gauss underbarrel attachment, it's in "Corporate Collapse", just look around the area where you have to get in the APC's turret. Thanks for adding the customisation pictures though, perfect way to show what they look like :) [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 06:41, 27 March 2011 (CDT)
:I'm sorry, but I didn't add it because I was about to when I had to do some work. I'll come back to it later. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 14:20, 27 March 2011 (CDT)
I am finished with the screencaping right now. - [[User:Kenny99|Kenny99]] 19:58, 27 March 2011 (CDT)

== Majestic ==

Aside from the fact that they are both made from a combination of metal and plastic, I can't see a single thing that would indicate that the Majestic has any relation to the [[MP-412 REX]]. If it is based on anything, which I don't think it is, might I suggest the Mateba MTR-8 (below). They share a number of characteristics, including general layout with the cylinder in front of the trigger, internal hammer that can be cocked with an exterior mechanism, and the fact that the MTR-8 is reloaded by replacing the rear portion of the cylinder (single rounds cannot be reloaded and this rear plate is needed to function) similarly to replacing the whole cylinder on the Majestic. Either way, I think claiming this the be a heavily modified anything is a stretch. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 16:06, 28 March 2011 (CDT)
[[File:Mateba MTR-8.jpg|thumb|500px|none|Mateba MTR-8]]

It reminds me of the [[Mateba Autorevolver|Mateba 2006M]] in appearance. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 02:58, 29 March 2011 (CDT)

== FELINE ==

The Feline has nothing to do with the F2000. It's closer to a Famas F1 or Famas Felin (LOL). The F2000 doesn't even have a "normal" grip like the Famas Felin. Maybe the rail on the top can be borrowed from an F2000 but the lower parts are definitely not. [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 07:05, 29 March 2011 (CDT)

:Yeah, I think we thought F2000 when there wasn't a lot in the way of screenshots or gameplay, but seeing it in the full game it does look more like the Félin with elements of the Calico M960A.

::It does look more like a FAMAS Felin than an F2000, with the forward grip changed and a feed system that must be similar to that russian prototype thing with the magazine right at the back called the Korobov something. Can promotional images like the one b below be put in the main article, as they show the guns a hell of alot better than the screenshots? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 17:11, 29 March 2011 (CDT)
::[[File:Feline.jpg|image|thumb|none|600px|]]

:::I don't pretend to be a copyright expert, but they made nice detailed, accurate to real life weapons and articles for them, for the community, with big, awesome hi-res pictures attached; I vote we use them, they're too perfect not to. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 03:11, 30 March 2011 (CDT)

Lol, Is it just me or does the Feline look a lot like this too. (Not saying this what it's based on or that we should use it or something.) - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 03:43, 1 April 2011 (CDT)
[[Image:M95A1.jpg|thumb|none|500px|M95A1 Phased Plasma Rifle from [[Terminator 2]]]]

== Chambered rounds ==

At the moment we have the line "Also worth noting, all weapons are reloaded correctly and keep track of the +1 in the chamber, rare in games." This isn't quite correct; in 2 you have to fire at least one shot from the current magazine before you can reload and get a chambered round; ie, you have to reload from 0 to get 40 and then fire once and swap in a new mag to get 41. This is as opposed to Crysis, where if I recall rightly you can reload from 0 to get 40 in the SCAR and then immediately reload it again to get 41. [[User:Vangelis2|Vangelis2]] 03:35, 1 April 2011 (CDT)

:Well, that's not incorrect in the function sense, if they let you reload from 40 then everyone would just reload on every spawn, or again after every empty reload. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] 20:39, 1 April 2011 (CDT)

::Well, if you assume they had ''time'' to reload, sure, and it's not like firing that one extra round really adds a huge amount of time to the process anyway; it ''really'' doesn't explain why you can't even do it in singleplayer where multiplayer balance isn't even an issue. It also still doesn't really work as "realistic" since there's nothing stopping you removing a real rifle's magazine after it's chambered a round and putting in a full one without having to fire it once first. [[User:Vangelis2|Vangelis2]] 00:05, 2 April 2011 (CDT)

:::Agreed, I prefer useing sniper weapons alot in crysis - and follow up shots are important if a headshot will not kill every enemy or I simply can't make one at the time, so one more round in the chamber on a low capacity weapon can make a world of difference and that pisses me off. Otherwise I have very little negative things to say other than: I want a bullpup AR in Crysis 3 - or a Crysis 2 "warhead" like expansion... that would be nice
- Anon

==Just a question==

How come this page is OK, when the Killzone pages keep getting deleted because "the weapons aren't real"? The weapons in Killzone (particularly 2 & 3) are very obviously based on real-world weapons, as these are.

