Talk:M6C magnum

"Magnums are best dual-wielded together or with another weapon." That's probably one of the most useless sentences I've ever read.

=Removing= I am removing the part where you say "the reticle is slightly more centered" -- The Halo 2 reticles were OFF-CENTER. The Halo 1 reticles are dead center. --User:MLG Cheehwawa

i don't know about you guys, but i like the look of the M6C. i not saying it should've replaced the M6D, but i say it's a whole lot better 'looking'...it's sexy side arm to have. sometimes i equip it just for the hell of it and still beat out guys with the BR.

=bias= It's blindingly obvious that this article was written or at least heavily edited by someone who does not like the M6C. I'd try to fix it, but I'd essentially be re-writing the article. I'm going to take some of the obviously biased stuff out. JesseZinVT 01:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh* And then someone who is biased towards the M6C came in and screwed it up again. I made some of the stuff more neutral (i.e. the Magnum will lose to the BR at midrange) --User:MLG Cheehwawa

stripped-down version of the M6D Pistol?
This makes it sound like the M6C came second, even though it is only in halo 2 i still think it came first, for 2 reasons. 1 Its name M6C and 2 it's less advanced why would people make a pistol less advanced, well it happens today, but still...Im not very good at explaining my self sorry, hopefully you people understand.--''' UHSO. LT. COL. "Running   Riot"   Ryan    BAM' '' 16:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeating information
why is it that this page constantly says that the pistol is SO effective at killing hunters and has a very high rate of fire? This article becomes very weird because of this.

WOW
I dont even wanna look at this anymore, its so messed up. Some one clean her up and fast!--''' UoH. COL. "Running   Riot"   Ryan    BAM' '' 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm
wouldnt it's Counterpart be the plasma pistol? and not the battle rifle and carbine?-- UNSCOH   COL.   "Running   Riot"   Ryan    BAM  22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 11:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So true, I changed that to the PP in both instances. --User:MLG Cheehwawa

The M6C's Accuracy
For the second time already, I've had to correct the article in regards to the Magnum's accuracy as compared to the M6D. Despite what some previous user stated in the article, the M6C is NOT more accurate that the M6D. IIRC, the Magnum's shot spread is something like 5 times greater than the M6D's. Don't believe me? Try testing the shot spreads for yourself. In Halo 1, the pistol will hit almost the exact same spot over and over again. However, in Halo 2, at anything past zero range, the Magnum's shots will be all over the place. So, saying that the Magnum is more accurate than the M6D is just plain false. The M6D is clearly the more accurate weapon by a longshot. Anybody who says otherwise is either misinformed, inattentive, or a liar.

Also, I gave the article a much-needed cleaning up. It was overall very sloppily written, with a lot of redundant or otherwise unnecessary commentary. I did what I could to make it better short of actually starting the whole thing over from scratch. Rtas Vadumee 11:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Recent edit conflicts.
This is directed mostly towards user 64.131.177.2, but everyone else should pay attention as well.

I understand that this is a site created and maintained by fans, but we should at least strive for some semblance of professionalism. Improper spelling, grammar, punctuation, and spacing should be avoided. Always check for these things before entering your edits. Furthermore, we should always maintain proper style for the articles. It should not look like a 13-year old fan wrote it. Stuff like "kills in a snap," writing words in all-caps, and other such nonsense is fine for casual conversation, but should be avoided in order to maintain that professional look I mentioned. It wouldn't fly at Wikipedia, much less a professional publication, so neither should it do so here.

Finally, factual accuracy is important. I'm not sure what your definition of "mid-range" or "semi-long" range is — I've always tended to define it as the region between 30 and 100 meters —, but the Magnum has pitiful range due to its relatively low accuracy/large shot spread for a weapon of its kind (it is only about one-third as accurate as the Carbine and one-fifth as accurate as the M6D). Even dual-wielded, the M6C isn't very effective past about 20 meters, which is about twice the range of the sword lunge as well as the approximate range auto-aim cuts off for the Magnum. At said range, even auto-aim isn't enough to compensate for the Magnum's poor accuracy, and even with the crosshair centered on an opponent head will take around 20 to 24 shots to kill someone rather than the 13 headshots that the Magnum can kill in. Obviously, this means that the shot spread is so great that even at relatively close range and with auto-aim compensating, shots will miss even a stationary target. So, claims that the Magnum, even when dual-wielded is capable of overpowering the Battle Rifle past close range (assuming players of roughly equal skill) are spurious.

