Editing Talk:MA5B assault rifle

==Untitled==
Hey, can anyone tell me if the MA5B was the one used in Halo Wars? Please reply if you see this, thanks. [[User:ODST 032|ODST 032]]

[[File:MA5B.png|thumb]]Whats with the ICWS after the MA5B.--[[User:Ryanngreenday|Ryanngreenday]] 23:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

ICWS stands for "Individual Combat Weapon System".[http://library.psyjnir.net/?id=156][http://forums.xbox.com/2385/ShowPost.aspx] Which really means it's modular with a number of different parts and accessories. [[User:CommanderTony|CommanderTony]] 19:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
:Is there anywhere that isn't a fan site were the "Individual Combat Weapon System" is mentioned? -- [[User:Esemono|Esemono]] 04:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in "The Art of Halo", page 98.<br />
Is there an MA5A? [[User:Nobody^|<font color:"green">"Is there anyone here?"</font>]]...'''''[[User:Nobody^|<font color="red">"No!"</font>]]''''' 

Maybe ^^ Maybe just the "MA5" I think.

What about the shredder ammunition? Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere? [[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed that the MA5B was 7.62x39 mm, not 7.62x51 mm, from the amount of recoil, 7.62x51 has a load of recoil, where as the 7.62x39 has about the recoil that the MA5B has. (yes ive fired it) Just throwing it out there to consider changing. [[User:Coviekiller5|Coviekiller5]] 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

lolwut ^^

== MA5C Link ==

The MA5C link goes right back the MA5B page, it's pointless. I clicked on the link to see information related to the Assault Rifle seen in the ''Halo 3'' Beta only to come back to the page with the ''Halo: Combat Evolved'' rifle. -[[User:Lord Hyren|Lord Hyren]] 17:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

== Flashlight? ==

I suspect that the think beneath the barrel on the assault rifle is a flashlight.  I think its highly likely, but I'm asking for confirmation just in case.  Can anybody confirm that is a flashlight and not a laser sight or something else I'm not aware of?

:You can tell it's a flashlight by going into multiplayer and having one character turn the light on. You can see the beam coming from "the think" beneath the barrel of the rifle. Also when you melee with the MA5B you can see the beam of light from the flash light track with the gun. -[[User:Lord Hyren|Lord Hyren]] 17:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::I thought the flashlight was on Master Chief's helmet. In the first level, you can use the flashlight with out a weapon. [[User:Bioniclepluslotr|<span style="color: lime; font-family: BankGothic Md BT; font-size: 12pt;">'''BPL'''</span>]] 22:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== Just like the FN_2000? ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_F2000

No..it looks nothing like it, im taking this Trivia out: "There is dispute over whether Bungie copied the design from Fabrique Nationale's FN2000 assault rifle, or vice versa. Look for it, they're nearly exactly alike. "--[[User:JohnSpartan117|JohnSpartan117]] 07:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a P-90 and the MA5B Assault rifle all in one and i still don't know were the ICWS comes from.--[[User:Ryanngreenday|Ryanngreenday]] 07:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Its probably a fictional weapons company in the Halo Universe, either that or it stands for (Something) (something) Weapons System.--[[User:JohnSpartan117|JohnSpartan117]] 19:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

apparently it stands for Individual-Combat-Weapons-System

That gun at the link looks more like the Battle Rifle not the Assault Rifle.

The only similarity, is that they are both Bullpups.--[[User:JohnSpartan117]] [http://installation07.uk.to] 16:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that in Art of Halo they said the similarity in appearances was a fluke:
''McLees's familiarity with the subject matter had one unintended consequence, however: During Halo's development, a firearms manufacturer developed a cutting-edge military assault rifle that bore a striking resemblance to McLees's design. "I don't know when the images of the FN2000 first appeared, but I didn't see them until three or four months after the game shipped," McLees says. "And I thought, 'Oh great. Now everyone's going to think I swiped the design from Fabrique Nationale.' It was surreal to see how close the Halo Assault Rifle was to its real-world counterpart...and it was totally by accident."''