* I think mostly because previous Killzone articles have been a) rubbish and b) posted with no game screenshots at all. Also, this one actually does contain some identifiably real weapons (including some real film footage), rather than consisting entirely of hybrids like Killzone. [[User:Vangelis2|Vangelis2]] 07:00, 2 April 2011 (CDT)

Talk:Battle: Los Angeles

2011-03-20T07:28:48Z

96.48.58.148: /* Weapons + thoughts */

==aliens==
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.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|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.
--[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
[[Image:BattleLosAngelesm1a2.jpg|thumb|none|350px|M1A2 Abrams on set in Louisiana.]]

== 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. [[User:Spartan198|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. [[User:Orca1 9904|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. [[User:Spartan198|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? [[User:Excalibur01|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. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 08:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

::I changed it to just plainly M16A2 until whoever stated previously can prove it [[User:Excalibur01|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 [[User:BeardedHoplite|BeardedHoplite]] 14:31, 16 March 2011 (CDT)

Interesting backstory concept for this movie? I like to think so. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|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. [[User:Excalibur01|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. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|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.--[[User:Mandolin|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. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|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.--[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] 15:36, 13 March 2011 (MSK)

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 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.

Talk:Battle: Los Angeles

2011-03-20T07:27:51Z

96.48.58.148: /* Weapons + thoughts */

==aliens==
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.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|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.
--[[User:Ben41|Ben41]] 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
[[Image:BattleLosAngelesm1a2.jpg|thumb|none|350px|M1A2 Abrams on set in Louisiana.]]

== 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. [[User:Spartan198|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. [[User:Orca1 9904|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. [[User:Spartan198|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? [[User:Excalibur01|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. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 08:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

::I changed it to just plainly M16A2 until whoever stated previously can prove it [[User:Excalibur01|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 [[User:BeardedHoplite|BeardedHoplite]] 14:31, 16 March 2011 (CDT)

Interesting backstory concept for this movie? I like to think so. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|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. [[User:Excalibur01|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. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|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.--[[User:Mandolin|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. --[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|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.--[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] 15:36, 13 March 2011 (MSK)

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 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.

Talk:Glock pistol series

2010-12-19T23:50:33Z

96.48.58.148: /* 'Resembles Every Handgun' */

2 Glocks (.45?) play prominet roles in the movie "Fracture" starring Anthony Hopkins. Don't know the model so I didn't edit the main page ([[Special:Contributions/80.121.38.199|80.121.38.199]] 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

==Other Glock Variations==
[[Image:Glock 17machinepistol.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Glock 17 converted to full auto with 33 round magazine and unfired rounds ''(Note the absence of a selector switch on the slide)'' 9x19mm]]
[[Image:Glock_12892-1-.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Glock 17 OD Green - 9x19mm]]
[[Image:Evolution.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Suppressed Glock 17 - 9x19mm]]
[[Image:BruniGAP-178mm.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Bruni GAP Glock 17 blank firing stage prop - 8mm blank]]
[[Image:IMFDB P00261 Sopranos Tony Soprano Glock 19.jpg|thumb|none|300px|'''World IMFDB Exclusive:''' Screen used Glock 19 - 9x19mm. This blank firing weapon is verified as screen used by actor [[James Gandolfini]] in '''[[The Sopranos]]'''. More detailed images and purchasing information on this item can be found at [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/ The Golden Closet]; see [http://www.thegoldencloset.com/merchant/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=6ef04a13fbe759cbdcbdc6bc4c4b809f&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=P00261&Store_Code=TGC&search=Sopranos+Glock&offset=0&filter_cat=&PowerSearch_Begin_Only=&sort=&range_low=&range_high= here].]]
[[Image:P00650 Glock Full Left.jpg|thumb|300px|none|'''World IMFDB Exclusive:''' Screen used Glock 19 - 9x19mm. This non-firing prop weapon is verified as screen used from the film '''[[The Other Guys]]''', and was carried by [[Will Ferrell]] in the film. The gun is accompanied by the Galco belt holster also used in numerous scenes throughout the film.]]
[[Image:Glock17RAM4.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Glock 17 RAM - 9x19mm]]
[[Image:CAA.Tactical-RONI-G1.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Glock 17 - 9x19mm mounted in a CAA Tactical RONI-G1.]]