Damage claims for the M6C (or any other weapon) should also reflect what we actually see in-game. Multiplayer figures are the easiest to determine, as they are constant under default rules. In the Magnum's case, it is 13 headshots and 21 body shots. In Campaign, damage is dependent on difficulty level. Certain figures (i.e. "12 shots to kill a Hunter") are incorrect. Even on Normal difficulty, it took me over a dozen well-placed shots to bring down a Hunter. It may or may not take a dozen shots to kill one on Easy (I haven't tested it on said difficulty), but given that Easy is (presumably) not the standard difficulty for most players, this must be reflected in the article. Likewise, it takes more than two shots to kill a Drone, even on Normal. Also, I clarified the condition in which a Flood Combat form can be killed in two shots.

Please, take this all into consideration before editing this or any other article.

End of line. Rtas Vadumee 18:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Shadowslayer117 (I see you're not posting anonymously anymore), this is getting rather tiresome. I understand that this is one of your "pet articles," so to speak, but let's get real. I've already explained that the Magnum is not very effective at all past about 20 meters, which barely qualifies as "mid-range." If you don't believe me, then I'd be glad to test this with you in a custom game on Xbox Live. My gamertag is listed in my talk page. In any case, the effective range of a weapon is (or at least should be) defined as the range in which it is capable of killing quickly and effectively — not simply as the distance the projectiles travel. For example, the shotgun's pellets travel a good distance before vanishing, but the shotgun is not very effective past close range. Whatever damage it does past close range, it isn't enough to justify the effort in using it. Similarly, the M6C, even when dual-wielded, isn't as effective at medium range as it is at close range, and it certainly isn't effective at "semi-long" range even though the bullets do travel that far. Against even a stationary target, dual Magnums cannot kill a person past around 20 to 25 meters without having to reload. That's hardly what I'd consider effective. In actual combat, the effective range of the Magnum is obviously even less that 20 meters, as you have to hit a moving target with a rather inaccurate gun. You might soften the enemy up a good bit past close range, but against a person wielding a BR, you're screwed, as the rifle simply outguns a pair of Magnums past close range. For all intents and purposes, the Magnum is a close-range weapon, regardless of how far the bullets actually travel.

Also, in regards to the use of Magnums against in Campaign, I want to point out a couple of things I didn't mention in my last posting. First off, you may or may not be right about how many shots it takes to knock a Brute's helmet off. I haven't tested this out yet, but I may start up a game on High Charity (either Easy or Normal difficulty) to do so. Second, dual Magnums simply aren't that useful against Elites, unless you're facing down a blue ("Minor") Elite on lower difficulty levels. Especially on Heroic and Legendary, you can just barely kill a blue Elite with dual Magnums and survive. However, you can forget using Magnums at all against an Elite of higher rank, unless you planning on using the plasma pistol/Magnum combo.

Finally, please work on your spelling. Bad spelling and grammar is a major peeve of mine. Run your stuff through a spell checker if need be. I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, but it does get old having to constantly go back after people and fix their typos. It's annoying enough when I make a typo and have to go in and fix it.

Thank you for listening and have a good day.