I always assumed that the MA5B was 7.62x39 mm, not 7.62x51 mm, from the amount of recoil, 7.62x51 has a load of recoil, where as the 7.62x39 has about the recoil that the MA5B has. (yes ive fired it) [[User:Coviekiller5|Coviekiller5]] 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

its pathetic power would indicate something like a .22 round. but it is easy to confirm that it is supposed to uses 7.62x51mm NATO rounds because that's what is written on the ammo bags. (i wrote this gaes ago and didn't sign). [[User talk:Agent Tasmania|Agent Tasmania]] 04:39, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

== MA5C ==

1up confirmed the Halo 3 Assault Rifle to be the MA5C.

== Three-Shot Burst Rifle ==
In ''First Strike'', the Spartans on Reach find a number of experimental assault rifles. They fire "thumb-size" rounds, and a three-shot burst can cut through an elite's shields and kill the elite. That ain't no Battle Rifle, and sure as hell ain't no MA5B. What is it? [[User:75.31.138.94|75.31.138.94]] 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you know its not a Battle Rifle? Sounds like a BR to me.--[[User:JohnSpartan117]] [http://installation07.uk.to] 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be a Battle Rifle prototype--[[User:The Chazz025|The Chazz025]] and [[User:Irving/Taliban Command (Tango Company)|Clan]] [[User:irving/Razu'Kuzumee|<sup>[Razu'Kuzumee]</sup>]] 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be one hell of a Battle Rifle. Given that it's four headshots to kill a Minor Elite on Normal difficulty, I think its just another one of Nylund's little inaccuracies. -[[User:Azathoth|Azathoth]] 14:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ya probably, and what about that pistol they had? it killed elites in 3 shots and it said it was different from the M6D--[[User:The Chazz025]] and [[User:The Chazz025/Taliban Command (Tango Company)|Clan]] Razu 'Kuzumee |<sup>[Razu'Kuzumee]</sup> 15:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The thumb sized slugs were from the larger HE pistol, where as the three round burst, skeletal rifle with an autozoom scope is the battle rifle, or as mentioned above, an early prototype. The pistol, however, raises great interest fro me, because that is the only place where it is mentioned. [[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know.  It seems that in the books, the Spartans and the Elites shields are weaker than in the games.  It's like both sides are playing legendary shield strengths.[[User:66.245.216.157|66.245.216.157]]

== Technical Considerations ==
Please guys, seriously. A clip is not a magazine is not a clip. The MA5 uses a box magazine for ammunition. Not a clip. Bolt action rifles use clips to load their internal magazine. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XozgC-hr3Q @ 20 sec for what a clip is. (The thing that he throws away.) --[[User:Sephirius|Sephirius]] 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


==Clean up==
I edited the page to improve clarity.
[[User:168.169.114.157|168.169.114.157]] 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I also fixed some misspelled words.--User:Redwarrior005 | 22:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

== High capacity Magazine ==
Of course, that very small magazine on the MA5B couldn't conventionally contain sixty rounds of ammunition, and rightly so the article mentions double or triple stacking the rounds. I understand double stacking, but triple stacking...? Could some knowledgeable person come to my aid?<br /> 
On top of that, is it possible even with triple stacking to hold the large amount of ammo in that magazine?<br />
[[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 10:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The total lengths of a cartridge of 7.62x51 NATO rounds is more like 7-8cm so its only one cartridge long (if it could even manage that) and its not nearly tall enough to hold more than say 10 cartridges and there is no way it has more than 2 horizontally. it holds 3 times as many as it should.[[User talk:Maiar|Maiar]] 07:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

== Easter Egg for PC ==

I used to play Halo PC, and at the beginning of Keyes, across from the room with the Proto-Gravemind in it, sometimes is an Assault Rifle. You can't pick it up, it doesn't have ammunition, and it doesn't always appear, but usually does. Most of the time its in the first door to the immediate left. Anyone else see this? --'''UserWiki:Specops306|<font color=purple>Specops306]]</font>''', '''''[[User Talk:Specops306|<font color=blue>Kora]]</font> [[Special:Editcount/Specops306|<font color=purple>'Morhek</font>]]''''' 21:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered that before. I kind of just brushed it off and kept going, but that is weird now that I think about it. [[User talk:Smoke.|Smoke.]] 00:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