== Longslide versions get their own Glock Model Numbers? ==

It seems kind of odd to me as to why variations of Glock pistols available with longer barrels have their own unique model numbers. Many gun websites I've been to don't seem to list such customizations with their own unique model numbers (except maybe in inventory listings or the like), but rather just mention that a particular model of pistol has a longer barrel version available. Is such a practice just for convenient reference? To satisfy customer preferences? Or for some other reason?

By the way, I appreciate all the hard work the people here have done in identifying the various Glock pistols used in the media on this site. I'd find it pretty hard myself, since barring obvious visual differences like how to tell a full-size Glock from a subcompact one apart, I wouldn't be able to tell a G17 from a G22 without seeing the number on the slide in a movie, for instance, since they look substantially the same. Something like trying to tell a G22 from a G20 would also be quite difficult without hearing a character in a movie say its caliber out aloud or seeing the number on the slide, since they are chambered for similarly-sized cartridges. I don't think its entry on the date of this comment is correct--the real-life US Marshals use Glocks chambered for .40 S&W, not 10mm Auto.

About the only exception to the aforementioned practice on Glock's end is the Glock 20, which apparently now has a factory-made longslide version (not the aftermarket ones), but to my knowledge does not have a unique Glock model number. Can someone fill me in on this? --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 06:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

== The "Glock invisible"-nonsense ==

Here's what Hugh Laurie (yes, the "House M. D."-guy) had to say about that in his novel "The gun seller":
"You may have read, at one time or another, some of the nonsense that’s been written about the Glock. The fact that its body is made from a fancy polymer material got one or two journalists very excited a while back about the possibility that the gun might not register on airport X-ray machines - which happens to be so much hooey. The slide, barrel, and a fair portion of its innards are metal, and if that weren’t enough, seventeen rounds of Parabellum ammunition are pretty hard to pass off as lipstick refills. What it does have is a high magazine capacity for a low weight, great accuracy, and virtually unequalled reliability. All of which have made the Glock 17 the choice of housewives everywhere."
Dr. House, I couldn't agree more.
--[[User:Lastgunslinger|Lastgunslinger]] 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that my whole perspective of Glock changed when they sued Smith & Wesson over the Sigma. I mean, they make more money from their handguns than any other company in the world and then they go and sue someone. The Glocks design is so simple it resembles every handgun, you might as well sue them all. I see the similarities but they are easily telled apart. Not a cool thing to do Glock, I wish you hadn't stooped down like that.

== 'Resembles Every Handgun' ==

"The Glocks design is so simple it resembles every handgun, you might as well sue them all."

It only resembles every handgun, because almost every brand has a Glock copy now. There wasn't anything like it back in 1982 when it was released. Back then its main competitors were the 1911, S&W 39, Berreta 92 and various wheel guns. Gunner313
Not to mention that S&W didn't just copy the Glock design they cloned it with parts that would fit into a Glock body, with potentially disastrous consequences.

