Talk:M-15 Vindicator

Rate of Fire
It fires 3 round bursts, at an RPM of 900, with a 0.625s refire delay between each burst. So that's 0.2s to fire three rounds, with a 0.625 delay between bursts, and 0.825s for the whole cycle. Roughly 72.72 repeating. That seems slow, but it really is "variable" in speed, since each burst is in 0.2s and in that burst it's at 900 RPM. -DarkJeff 22:11, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction in the interest of accuracy
Just a quick note, as stated above, in the interest of accuracy. In an edit I just made, I changed "single mode" to semiautomatic, with an edit summary stating that in gun terminology, when a firearm fires once per pull of the trigger, it's called semiautomatic. This is, of course, only half true. Semiautomatic is when a gun which automatically reloads fires only one shot per pull of the trigger, which distinguishes semiautomatics from, say, bolt-action rifles or muzzle-loaders. And there you have it! SpartHawg948 12:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Battle Rifles
Alrighty so here's the thing - assault rifles and battle rifles pretty well do the same job, they're just different sizes. Assault Rifles came about because Battle Rifles were too powerful and not fully effective in the close-range fighting of World War 2, hence the development of the smaller Assault Rifles. Captain Ovbious 08:38, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * And here is the thing. The BR is a longer range weapon, not suited for close-range combat. If the AR and BR both did the same job, why would many military branches around the world have both ARs and BRs, and use them in different situations? SpartHawg948 08:40, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a historical thing mainly. Look the USA used the M-14 battle rifle (7.62mm) in the main infantyr role (replacing the M-1 Garand battle rifle) until it was replaced with the M-16 Assault Rifle. The very reason Assault Rifles exist is because in World War 2, research found that the extra range of the battle rifles wasn't being used. Therefore they came up with a lighter round that would still be effective in combat, but would also allow the infantry to carry more ammunition. The battle rifle wasn't completely done away with because, as yo unote, it does have the advantage of increased range, hence its use by designated marksmen. Captain Ovbious 08:46, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Stating that they both 'pretty well do the same job' is, quite frankly, ridiculous. If they both did the same job pretty well, then why is it that pretty much every nation on earth phased out battle rifles as their front-line weapons, replacing them with assault rifles? I mean, if they both do the same job pretty well, then the deciding factor would seem to be ammo, right? Larger caliber = greater stopping power. If they both do the job well, everyone would still use battle rifles. But they don't do the same job. ARs are much better close-in, where most combat post WWI was fought, which is why battle rifles were largely replaced by ARs post WWII. SpartHawg948 08:49, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * So wait. Now you go from saying they 'pretty well do the same job' to acknowledging that they are, in fact, suited for different tasks, which also means it isn't a historical thing. It's a tactical thing. ARs are much better suited to the types of combat first encountered in WWII, as opposed to long-range combat that was prevalent up until WWI. This is why BRs were largely phased out in favor of ARs. And if, as even you appear to acknowledge, BRs and ARs have fundamentally different strengths, purposes, and tasks, the current trivia bit is A-OK the way it is. SpartHawg948 08:52, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys could've totally avoided this by saying "no gun nerd shit here plz". That's my rule on stuff like this, anyways. :p Darkman 4 09:15, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

True enough, but I do think that the Battle Rifle designation is worthy of a little bit of explanation, given that it's a term that is unfamiliar to most people, as this thread, and the concurrent discussions elsewhere, demonstrated. SpartHawg948 09:18, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * The things you miss when you go to sleep and your internet cuts out just before you do. I really hate when I miss things like this but here is just my say. I am not in the military, like Spart is, but I do know quite a bit about military technologly and AR's and BR's are two different types of weapon systems. While a bad example, take the AR and BR from Halo 3, the two are completley different and serve differnt roles. The AR is bad at range, while the BR is bad at close quarters, except for melee attacks. The two are compeletly different. Also Spart, could you take a look at a new edit, I fixed a link but I was wondering if that was ok or not, becuase it looks good. Lancer1289 13:40, May 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * "So wait. Now you go from saying they 'pretty well do the same job' to acknowledging that they are, in fact, suited for different tasks". Both actually. Battle Rifles and Assault Rifles were both designed to be the main infantry (rifleman/GI) weapon. However once tactical lessons (historical) proved that the large, heavy round wasn't needed, Assault Rifles came to the fore. Battle Rifles were then retained, but adapted for a different purpose - to provide support to infantry squads as a designated marksman weapon (tactical). Both this and the reduced ammunition argument are backed by the modern SCAR system (Mk16 and Mk17 rifles), whereby the SCAR-L is the main rifle replacing carbines and CQB rifles; whereas the SCAR-H with reduced mag capacity is replacing the marksman rifles.