== Main Marine rifle...Battle Rifle? ==

In the infantry weapon section, it says that the MA5C is actually a naval weapon for tight quarters on ships, while the standard Marine weapon is the BR55HB from halo 2 onward, after replacing the MA5B. Is this true or only canon?[[User:24.15.64.119|24.15.64.119]] 04:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)jake

*The Battle Rifle is a designated Marksmen's rifle.  This is a classification, not the weapon from Reach. The MA5C may be used by the Navy, but I'm almost positive it is the service weapon of the UNSC Marine Corps--[[User talk:Caboose&#39;s Brother|Caboose&#39;s Brother]] 21:50, 16 February 2011 (EST)

== Book References, And Recoil ==

In ''The Fall Of Reach'', the Master Chief asks for .390 Cal ammunition on their infiltration mission, that should be mentioned.  Also, 7.62x51 mm NATO ammo is what they used in the M14, and on full auto, it became an anti-aircraft gun, 7.62x39 is what they used in the AK-47, it has a hell of a lot of recoil, but it's manageable.  Oh yeah, if it's not accurate passed 10 meters, with 7.62x51 ammo, even at single shot, then something's wrong with the distance, or your barrel's shaped like a piece of macaroni (7.62x39 in an AK is accurate to 300 meters, give or take.--[[User talk:Chainsaw911|Chainsaw911]] 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

:I see you've never fired a G3 or FAL before, the M14 had especially strong muzzle climb (recoil was about the same) due to a bad stock shape. Even then you're forgetting that only the SPARTANs are strong enough to fire more than 4-5 rounds at a time. Besides which, it actually mentions them being 7.62x51's on the ammo packs. Oh, and the accuracy thing is just because you're hipfiring (there's no sights at all aside from maybe the screen with the compass and ammo display) so it's expected to be pretty far off.

*When Master Chief says that they should use .390 they are using MA2Bs.  Not MA5Bs.--[[User talk:Caboose&#39;s Brother|Caboose&#39;s Brother]] 21:00, 20 February 2011 (EST)

==A well thought out point that many have been making==

If you were to compare it to real weapons from today (540 years before halo) it is absolutely pathetic and useless. even the 5.45x39 Russian can get well over 100 meters no questions asked, 5.56x45 NATO (standard assault rifle round since the M16) is effective to 400m give or take (depending on rifle) and real 7.62x51mm NATO rounds are used in light sniper rifles for gods sake. this is firing 15 of them a second so it should be able to mow down absolutely anything in a fraction of a second but instead it takes like 5 rounds minimum to kill a grunt? And a barrel that would be very-much at home on a sniper rifle. god, a weapon like this is more akin to a medium machine gun until you actually fire it. When you do it is an automatic peashooter with a shotgun-like spread and range.

On a more scientific note, the standard for accuracy in an assault rifle is 3 Minutes of Arc, a spread about the size of a human head at 100 meters or 1/20 of a degree. so its spread - realistically - should be more like the size of the un-scoped sniper reticule.

yours scientifically, gunnery sergeant [[User talk:Maiar|Maiar]] 11:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

:I don't want to be one of those people, but Halo is not realistic at basically any point, and 'canon' is screwed up beyond repair. So, yeah. But I agree with you. -Headhunter09

== Oh the Irony ==

i am going to state this plain and simple: 7.62x51mm NATO rounds would make it a battle rifle, and the 9x40mm rounds of the BR55 would actually be an assault rifle.

:The assault rifle should actually be called an automatic rifle; it doesn't appear to have a semi-auto or burst mode, only full auto. In any case, the definitions for assault rifle and battle rifle overlap - both weapons could actually fall into both categories. [[User:Smoke.|'''Smoke''']] 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the MA5B be impossible to aim?  There's no iron sight, no scope, no red dot, no aperture sight and everyone knows that there is no such thing as a crosshair unless you have them in your goggles.--[[User talk:Canadian Reject|Canadian Reject]] 23:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

:Well, apparently in Halo canon, everyone has HUDs. Otherwise, it would be difficult to aim. <span style="color:green">'''Smoke''' <sup>[[User:Smoke.|My page]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Smoke.|My talk]]</sub></span> 00:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why does the Battle rifle have a scope?  The MA5B is impossible to aim.  Also, about that HUD thing, the cut-scene with pvt.  Jenkins kinda says there is no HUD, just a recorder.  Also, in Halo 3, the marines use the MA5C and some don't wear goggles.--[[User talk:Canadian Reject|Canadian Reject]] 23:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