A copy is a near exact of something. The S&W Sigma is the only Glock copy. The rest are just polymer pistols.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 18:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he mans that is so genaric and non-descript in apperance that it has gained the status of being the genaric
icon for "pistol" among the populous, especially laymans.
An example being that I asked my parents (who know nothing of guns) to draw their interpretation of a pistol, what they drew was inescapeably a glock-like design.
I think this is because its basically just a rectangular prism with a very simple handguard on it, also its common use by police give it a good possition in the public eye even for those who avoid movies and other media for whatever reason.
Compaired to other self loading pistols the only competition I can see it having is the Beretta 92 serise of guns, also yes I think your point is very valad - other companies making sudo-glocks means that their image is even more common and that the layman will associate the image of a glock less with glocks and more with the term "pistol".
- annon

==Durability==
:Does anyone else find it ironic that Glock's are nigh indestructable but feel really fragile?-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 23:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The Glocks I've fired, for the most part, don't feel extremely fragile. Sure, they don't have that 'all metal heft' that some other handguns have, which makes them lighter, and conceivably more fragile feeling, but none of mine have never felt like they would shatter if I dropped them. I might be misunderstanding what you mean, though. [[User:Acora|Acora]] 21:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:It just about takes a nuclear blast to destroy one, but at the same time it feels like I could cruch it with my bare hands-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never noticed them feeling fragille, but that could be because I can't get over how friggin' UNCOMFORTABLE they are to hold. I'm not trying bash glocks here, they just don't fit my hand. At all.--[[User:TheDon|TheDon]] 00:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

==Catastrophic Failure ==
The Portland, Oregon police department stopped offering the .45 Glock 21 as an option for Officers to carry on duty after two incidents in which the weapons exploded in the hands of the range master during testing. Afterwards reports came in from across the country of similar incidents with the Glock 21. Do all Glocks chambered for powerful cartridges (.45, 10mm) have this problem or is it just the Glock 21? Furthermore do all Glock 21s have this issue or were these just a few rare accidents? I don't particularly like Glock pistols but never considered them dangerous (at least to the user) before hearing about these incidents.
-[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

Hmm. Given the problems that PPB has given Glock in the past (back in the early nineties they commented that "PBB is one of those customers we can't seem to ever make happy") I'm not surprised they blame the company rather than themselves. They also refused to fly to Smyrna to allow Glock to examine one of the pistols; they also refused to allow Glock to remove even one of the allegedly defective pistols for lab tests. The PPB also failed to submit either of the pistols for independent testing, despite stating that it would.

If there was a design flaw it would have shown up '''long''' before now. Glock has ~65% of the US LEA market, mostly in .40 and while the "Short and Weak" isn't nearly as powerful as 10mm Auto, it's generally loaded to higher pressures than .45 ACP

I've used the G20 and G29 (both chambered for the far more powerful 10mm Auto round) for years and haven't had a gun explode or do anything worse that FTE when used with poor ammunition. A few years back we torture tested one with 15,000rds in a single day, it didn't explode.

It's not just .45 and 10mm. I've personally seen a glock 17 explode with factory ammo. Not a pretty sight. --[[User:TheDon|TheDon]] 00:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

== Portland Police and it's standards ==

The Portland Police Bureau is a strange department. I've known experienced officers who have tried to get on with the PPB only to be told that they didn't meet Portland's criteria. In a couple cases they were experienced Oregon certified officers from neighboring cities. One of them spent a year in Kosovo with the U.N. civil police training task force. It's a strange city with an odd police administration. I've known a few good cops who work for Portland, but overall I'm glad that I never applied with the PPB.Ultimately I believe the politics of that part of Oregon would have driven me crazy.Very very LEFT WING. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 15:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

It's only certain Glock models that do it. I've noticed it a lot on the .40 S&W models such as the 22 or 23. The problem is that in order to increase more reliable feeding as well as to make the gun cycle more reliably, Glocks have more of their chambers cut away, which leaves parts of the case unsupported. They count on the casing to hold in the powder load. I think it happens mostly on the larger cartridges such as 10mm Auto, .40 S&W or .45ACP. Haven't heard of it happening on any of the .45GAP models though. I'm personally not a big fan of Glock pistols. I don't find them very visually appealing and I hate the lack of a manual safety. And I really, really dislike the trigger they make on it. They need to take off the little lever in the trigger, and just go to a solid double action trigger and put a manual safety on it. I'm a 1911 man, but I think there are many other designs that are better than Glock's. For example, Sig Sauer or H&K. Or Springfield's XD series. S&W Sigma. I mean the list goes on and on. I won't buy a Glock for the reasons I mentioned above. Right now, all I own are 1911s and one H&K USP .45.