Rtas Vadumee 11:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK IM HERE GOOD MORNING. Sorry about the no logging in thing, sometimes im to lazy to log in. ANYWAYS, the M6C is close to medium, thats certain, however iv heard from many places including halowiki and some weapon guide sites that the magnum can be used as semi-long ranges, it seems that semi-long is not a real range (Relentless told me that just now) so i guess i misunderstood all that. I will stop using semi-long because it is not really a real range, but about the campaign thing, im sure im correct about the amount of headshots it takes to kill a brute, i tried it many times on high charity, and about killing elites, Dual Magnums CAN kill elites very fast, maybe your not using them right or something, but I have the update, and Dual Magnums kill elites in 2 seconds, I timed myself, also Dual Magnums kill an Elite major, and a Spec ops elite very fast also, not quite as fast as the minor, but it still requires only a clip and that takes around 2 seconds if you pump both triggers at the same time, try again, also where are you aiming for? the foot? One more thing, 20, to 25meters? how are you measuring this in a video game? magnums are effective at close to medium, that is certain (as i said before i may have gotten the semi-long thing wrong)

thanks. Shadowslayer117 14:49, 20 July 2007

Okay. I did some more testing, and I made a mistake in regards to Elites in Campaign. To be honest, I was going by memory, and I never tested Mags agaisnt Elites under controlled conditions (as controlled as Campaign can be, anyway). Dual Magnums can kill Minor and Major Elites fairly effectively up to Heroic difficulty. However, on Legendary, I only been able to tie with a blue Elite; I'll either barely win, or we'll kill each other. Against red Elites, it's always been a loss in a straight-up face-to-face encounter. They can simply kill you quicker even when only using a single plasma rifle. If you catch him off guard, then you might stand a chance. However, you're a bit off in regards to how long it takes to kill an Elite with dual Magnums. Even on Heroic, you can kill a blue Elite in 11 shots and a red Elite with 16 shots, which means it takes, respectively, one second and 1.33 seconds to kill them. However, on Legendary, they can of course take more damage, and red Elites can kill you faster than that.

As for weapon ranges, while Halo 2 lacks a distance indicator like those seen in Halo 1 and Halo 3, there are objects of known sizes that can be used as a basis of measurement. The Chief in particular is a good starting point, as he is 2 meters tall. For example, the sword lunge has a range of about 4 "Chief heights," or 8 meters. The Magnum's auto-aim cuts off at a bit over twice the sword's lunge range, which would be about 20 meters at most. This is, of course, only a rough estimate due to the relatively crude nature of this method of measurement. I'd estimate that the margin of error for these measurements is ±10%, so the longer the range, the less accurate the measurement will be.

Rtas Vadumee 23:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I went ahead and signed your last comment for you, that way this discussion will be easier for someone else to follow. Remember to always sign your comments by adding four tildes after your comments, like so: ~.

A Bit of Data Regarding the M6C vs. BR
Just for future reference, here are some stats regarding the firepower of the M6C and BR in multiplayer. All data assumes standard damage rules and players with normal, fully-charged shields.

M6C Rate of Fire: 6 rounds/second Shots required to kill: 13 headshots or 21 body shots Minimum time to kill (single-wield): 2.167 seconds (not including reload time) Minimum time to kill (dual-wield): 1.167 seconds

BR Rate of Fire: 2.4 bursts/second Shots required to kill: 4 headshots or 7 body shots (assuming entire burst hits every time) Minimum time to kill: 1.67 seconds

Rtas Vadumee 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A single Magnum does not stand a chance against a BR, as you can plainly see from the above stats. The M6C's low magazine capacity relative to its power — 13 headshots required to kill, vs. a 12-round magazine — means that the player will be forced to reload at least once before they can kill their opponent. The BR has no such disadvantage, as it can yield up to three kill in a single magazine. Even if it had a large enough magazine (15 rounds, for example), the Magnum would still be much weaker than the BR. So do not claim that a single Magnum outclasses the BR. It doesn't. Rtas Vadumee 04:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BR > M6C
You guys really need to stop saying that the M6C Magnum is the equivalent of the BR. I even had to change it when someone said the Magnum can compete with the BR at middle range.... --User:MLG Cheehwawa

You silly kids...
Just kidding. But you guys really need to know how to stop being so biased on here. If you're calling the 14SK Assault Rifle "Low" damage, then why is the Magnum Medium and High? The Magnum is LOW on shields and health, and it is very high on headshots.