Talk:BR85HB battle rifle

Typo
Couldn't this be little more than a typo on Jessica's part? Seems unlikely that they'd add thirty numbers to the designation just because the appearance changed. The fact that every render features "BR55HB SR" should be confirmation enough that this is an upgraded model of the Halo 3 HBSR.
 * This is WAY to different visually to be a retcon like that, that'd be quite silly. It's definitly not a member of the 55 family, let alone the same as a 55 variant. Alex T Snow 05:16, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
 * Grizzlei has a point though, which is more likely? Shea making a typo, or the game designers making a model of a new weapon and labelled it incorrectly? Meh, let's wait for more sources first. — S331 Bubbleshieldhud.svg(COM • Mission Log • Profile) 13:29, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
 * Typo.-- 15:24 16 March 2012 (EST)
 * I am more inclined to believe that the 55 tag is a typo. It is spoken of as an entirely new weapon, and it is far easier to mistype a 55 than an 85. The 55 tag is more familiar, at any rate, and may have been placed as a placeholder (as has happened before) by someone unaware of the weapon's designation. Really, all we should do is wait. - DefeatingLine 18:06, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
 * Also, most of the M6 pistols have the wrong submodel letter printed on them, the M7 SMG says "5mmx23" instead of "5x23mm", and the M392 DMR has an info plate that is for the MA37. In Halo games, a weapon's textures are the last thing I trust. Alex T Snow 20:50, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
 * Well, the imprints on the weapons are of the unknown; it could have a hidden detail (rocket launcher being the M41 instead of M19 as revealed in recent literature after almost a decade of being considered as a texture error) or it could be an error (as others pointed out consistently). Then again, this is not the final product and is subjected to change.— subtank  22:15, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
 * As Subs says, let's not forget that we're seeing in-developmet assets that are probably far from final. The weapon may have been intended as the same rifle with updated attahments initially, then changed to a successor model later in development, and these assets are from before that change happened. Until we actually get the final game, we can't tell. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   02:51, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
 * Sorry for going of topic, but what's that about with the M41? Alex T Snow 08:00, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
 * As I understand, the original CE rocket launcher was M19. Later models were retconned to be M41 launchers, which fired M19 rockets. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   08:13, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
 * You can read more of the issues on the rocket launcher's name on its talk page (and check also the archive). :) — subtank  11:09, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

Merge with BR55HBSR
With the recent screenshot updates featuring newer renders, including SPARTAN-IV's armed with battle rifles, it seems more and more that the "BR85HB SR" was just a simple typo from Jessica Shea (bsangel) on the Halo Bulletin. Even despite the rocket launcher argument stated above, we shouldn't assume anything other than what we see in the game and in newly released media. If it turns out that this is in-fact an '85 model, then later we shall unmerge it. But until then, we should conclude that the battle rifle in Halo 4 is simply a cosmetic and gameplay upgrade with the same designation as the Halo 3 rifle.

Support

 * 1) — As per above.

Oppose

 * 1) — Typo argument might be wrong. If it is indeed a typo, and assuming someone has informed bsangel of it, the article that revealed the designation would be fixed. We've seen one particular instance of this before during the development of Reach. As it is, it is either we're wrong to assume it is a BR55 or bsangel (or 343i in general) is at fault because of a typo. The benefit of the doubt would thus be placed on bsangel. —  subtank  06:31, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
 * 2) Per Subtank. --  Specops306    Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   08:46, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
 * 3) As per above. Until further information is available suggesting that this is in fact a modified upgraded variant of the BR55HB SR (for which it sort of is, albeit with a alternate name), I say we leave it as is. --Xamikaze330 13:32, 21 April 2012 (EDT)Xamikaze330
 * 4) Because it looks nothing like the Halo 3 one, and nothing has ever been "visually updated" that much. Alex T Snow 17:56, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
 * Uno and Dos. You were saying?
 * The difference is that neither of those are strictly retcons. The Grunt is simply a variant we haven't seen before, and the new armour has a canon explanation. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   00:41, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
 * Off topic for a sec, but where did that really freaky Grunt picture come from? Alex T Snow 04:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
 * @Morhek: Actually, it might as well be retcons. Designs for the anatomy for most Covenant species have evolved significantly since H1, though the general harness/armour designs might be, as you said, of some canon explanation (think space pirates!).— subtank  09:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Comment
Also, one needs to ask: how could one type 8 over 5 if the supposedly intended designation is "55"? Even if you use a keypad, it would eventually turn out as 55... unless bsangel had something else on her mind as she type it out. — subtank  06:31, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
 * I was going to make a codpiece joke, but when I typed it up it just sounded offensive and irrelevant. So what I'll say instead is that, yes, as you said there seems to real reason why typing 55 would produce 85, and that when in doubt we should always default to the official company statement. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   08:45, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

We know BS Angels gamer tag and if it's officially released then there isn't a reason she wouldn't answer. Why don't we have a trusted admin ask her? Jac0bBau3r1995 22:04, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Explanation for Halo 4
Ive recently seen campaign footage of Dawn, the first level of Halo 4, which includes chief on the Forward Unto Dawn using the BR85. Does anyone know why the post war rifle is on a ship lost before the end of the war? Before you ask I know about the MA5D and the M6H being officer firearms and therfore theoretically possible for the weapons used by the post war UNSC to be on the ship, and in all articles ive read the BR85 is referred to as the post war successor to the BR55 rifle.

Does anyone have any clarity on this? Your help would be very, very appreciated. For evidence of what I'm talking about go to this video and watch at the 0:53 mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGNCH6y8OmM--Matt98 15:11, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
 * While that is a widespread assumption, no official source has said the BR85 was introduced after the war. Forward Unto Dawn probably carried a few BR85s since it was Hood's flagship and would be launching an expedition beyond the portal; the 11th Marine Force Reconnaissance/ODST might have been field-testing the weapon. This is reinforced by the 2010 version of First Strike. In the original version, the Spartans find then-unfamiliar battle rifles, (which are never called by name), inside CASTLE Base; though the BR55 was considered a canonically new weapon in 2003, it had long since been retconned into use throughout the war. The reprint got around this continuity snarl by saying that CASTLE Base had been testing "the BR55's newest version" (page 165). However, this is from Fred's perspective, so it is entirely possible that the new weapons were actually BR85s, which he assumed to be upgraded BR55s. The book makes specific mention of the rifle's optics rail, something the 85 has and the 55 lacks. --Courage never dies. 15:34, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Never thought of that. Thanks!--Matt98 15:53, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Cyclic Rate of Fire?
So, we know the BR is selective-fire in universe, meaning it has a full-auto setting not used in game. Now, even burst-fire weapons have a rate of fire comparable to automatic weapons, because they're measured by the same basic method. What I'm wondering is, what's the cyclic RoF of the BR85? I know it has a higher RoF than the MA5D's relatively slow 600 RPM, but I think the page would benefit from a more exact number. If I had to guess, I'd say it has an RoF of at least 800 RPM, but a guess like that isn't worth much. Can anyone figure out the RoF? --Delta1138 SnooPING AS usual I see 11:38, 17 December 2012 (EST)