:The BR55 has a scope because it is a mid-range weapon. The telescopic sights are part of the HUD. The cutscene with Pvt. Jenkins was a helmet camera. It didn't display what his eyeballs were looking at - only what the camera saw. <span style="color:green">'''Smoke''' <sup>[[User:Smoke.|My page]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Smoke.|My talk]]</sub></span> 00:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

:Helmet or retina-displayed HUD's, showing where the gun is pointed, rendering ironsights obsolete. But in the MA5B's case, it's not like it would hit anything either way, is it? XD --<b>CoH|<font color=purple>Councillor</font>]]</b> <b>[[User:Specops306|<font color=blue> Specops</font>]]UserWiki:Specops306|<font color=blue>306</font>]] - <i>[[User Talk:Specops306|<font color=blue>Qur'a</font>]] <font color=purple>[http://halofanon.wikia.com/wiki/Operation:_HOT_GATES 'Morhek]</font></i></b> 01:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

::Hahaha, that's true. The rifling in the barrel must be like a kid's drawing for the MOA to be as large as it is. <span style="color:green">'''Smoke''' <sup>[[User:Smoke.|My page]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Smoke.|My talk]]</sub></span> 01:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

::I must point out to you the first level of the original, where fully equipped Marines and unarmored crew members had the same accuracy. It's just unrealistic design, same as almost every other sci-fi game/movie out there.

But did you ever wonder why the H1 marines had such crappy aim?

== For the love of god ==

Stop saying FN2000!!!!! Its FN F2000. FN is short for Fabrique National di Herstal, the manufactures and F2000 is the name of the gun. like say... the H&K G3, H&K is Hekler and Koch the manufacturers and G3 is the name of the gun. hell the wikipedia link says so as well! someone fixed the link without fixing the link text. WTF? yours about-to-get-rank-points-ingly; Gunnery sergeant [[User talk:Maiar|Maiar]] 12:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:I used to say FN2000. Now I know it is really the FN F2000. Besides, it sounds better to say it that way. --[[User talk:Xamikaze330|Xamikaze330]] 20:33, 14 November 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330

Who the hell keeps deleting my posts?  If you got a message for me, put it on my talk page you coward.--[[User talk:Canadian Reject|Canadian Reject]] 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

==This is to 84.67.19.160==

This is your revision:

"In [[Halo: Combat Evolved]] the MA5B does not have a charging handle animation, however it does have the animation on some Halo: Custom Edition maps. The reason why it does not have a charging handle animation is unknown because most charging handle move when the weapon is fired. The bolt is what cycles the round into the chamber; a charging handle is supposed to move. "

Since you seem to think that charging handles move when you fire the weapon, and you think I'm wrong (I saw you just put your crap back after I corrected you), let me enlighten you:

The charging handle is racked when the magazine is inserted in order to cycle the FIRST round, and the FIRST round only. Apparently, you don't know what the charging handle is for. You have it confused with the bolt - the charging handle, when manually racked, pulls the bolt back with it. In a gas-operated weapon (which the MA5B is), when the weapon is fired, the BOLT cycles the next round into the chamber of the weapon. The charging handle '''does not move'''. Why? It does not move as the bolt moves - if it did, the operator would be smacked in the face (the eye) by it while trying to aim the weapon. That wouldn't be very useful, now would it?  I draw this information from my own experience firing the M16 rifle; I'm not just pulling this out of nowhere. This isn't false information. <span style="color:#666666">'''Smoke''' <sup>[[User:Smoke.|My page]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Smoke.|My talk]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Editcount/Smoke.|My Editcount]]</sup></span> 08:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

neither is my information, not every weapon in this world is an M16 you know....of course on an M16 it is dangerous to have a moving charging handle while firing, but OTHER weapons are not so encumbered. Britain's L85 A2 for example, pistols for example and other weapons are examples that have a moving charging handle .

and i do know what a bolt is and what a charging handle is.

any way if your statement was 100% there is noway any gun is different, then how do you explain the fact of the following:

*blowback AEGs with moving charging handles
*charging handle animations in other computer games, ie Tom Clancy games which are pretty damn authentic
*the fact that there was going to be a charging handle animation (see halo 3 Beta)
*Halos very own sniper rifle with... a moving charging handle animation...in all 3 games
*not to mention the fact that i myself am a RAF Armourer in training and part of the training is to service and maintain small arms, and for that you need knowledge of small arms and the internal mechanisms of them [[User talk:Molotovsniper|Molotovsniper]] 09:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of thing however i have modified the page to read this: "On some Halo: Custom Edition maps the MA5B is shown with a moving charging handle animation, however this is not present in Halo: Combat Evolved"

There its all PC Now.

:I've played the Halo 3 Beta. On Combat Evolved, the charging handle doesn't move when you fire the weapon - only when you reload the weapon when you have no rounds in it (or does it... I'll check later). As for the charging handle moving for other weapons, I thought about that when I typed it. I think the handle moves when you fire weapons like the AK as well (generally, when the handle's not located near your face). I've never operated an AEG, so I wouldn't know.

:In training, huh? Good luck with that. <span style="color:#666666">'''Smoke''' <sup>[[User:Smoke.|My page]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Smoke.|My talk]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Editcount/Smoke.|My Editcount]]</sup></span> 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


on some Halo custom edition maps the Assault rifles have been modified by the makers so that a charging handle animation is present. but no there is no moving animation for combat evolved. [[User talk:Molotovsniper|Molotovsniper]] 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

:Yeah, I've seen some of them. There's a couple that are meant to be MA5Cs as well. By the way, there's no charging handle on pistols - that job is done by the slide. <span style="color:#666666">'''Smoke''' <sup>[[User:Smoke.|My page]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Smoke.|My talk]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Editcount/Smoke.|My Editcount]]</sup></span> 22:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes i do know that pistols don't have charging handles [[Special:Contributions/84.67.19.160|84.67.19.160]] 08:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

::I ate crow. Didn't taste too good, but now I know better. Sorry for the trouble. <b>[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup></b> 21:57, 20 February 2011 (EST)

== ma5b assault rifle ==

the ma5b assault rifle does pack a punch because it can pierce through UNSC marine standard 2 inch thick titanium plated armor

:Not in gameplay. haha <span style="color:#666666">'''Smoke''' <sup>[[User:Smoke.|My page]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Smoke.|My talk]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Editcount/Smoke.|My Editcount]]</sup></span> 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

::Actually it does. Shoot a marine on an armored part and he'll bleed. [[User:Bioniclepluslotr|<span style="color: lime; font-family: BankGothic Md BT; font-size: 12pt;">'''BPL'''</span>]] 22:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== More Images ==

Shouldn't there be more images on this article? The Assault Rifle was the best known weapon in Halo 1, but there's only 2 images. Can someone get a third person view of an assault rifle in one's hands? [[User:Bioniclepluslotr|<span style="color: lime; font-family: BankGothic Md BT; font-size: 12pt;">'''BPL'''</span>]] 22:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== Assault rifle using a round classified as a Battle Rifle round? ==

This is to Orionf22. See [http://halopedian.com/Talk:BR55_Battle_Rifle#Slight_confusion this page]. You are correct in the fact that normally the 7.62x51mm round is used in battle rifles, rather than assault rifles. However, some weapons fall into both - one being the M14 as it was originally produced, as it meets all requirements aside from the size requirement. This weapon looks like it's another example of it. <b>[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup></b> 19:15, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


== Halo Reach ==

According to Gamer Imformer this rifle will appear in Halo Reach for canon reasons, however the gun shown in the previews looks alot more primative than this one in halo CE. [[User talk:VARGR|VARGR]] 05:02, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

== Crap Range ==

Seriously, how, in 500 years, did the UNSC have managed to create a weapon with a range that'd be considered pathetic by today's standards? 300 meters? A M-16 can hit a target at 550 meters and hit the general area at 800 meters.--[[User talk:Zervziel|Zervziel]] 00:23, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