:I'm a bit confused. You say that you do not like Glock pistols because you find them unattractive and you prefer a manual safety, both of which are valid reasons. But then you claim that designs from SIG Sauer, H&K USP, the Springfield XD, and the S&W Sigma -- all of which, save for a few specialty models, do not have a manual safety -- are superior to the Glock design. That just doesn't make sense. It's perfectly fine to dislike Glock pistols, but to claim that they are inferior to other designs for lacking a manual safety, when those very other designs also lack manual safeties, is rather odd. [[Special:Contributions/68.39.83.179|68.39.83.179]] 22:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

::I've only had hands-on experience with the Glock 21 myself. Me and my sister shot one on my birthday this year, and she had the Glock malfunction on her too, albeit not nearly as severely as the incidents mentioned above. She pulled the trigger and the weapon failed to discharge. When I cleared the chamber, I found that the pin had missed the primer and struck the back of the casing. After that though we didn't have any further problems with the weapon, that being the only round out of 50 we put through the Glock 21 that had a misfire. [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 03:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure on the Sigma, but the XD has a grip safety, and most sigs have de-cockers. I don't know if those meets your definition of 'manual safety', but they're certainly more than glock has.--[[User:TheDon|TheDon]] 15:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

==Glock 18==
what would a fully automatic pistol be used for? VIPs protection and CQC
There was a fad for such machine pistols (VP-70 and M-93R for other examples).

But the Personal defense weapon have taken this firearm nitch and more. Rex095

Sort of like lasers when they first came out.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean? about the lasers

Lasers were thought to be the end-all substitute for irons yet now they are just seen as a gimmick.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 18:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a gimmick today. People still use lasers to aim, distract someone by aiming at their eyes and for small frame guns where the iron sights are bad, like a pocket gun [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 14:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

== Generation 4 Glocks ==

I realized that the page is laking the Gen 4 Glock 17 and Gen 4 Glock 22 --[[User:Yocapo32|Yocapo32]] 17:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Added the Gen 4 model for Glock 22--[[User:SB2296|SB2296]] 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:The picture you posted is not a 4th Generation Glock; it is an RTF (Rough Texture Frame) model, which is not the same thing. The main difference between the 4th Gen Glocks and older models is that they now have removable backstraps. And anyway, we don't need the picture until we know they've appeared in movies (and at the rate armorers buy new pistols, no time soon.) IMFDB's policy is that we don't need a picture of every variant of a gun that has ever existed (at least not on the gun's page), and ''especially'' if it hasn't appeared in anything yet. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that and the fact that the 4th Generation also has a captive recoil spring, but of course how in the hell do you show that? Shot a 4th Gen G17 today at the range. Very nice. Recovery is all that much faster. I was impressed. The company will be coming out with the 4th Gen G19 in a month or so. However the 4th Gen G21SF isn't due out until next year. Sorry 45 acp mafia. I was talking to one of the corporate guys so I feel confident that he knows what he's talking about. Anyway just some nice to know trivia.--[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 05:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Glock 34 ==

Just looking at the section for the [[Glock 34]], only [[End of Days]] and [[Man on Fire]]. In both movies, It's used by the Main Character to attempt suicide. That's gonna be a good ad campaign: "''When You Can't Go On Anymore, Reach For Your Glock 34''"

==1st Generation==
Did the first generation of Glock pistols feature anything other than the Glock 17? I've seen second and third generation versions of nearly every model, but the only first generation pistols I've ever seen are Glock 17s. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

A small number of first generation Glock 19's were made. - [[User:Right Wing Gun Nut|Right Wing Gun Nut]]

It should have only been in the glock 17...and you shouldn't see one easily because they didn't meet ATF regulation until the generation 2.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 22:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What reg did they not meet?--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 18:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

:1st Gen Glock 19s do exist, but they're very rare, because Glock went to the checkered front/backstraps on all of its pistols shortly after production began. Also, the Glock 17L and Glock 18 both exist in 1st generation incarnations (though they're also pretty rare). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 19:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

::So there were other 1st generation models than the 17, but were all 1st generation guns 9mms? -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

