Talk:SRS99D-S2 AM sniper rifle

Suggested Merging
I think there should just be an S2 AM Sniper Rifle article, with the SRS99D and SRS99C variants just being different notes in the article. It makes no sense for the same weapon to have different articles, in the regular wikipedia there isnt a seperate article for the M16, M16A1, M16A2, M16A3, and M16A4. I think variants should just be kept in the same article. Justin Time 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"It's the SRS99D, a new model, with different looks, and characteristics. Just like the M6C, M7/ SSMG, MA5C, and Brute Plasma Rifle are different models" --CommanderTony

Thats just not true. The SRS99D is just a variant of the SRS99 S2 AM series of rifles, and they should all be included in one article. Differences in game play are minimal and the difference in look does not make it look like a whole new class of weapons either. Why not discuss this with me in the talk page rather then the history? Justin Time 07:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Like i've been saying a hundred upon thousands of times to you, and YOU only. The MA5C, and the MA5K have their own articles, and their variants of the MA5 series. The M6C and M6G are variants of the M6 series, they have their own articles. The merging of the BR55 and the HB SR failed, and I say this article should stay as it is. [[Image:UNSCoH_Dingo_without_letters.PNG|30px]] Captain  Tony  Talk 8/2/2007


 * The different M6s and MA5s are totally different weapons, while the SRS99s are minor variants of the same S2 AM weapon system. --Justin Time 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The M6G is really just toned down M6D, and the MA5C is a suped-up MA5B, but they both have different articles. [[Image:UNSCoH_Dingo_without_letters.PNG|30px]] Captain  Tony  Talk 8/2/2007


 * They have different magazine sizes, power, rate of fire, dual wieldability, etc. The two S2 AMs only differ in rate of fire barely, in fact the S2 AM from the first Halo is far more different from the S2 AM in the second halo then this one is (nigh vision, 2x instead of 5x), and yet it does not have its own article. I think the S2 AM should just have its own article with variants as subsections.

I really dont think us going back in forth is gonna do anymore, I say we let other users read our sides and talk, and decide for themselves. --Justin Time 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Justin, the two weapons are different. Their rate of fire differ, as to the physical dimensions of the weapon. Just the same as the MA5B, MA5K and MA5C or the M6D, M6C and the M6G differ. -- Avalon 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For Merge

 * 1) FOR MERGE Read my statements above also. --Justin Time 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) FOR MERGE it's the same thing, really. --70.133.6.101

Against Merge

 * 1) AGAINST MERGE Read my statements above. [[Image:UNSCoH_Dingo_without_letters.PNG|30px]] Captain  Tony  Talk 8/2/2007
 * 2) Really Against Merge They are different models, I know they have little aesthetic changes but leave it. Clavix2 22:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose - Definately different models. There is no need to aggregate all the sniper rifle articles into one. =] Cheers, RelentlessRecusant  'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg TALK • MESSAGE 23:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Very Strong Oppose As per RelentlessRecusant.--Sp art an- 781  [[Image:Kill_Frenzy_Medal.gif|30px]] CommCSV 01:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Different weapons, rate of fire, model and scope vary from Halo 2 to 3. -- Avalon 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy
Why does every weapon to this rifle insist on calling it a sniper rifle more than once? It seems completely redundant, to have SRS99D-S2 Am Sniper Rifle, when that stands for Sniper Rifle System 99D-S2 AM. The correct was to write it would (most-likely) be: SRS99D-S2 AM Rifle, considering that AM stands for Anti-Material. So, it would be the Sniper Rifle System 99D-S2 Anti-Material Rifle. I think that would fit it better. Just my two cents -- Avalon 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sabot
The ammo section of this article seems to imply that the discarding sabot is the fins on the bullet, when in fact the sabot is compleately differnt. I am going to rewrite this with the correct information. Not Now John 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)