:That range with the M16 (or any AR rifle with a 20-inch barrel) is with M855 ammunition, using a barrel with a 1-in-7 twist. Load a heavier grain round (75, 77, 80, etc., as opposed to 62-grain) with a flatter trajectory and the maximum effective range (point target) is increased a little. Being a 7.62 NATO-chambered fully automatic weapon (I'm assuming it doesn't have an option for SEMI on the FCG), the MA5B was intended for close-to-medium range combat. Since most combat takes place within 100 meters (yes, even for aliens), they probably figured that extensive range on a weapon that isn't geared toward a designated marksman or sniper role would be useless. Of course, if you mean gameplay, Bungie royally screwed the settings. <b>[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:#404040; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup></b> 00:39, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

== Gameplay info presented as canon info ==

Simply put, the novels illustrate the MA5B to have quite a good accuracy. The supposed "horrible-accuracy" is only shown in the ''Combat Evolved'', a gameplay element we assume is for gameplay balance. To make sense of this, compare the performance of the M808B in HCE and H2; it sucks in the former title but was improved significantly in the latter title. Hence, gameplay balance. I suggest changing the article to change this negative perception and reflect the actual canon.

While Halo Encyclopaedia is the only source I think would support this "horrible inaccuracy" information, it should be pointed out that it contradicts itself and some of the content is from Halopedia. As such, that source should be dismissed/ignored/make note of in the Notes section.— <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 06:42, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:A weapon profile released by Bungie during the build-up for the release of Halo 3 described the MA5B as having a faulty spring or coil that meant that older weapons lost any semblance of accuracy, and that this was why they were replaced by the MA5C. While the exact specifics of their inaccuracy, ie the huge spread in Halo CE, is probably exaggerated for gameplay balance, it still exists in canon. -- [[User:Specops306|<b><font color=indigo>Specops306</font></b>]] [[halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>Qur'a 'Morhek</sup></font></i></u>]] 07:17, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::Mind providing a link to profile? If it does exist in canon, then I suggest removing the exaggerated descriptives. :D — <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 07:42, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::[http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&link=BAGAssaultRifle Here's a link.] ''“The romeo echo mike foxtrot’s decision to mechanically reduce the (MA5C)’s magazine capacity by nearly half is pretty frustrating; even if their data was showing that jamming because of loss of spring strength was becoming an issue.”'' No mention is made of the MA5B having unreliable accuracy, only that its magazine often causes frustration for the user. --[[User talk:Braidenvl|Courage never dies.]] 08:49, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
::::This suggests that cramming so many rounds into one mag would eventually ruin the spring designed to feed rounds into the weapon, hence causing jams. Though, one can imagine that firing off sixty rounds of 7.62mm in one go on full automatic wouldn't do much good for the recoil spring in the long run.--[[User talk:The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari|The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari]] 14:24, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sorry 'bout that. I guess I need to brush up on some things. -- [[User:Specops306|<b><font color=indigo>Specops306</font></b>]] [[halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>Qur'a 'Morhek</sup></font></i></u>]] 16:10, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I'm of the belief the MA5B reflects the needs of the UNSCDF when it was created: It's clearly phenomenally reliable (aside from the above, written when it was at the end of its service life, there have been no references to it jamming, even in the novels), but like the similarly-reliable AK-47, this comes at a cost of accuracy. I think we can reasonably assume that the MA5B was, like the AK, developed for massed infantry fire, not long range engagement, probably because at the time of its creation the UNSCDF was transitioning to a large, lower-quality conscript force to fight the Human-Covenant War.--[[User talk:The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari|The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari]] 16:38, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I beg to differ. I don't think that we should compare the AK and the MA5B based on this assumption. There is not enough information to warrant such comparison/assumption. The novels showed that the MA5B has a good accuracy and reliability, even to the point that it was used by the ''SPARTANs'' for ''space operations'' over Reach (i.e. eliminating the Elite Rangers with several shots instead of using the spray and pray method). This event, along with others illustrated in the novels, should be sufficient to establish my previous point.— <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 22:08, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
::The spring getting weaker (assuming they mean either the magazine spring OR the action spring) has nothing to do with the inherent precision of the weapon. If magazine springs wear out, they don't push the rounds up to be fed into the chamber as fast as designed, resulting in bolt-over-base malfunctions (in other words, the bolt slams home and doesn't chamber a round). If the action spring wears out, cycling may slow down. The weapon will become more sensitive to foreign matter in the receiver (as this slows the bolt down). The bolt may not close on the chamber completely, and if the MA5B is still able to fire in that condition, it would result in an out-of-battery discharge; a UNSC serviceman might lose his face to that weapon. So we have one that can simply be cured by changing magazines, and another that, while it may pose a risk IF the weapon can fire out of battery, can be avoided by either making a stronger action spring (without the risk of short-stroking), or simply changing the spring at certain intervals. Neither one has anything to do with the inherent precision of the weapon. That would be the barrel assembly; namely, barrel twist, type of cartridge fired, throat erosion present when fired, tightness of chamber, amount of leade in the throat, etc. <b>[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup></b> 18:38, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thank you for that explanation Smoke. :) — <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 22:08, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::You're welcome. Added a little. <b>[[User:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Smoke</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Smoke.|<span style="color:Gray; font-weight:bold; font-family:Tahoma Small Cap">Sound off!</span>]]</sup></b> 23:55, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Actually, subtank is right. In every novel, that MA5B has superb accuracy (eg. Contact Harvest, where Jenkins and Forsell scored so many bullseyes, using an MA5B (Seriously?), that they were designated as the 1st Platoon Sharpshooter Team). This is in direct opposition to gameplay, where the MA5B (Using a 7.62x51mm NATO round rather than a 7.62x39 assault rifle round, it is more akin to a cross between the WWII Browning Automatic Rifle and the Czech Skorpion SMG which has piss poor accuracy beyond 10 meters) seems like it has a smooth bore barrel rather than a rifle barrel!--[[User talk:Sierra 109|Sierra 109]] 11:37, 14 November 2011 (EST)