To meet American ATF regulations, a steel plate with a stamped serial number was embedded into the dust cover in front of the trigger guard for generation 2. I have seen no evidence of a first generation glock being in any other model than the 17. Even the people that claim they have a generation 1 glock 19 still only show pictures of a generation 2...so i would need to see proof on anything other model being in generation 1. but my knowledge is limited to what's available in the normal U.S.A. for some glock models are not legal to have in the states.--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 19:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

:Gen 1 Glock 19s do exist. Check out [http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=887305 this topic] from GlockTalk. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

==Other models==
Why were the models that were removed before put back? I thought IMFDB didn't allow sections for variants of a gun that haven't appeared in any media. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]
::See Stan's post below, and also the Glock 20 that was deleted actually WAS in something. When we went to link it, surprise, it wasn't there because it had been removed. Not a good thing. Any SERIES of guns, do not remove the interim gun series entries ever. They are there for continuity in the SERIES of models. The only guns we remove are the weird single gun entries that some member jacked off of google and won't appear in a movie, etc. ever, and if they do, only then do we create the page. The only exception is guns that are in active armorer inventory NOW. That means that there is a much HIGHER chance of them being seen, and we need the gun pics to help members positively ID them. Hope this helps. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::When the Glock variants were initially deleted I mentioned that having gaps in the list of different models seemed odd, yet those who deleted them responded that any weapons or variants of weapons that have not appeared in media are subject to deletion. I like that the different variants have been restored to the list, I was just curious as to what the procedure was for guns that are variants of weapons that have appeared in films though that specific variant had not since I had heard conflicting information. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]
::::- Yeah, that was me. I found it irksome to have several models (mainly new ones), that weren't listed or even linked to anything, it was annoying to me. I still think that in regards to the newest 30 model guns, but that's just me. BUT, as MPM said, they are still standard guns of the same series, and many are in inventory, so they'll be used in something eventually (If indeed they haven't already and we just don't have pages, etc). I think the main problem was getting rid of older guns like the 20 that are ''definitely'' in stuff already and should be there accordingly. A couple of the other guns are also linked to pages but just don't have them listed - I'll go ahead and add the listing(s) myself if they're listed on complete pages and/or positively ID'd. Otherwise, you could just say they're being proactive. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 20:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

-Original Reply-<br>
I replaced the sections I previously deleted by request of MoviePropMaster2008. Essentially they are for reference right now. However, there are also a sort of placeholder as well - MPM has stated on other pages that such guns are in movie inventory, so eventually they'll get listings/entries - As such, the sections are to remain so that they don't have to be re-created later. A couple of the guns are already linked on pages I believe, but the pages may not be complete or they may not be listed for some other reason. I did remove them because at the time they weren't featured in anything, but it really wasn't my call to remove them in the first place. (EDIT - removed MPM's paraphrased personal message to me, as he posted himself). [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

::I should point that I am highly skeptical of some of the Glocks IDs that are supposedly [[Glock 20]]s. The episode of ''[[Psych]]'' in which [[John Cena]] supposedly uses a Glock 20 is wrong; I've seen that episode, and he uses a Glock 17L. I'm equally doubtful that the Glock 20 appears in Season 4 of ''[[24]]''. Since we know that (as a rule) movie armorers rarely use any Glocks that aren't 9x19mm, I can't help but wonder if people are going to be tempted to mis-identify Glocks if they see these other variants on the page. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 20:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, and I'm not defending some of these questionable attributions, but I had to replace a pic for a VIDEO game where the gun was a specific variant of weapon (and was specifically NAMED in the game as an off caliber variant), so we still needed the section. Also foreign helmed films don't have the ammo biases that we in the States do ;) the sheer CHANCE that folks will mis-identify the gun is not reason enough to NOT have the section. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 20:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

:::- Well, in the case of those shows, I'll remove the TV subsection until they're confirmed. I will put in the VG entries, though, as they aren't questionable. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 20:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