 * Also using the SCAR-L/SCAR-H comparison, we see that the SCAR-L is much better suited to close-in fighting, whereas the SCAR-H has greater range, accuracy, and power, but has deminished rate of fire and ammo capacity both in mag size and total ammo carried by a soldier. Funnily enough, these are exactly the differences between the Avenger and Vindicator in ME2. Captain Obvious au 14:14, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on tactical considerations. In mountainous areas such as Afghanistan, or desert like Iraq, BR takes precedence. But when it comes to raiding urban areas, AR will be superior. Special units, which relies on surprise and stealth before engaging on CQB will use SMGs. The police force, which depends on stopping people short, would carry shotguns. Technicalities would only go so far. Real life application of weaponry is dictated by the objectives of a particular operation. So, each type of weapons serves a particular task in the concerto of a battle plan.

The same applies in ME. You would have Garrus or Thane hang back with SR. Have Grunt cover the point blank range with shotgun. That leaves you: would you be a marksman with Vindicator, or help by spraying bullets with GPR or Revenant? --Braveangel 15:19, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed and great point Braveangel, there are way to many differences between AR's and BR's to put the Vindicator and the Avenger in the same category. Ammo isn't the only difference, there are many others. They are different and just like in real life, have different uses. You would use AR's in the city, while you use BR's in the countryside or when the distance is longer. Actually using that, BR's could be used in cities, mainly ones with skyscrapers. Anyway, AR's are completely different from BR's, and that's that. Lancer1289 15:28, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the arguments are staying varied and interesting. First there was the 'no, they don't use battle rifles at mid to long distance, they use Designated Marksmen'. Then, when I pointed out that many of the weapons used by Designated Marksmen throughout the world are battle rifles, that stopped. Then it became a matter of ammo. First it was that "Battle rifle = 7.62mm, Assault Rifle = 5.56mm". I then pointed out several battle rifles that use ammo other than 7.62mm (I don't want to go into them all right now, but the FM57 is a decent example). As for ARs, don't get me started. What is the most common and mass produced AR in history? The AK-47. Well then, by the above logic, since it's an AR, it must be 5.56mm, right? Wrong. AK-47s fire 7.62mm ammo. And their replacement, the AK-74, fires 5.45mm. Then, for some reason, it became an issue of magazine size. Battle rifles were stated to have "smaller ammunition capacity than an Assault Rifle." (in real life, not in-game). This is also not true. There are all sorts of different magazines for both ARs and BRs. There are 5, 10, and 20 round mags for ARs, and 100 round drums for BRs. Now we seem to be on some sort of 'separate but equal' thing, which must still be legal in Australia, though it isn't here in the good 'ol US of A! :P Now, it is acknowledged that they have different tasks (although he still also says they have the same tasks... confusing, eh?), which would seem to render his edits to the trivia section needless, but I guess not for some reason. Maybe the whole separate but equal thing? If so, I'm calling shenanigans! Wikia is an American company, which means that we fall under US Law, and the US Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that separate but equal is wrong! :P SpartHawg948 17:30, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I would not base the definition of AR/BR on magazine capacity or calibre. There are too many variations to make any sweeping generalisations. The only two criteria that can make up a battle rifle is its role (i.e. medium range combat) and its effective range (i.e. retaining enough stopping power 300-600m away), which is influenced by the cartridge's power and (essentially) the barrel length. Note the key word is influenced, it does not define it. Even the Special Forces Combat Assault Rifle - Heavy (aka the SCAR-H 'battle rifle') will challenge this definition because it is (to quote the wikipedia article) "Both are available in Long Barrel and Close Quarters Combat variants." Also, is Wikia just hosted in the UK, because I get a British flag on my flagfox? Dch2404 18:24, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that. All I know is that Wikia is headquartered in San Mateo, California, not too far from where I am. Although, while making an inquiry on an unrelated subject, a wikia staffer was nice enough to inform me that wikia, while based out of the US (and the West Coast, in particular), has many servers worldwide. This may be why you see the Union Jack. And you are correct about ARs and BRs. It isn't based on ammo or magazine size, which is why I was rather bemused when those arguments were trotted out. It's about their role. And they are, generally speaking, mutually exclusive roles, which is why many armed forces (such as the US Army and Marine Corps) have specialized personnel trained in and equipped with Battle Rifles who operate alongside their Assault Rifle-toting brothers. SpartHawg948 18:35, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lancer - see the thing is, in World War 2, Battle Rifles WERE used in cities, they were used in fact for all situations in which Assault Rifles are now used. Tactics and research change, hell there's more ambiguity now with the advent of the 6.8mm rough, halfway between the 7.62 and 5.56.
 * Spart - seriously, starting to get sick of the attitude. I stated quite clearly that battle rifles are used by designated marksmen. Secondly, the AK-47 fires a different round to weapons such as the G3, FAL, SCAR-H etc. Those weapons fire the NATO 7.62 x 51mm, the AK-47 fires the 7.62 x 39mm short. The wikipedia article also clearly states that this is one weapon where it could potentially fir into either category. I also stated that Battle Rifles GENERALLY have a smaller magazine capacity. Let's see
 * Assault Rifles: M-16 = 30 round. SCAR-L = 30 round. G36 = 30 round. On the other hand-