:Just something to add (since this is related to section title): who here would think that the Marines during the Battle of High Charity would not pick up a better weapon? That said, one of them has a plasma pistol, and with that weak firepower he would need to fire more shots, and therefore run out of ammo (realistically) quickly! Gameplay elements are not canon info! Flood forms do not work together when theres a Gravemind? Possibly, not likely! Marine/Trooper/Kat drives you off a cliff? If that happens in real life, said driver should see a psychiatrist. —[[User:Spartan331|<span style="color:silver;">S331</span>]] [[File:Bubbleshieldhud.svg|14px]]<sub>(The anti-[[UserProfile:Spartan331|social]]  [[Special:Contributions/Spartan331|contributor]] who [[User talk:Spartan331|talks]] too little.)</sub> 11:44, 14 November 2011 (EST)

::Don't forget about Emile. I haven't let him drive the Mongoose on The Pillar Of Autumn ever since he drove me off the bridge three times in a row. During the same session. --[[User talk:Sierra 109|Sierra 109]] 19:02, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== Anniversary Images ==
Just wondering whether we should we omit Anniversary images from the article considering that they actually visually present the MA5C. Perhaps a more practical solution would be to keep the images, but make a note of every instance, that CEA just uses an uncanon/imported model etc. Thoughts? -[[User:TheLostJedi|'''<span style="color:maroon">TheLostJedi</span>''']] 02:01, 29 December 2011 (EST)
:Agreed. However, the note should inform readers that HCEA is simply using an imported model; we should omit the canon issue since everything is no longer consistent and it <u>could</u> be canon. Emphasis added.— <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 12:02, 29 December 2011 (EST)
::Having looked at  the CE, CEA, and H3(from where the weapon model was supposedly imported) AR images side-by-side, I can safely say that the CEA AR really doesn't look like it uses the model from Halo 3. for one, there's the trigger guard; and other small details differ as well. --[[User:D9328|D9328]] ([[User talk:D9328|talk]]) 10:13, 1 July 2017 (EDT)d9328

== 60-round mag ==

There's a fascinating exploration [http://www.forgottenweapons.com/1964-spiw-60-round-magazine/ here] of the 60-round back-to-back magazine developed for the SPIW in the 1960s, for those interested in an exploration of how the MA5B's colossal magazine capacity might work.--[[User:The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari|The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari]] ([[User talk:The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari|talk]]) 05:16, 20 August 2013 (EDT)