::::Whoa whoa whoa STOP!!!!! Don't remove ANYTHING!!! IMFDB users should look long and hard and try to correctly ID guns, but for now just creating a BLANK space is unacceptable. What is WITH this rush to delete everything all of a sudden? If you don't have correct info to replace it with, DON'T DELETE IT! YOu can put a disclaimer on the various discussion pages (that there may be a question as to whether or not the gun ID is correct), but I dont' want to start seeing blocks of empty space. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 21:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

::- Uh, wait a minute, the only thing I removed was the TV section for the Glock 20, and that's it. Nothing else. Most of the gun sections I replaced from the other day were '''already blank''' - they didn't have anything before. Again, the TV listing subsection for the Glock 20 section was the '''only''' thing I've removed since I put all the other guns back, and I've since already restored it. Outside of that and adding some subsections to a couple of the guns, I haven't touched the rest of the page. Not trying to give ya a headache MPM, but I really haven't done that much this time, honest. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 23:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I was just reeling from the previous Glock debacle where I spent an entire morning rephotographing a Glock variant, only to realize later that it had been previously there, but deleted. My brain is still traumatized ;) [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 00:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::- Yeah, I still feel real bad about that.. I'll probably never live that down. Bah. ;b [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 00:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

==First appearance==
I remember one of our movie pages pointing out that that film was the first appearance of a Glock Pistol in a movie. Does anyone know which movie that was because I can't remember.

: Don't know. The earliest-set movie page I can immediately spot a Glock (Glock 17) on is [[To Live and Die in L.A.]] (1985), but I'm not certain if that is it. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 04:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not it. We have a page of a movie from the early 80s where the page explicitly states that this is the first appearance of a Glock in film.

:
::I'm pretty skeptical that ''[[To Live and Die in L.A.]]'' features a Glock, because they were not being imported to this country for the civilian market at the time the movie was filmed. Though I guess I'd have to see the movie to be sure. Season 3 of ''[[Miami Vice - Season 3|Miami Vice]]'' featured a Glock 17 in one episode (which was used by [[Don Johnson]]), and that's the earliest documented appearance of a Glock that we have on this site so far besides ''To Live and Die in L.A.''.

::''We have a page of a movie from the early 80s where the page explicitly states that this is the first appearance of a Glock in film.''

::Which page? I just checked all of the pages which feature our 1st gen Glock 17 picture, and didn't see any movies from the early-80s. Also, I'm skeptical because the first Glock 17s available to civilians didn't start coming into the U.S. until 1985, so it's pretty much impossible for any movie/TV show filmed before that to feature a Glock (unless it was filmed in Europe or some other country where Glocks were available sooner). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 13:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:::- Not to increase the load, but it might be worth checking under the second gen picture also. After all, not pages pages use the accurate gun picture, whether because they didn't know about the specific differences/generation release dates when they made the page or because the Gen 1 picture wasn't actually around and no one updated the thumbnail. Just a thought. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 16:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:::I have tried watching To Live and Die in L.A. and get a better cap, it just looks like a black gun to me. [[Johnny Handsome]] featured a Glock, it was released in '89. There's got to be a film before that. That Miami Vice episode aired Jan '87. Good idea about checking the 2nd gen pic. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 16:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

::::Point taken on the 2nd Gen G17 pic, I forgot about that. But I don't envy the person who has to sort through all the pages on which it appears (nearly 250 in total, last I looked). But I can still tell y'all that you're highly unlikely to see a Glock in any movie made before 1985, for the reason I mentioned earlier. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 18:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:: That's not even counting those that ''don't'' have a gun image, or.. well, you get the point. Bah. I'm afraid we may not find out what page it is, unless Anon's memory gets better. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:::I just checked all of the page links for all three Glock 17 images. So far, I can't find any movies or TV shows other than the ones mentioned previously that have featured Glocks. Of course, there is still the possibility that somebody forgot to put ''any'' image for some movie that featured a Glock, but I imagine we'd have caught that by now.

:::So, I have reached the following conclusion:

:::*Season 3 of ''[[Miami Vice - Season 3|Miami Vice]]'' is the first media appearance of a Glock 17, movie or TV.
:::*''[[Johnny Handsome]]'' is the first known movie to feature a Glock 17.