 * Battle Rifles: M-14 = 20 round. FAL 20 or 30 round. G3 = 20 round. SCAR-H = 20 round.


 * Seeing a pattern here yet? Captain Obvious au 06:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know quite a lot about WWII and YES I do know that BRs were used in cities. They were used because ARs weren't around yet and they had no better weapons. Also this disussion is getting pointless becuase you insist in pressing the matter. Lancer1289 06:08, May 9, 2010 (UTC)Spart - oh please, let's actually look at standard weapon loadouts shall we? As for cherry picking, go ahead, prove me wrong. Let's have a look at a bigger list:
 * I know quite a lot about WWII and YES I do know that BRs were used in cities. They were used because ARs weren't around yet and they had no better weapons. Also this disussion is getting pointless becuase you insist in pressing the matter. Lancer1289 06:08, May 9, 2010 (UTC)Spart - oh please, let's actually look at standard weapon loadouts shall we? As for cherry picking, go ahead, prove me wrong. Let's have a look at a bigger list:

M-16 (AR) = 30 rounds

SCAR-L (AR) = 30 rounds

HK416 = 30 rounds

G36 (AR) = 30 rounds

F2000 (AR) = 30 rounds

FAMAS (AR) = 25 or 30 rounds

SA80 (AR) = 30 rounds

FN FAL (BR) = 20 or 30 rounds

SCAR-H (BR) = 20 rounds

G3 (BR) = 20 rounds

HK417 (BR) = 10 or 20 rounds

I mean really, how much of a list do you want? I have proven my point about BR's having a smaller standard mag capacity, and will be inserting it into the article. As for the marksman question let's be perfectly clear here - Battle Rifles were used in EXACTLY the same role as Assault Rifles are now before the newer weapons were invented. Afterwards, they are generally used by designated marksmen to cover the range difference between the Assault Rifle-weilding riflemen and the Sniper.

With the AK-47, serious, forget about it. Not taking the AK-47 into account, it is quite clear what the differences are between Assault and Battle Rifles. Including the AK, the big thing here is the ammo type. The 7.62 x 39mm short is less powerful than the NATO 7.62 x 51mm cartridge, but more powerful than the NATO 5.56 x 45mm cartridge. Therefore, it doesn't really sit comfortably into either category. Captain Obvious au 12:04, May 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, let's look at those numbers again. The M-16 actually can use 5, 10, 20, or 30 round magazines. Let's be honest, shall we? Not just cherry-pick? Sure, some battle rifles (again, cherry-picked) use 20 round mags. What of it? Some Battle Rifles don't even use magazines. Some use stripper clips. And others use much larger magazines than ARs use. The H&K HK 417 can use a 50 round drum. The Mondragón could use a 100 round drum. Many other BRs use 30 round mags. Many ARs use 20 and 25 round mags. Magazine size does not differentiate between the two, nor is there a generalization to be made. As for attitudes, I'm getting a little sick of yours as well. For starters, you removed the but about Battle Rifles being used between the ranges of ARs and SRs, saying that 'no, this is done by designated marksmen' (paraphrasing). Hardly stating quite clearly that battle rifles are used by designated marksmen. Second, so what if AK-47s fire a different 7.62 then NATO BRs? I never said they used the same round. I just pointed out that pretty much the entire AK line shoots your 'types are differentiated by ammo' theory. Third, again, there are too many rifles with too many feed systems and ammo types to draw anything other than a hasty generalization, and hasty generalizations are, of course, logical fallacies. SpartHawg948 06:37, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lancer - so you're accepting that Battle Rifles did the exact same job as Assault Rifles, but you don't want to accept that Battle Rifles did the same job as Assault Rifles? Little confused here. Yes, they do pretty much different roles NOW, but before the advent of the Assault Rifle, the Battle Rifle served as the primary infantry weapon.