:::Unless someone finds any earlier appearances (and has the screencaps to prove it), these are the first media appearances of Glocks. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]

: Well, it's a page done by Pred, and the section says 'one of the earliest appearances of a Glock', so that's probably what Anonymous was talking about. If not, then we need to kill him for even bringing this up. :b [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 00:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is the page I was talking about, I just couldn't remember it. Please don't kill me. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]
::: Sure, but only because you said please. Mystery solved then? [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 15:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

::Wow look at that, I don't even like Glocks. I don't know if either of you two have seen Johnny Handsome. The gun dealer gave a little explanation about the gun, made in Austria, plastic etc. I just glad it beat Die Hard 2. When I wrote the comment I figured another film had to have featured it before JH that's why I said one of the earliest uses not the first. Unless another comes up with an appearance before JH, [[Mickey Rourke]] has both the first usage of the Desert Eagle and Glock in a film.--[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Alright I changed both the pages. If someone has better wording to use, go for it. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 01:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

== Removal of Variants that have not been seen in media ==

I was just re-reading the [[Rules, Standards and Principles]] page and was wondering if anyone has a problem removing the Glock models 24, 28, 29, and 37 - 39 as they have yet to appear in any movies/anime/games. It looks like alot of effort was put into this page so I just want check before making any changes.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
::'''Good thing you asked, since I would have been pretty pissed at you if you made such a major change without checking first.''' We've had this come up before. A previous member took it upon himself to remove a Glock variant which has not listed, and then, BEHOLD! it was obviously apparent in some movie or tv listing, so ANOTHER member, seeing that we didn't have the section (it had been deleted) copied a jacked GOOGLE image of the gun and re-created the section. I, seeing a CRAP google image thought "hmmm, I could have sworn I photographed that type of Glock for this page already", so I spent the entire morning rephotographing that model of Glock for the Glock page. When I tried to re-upload the photo, IMFDB warned me that this photo already existed. I was "WTF?" By tracking down the history of the page, I tracked down the member who DELETED the glock section and admonished them that it was just creating problems, since a few days AFTER he deleted it, the model appeared in something. So the rule is: DON'T REMOVE ANY VARIANTS on ANY PAGE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE MPM MOVIE ARMORY PHOTOGRAPHS (which were done specifically FOR IMFDB). Thanks for your attention in this matter :) [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 06:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
:I would leave it, Glocks are hard to tell apart sometimes. So it's good to have all the models on the page for reference. It's not like a user creating an entire new page for a gun that hasn't appeared.--[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 06:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Damn propmaster no need to yell man. There's a reason I asked in here first. Maybe you should add the blurb about not removing variants pictured by armorers in the rules section. That's the only reason I brought up the question in the first place.--[[User:Gunkatas|Gunkatas]] 06:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
::::It's not yelling, it's emphasizing. And sorry if it seemed that way. As for the emphasis, it was for all members. You at least asked, but I must emphasize again, if any member MUST do something, try adding to lame pages, resist the temptation to delete other people's work. Leave that to the mods, unless its something ridiculous. MPM

== Numbers ==
Anyone know how Glock comes up with the numbers for their handguns?--[[User:MarineCorps1|MarineCorps1]] 21:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

They are in the order that they were released...starting with the model 17 for it was the 17th patient to get it what it is today. But some people say that the original name came because it holds 17rds then in the order they were released--[[User:Spades of Columbia|Spades of Columbia]] 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

:Another theory is, if Wikipedia is to be believed, that the Austrian army set out a list of 17 requirements when they were looking for a new pistol to replace the Walther P38. In order for any pistol to be considered for the trials, it had to pass all 17 requirements. The Glock was called the 17 because it was designed specifically with thes standards in mind. Even if this isn't the source of the name, it's still an amusing coincidence. -[[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]

== Glock 30 & Glock 36 ==

Can someone explain the Difference between the Glock 30 and Glock 36. They both look like Sub-Compact Glocks in 45. ACP. [[Image:Glock30.jpg|thumb|200px|none|Glock 30 .45 ACP]][[Image:Glock36.jpg|thumb|200px|none|Glock 36 .45 ACP]]
:Glock 36 is a single stack, Glock 30 is a double stack. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 03:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)