FANDOM


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SMR article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes at the end of your post (~~~~).
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • New to Call of Duty Wiki? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.
Article policies
  • No opinionated research for articles
  • Have a neutral point of view
  • Verifiability

SMR... Mk14 variant? Edit

This is purely speculation, but this looks like a Mk14 with a bullpup conversion stock. Judging by the fact that it is semi-auto until you slap select fire on that puppy, it makes sense! 67.142.172.24 22:27, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

From the beta files:

REFERENCE WEAPON_SARITCH
LANG_ENGLISH "SMR"

REFERENCE WEAPON_SARITCH_DESC
LANG_ENGLISH "Semi-automatic assault rifle. Highest damage per round in class."

79.248.243.91 15:37, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Link please. I'm very interested to see how you saw the files for a game that's not even out yet. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk15:41, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

http://denkirson.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=5016

http://www.mediafire.com/?o7lvkqy40e9a607 79.248.243.91 15:45, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

For Christ's sake just lock the page from edits if this guy's going to keep slapping a wikipedia link on it! Sgt. Me 16:09, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Saritch 308Edit

I think the gun is probably a futuristic variant of the Saritch 308 for a few reasons:

  • In Zombies, Marlton comments on how the SMR uses .308 rounds, just like the Saritch 308.
  • On ELiTE, I saved the menu icon for the SMR and the default file name was 'Saritch'.
  • SMR possibly stands for 'Saritch Modular Rifle' or 'Saritch Marksman Rifle'.
  • In terms of overall appearance, it looks somewhat similar to the Saritch 308.

The last point is slightly iffy because I found that the SMR is much more akin to the Vulkan M2T rifle.

Nmo0M.png

Therefore I'm going to add a Wikipedia link for the Saritch 308. Undo if necessary. Executioner Menu Icon BOIIAugFC Talk Page 14:23, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

I realise I did a post on this page about how similar the SMR and Saritch 308 are, but since then I've come to the conclusion that they're not. 

  • In Zombies, it's mentioned that the SMR is named after an animal "noted for its teeth". The SMR is named after the Buzzard, a bird of prey. Birds generally don't have teeth. And Buzzards definintely do not.
  • The whole theory that just because the "game files say it's a Saritch it must be one" is just slightly ridiculous. Call of Duty ELiTE's filenames refer to the Chicom CQB as a QCW-05, the XPR-50 as an AS50 and the MTAR as a TAR-21. Clearly filenames are not evidence to go off.
  • I accept that, however, because of the filenames, maybe the SMR was supposed to be a Saritch, and if so only very early in development. The cosmetic differences and the quotes in Zombies point in a different direction, however.

Until conclusive evidence appears that proves the SMR is definitely a Saritch 308, one cannot assume that it is. Executioner Menu Icon BOIIAugFC Talk Page 22:34, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Both ELITE and Game File confirm this: seen here. Other examples include ELITE/Game files calling the SWAT-556 the SIG-556, the Tac-45 as the FNP45 and the M27 as the HK416. 23:35, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
So even though it's pointed out that such things are occasionally wrong, they're still apparently infallible? 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk23:39, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Brb I'mma go merge XPR-50 with AS-50 and MTAR with TAR-21. -- laagone (talk)  23:43, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
It's more verifiable than "I think it doesn't look right". It looks like Treyarch took some creative license when their art team developed weapons, so cosmetic differences are to expected. Quite a few weapons and other entities in BOII are "future-proofed", from a design perspective. It makes sense the SMR is too. 23:45, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Then how do you explain the "known for its teeth" discrepancy? 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk23:46, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
What Raven said, as well as the note about it being fictional on ELITE? -- laagone (talk)  23:48, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Firstly you're taking what a character says and trying to use that as some kind of proof, it was named the Saritch long before Marlton said that quote, (also Buzzards are birds of prey). Also I have never seen a note on ELITE calling the SMR fictional, only on the Peacekeeper. Given the Saritch is a Marksman Rifle SMR likely stands for Saritch Marksman Rifle. 00:00, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
Addition: While a Buzzard doesn't directly have "teeth" it is known for having a strong sharp beak for ripping flesh, so while it may of been incorrectly called "teeth" in game quotes, it doesn't subtract from the game files accuracy. 00:06, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
I do think it is notable to put a link to the same gun that Elite and game files post, as the two guns are very similar. Personal The Antibrony Sig Talk page 00:09, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
I apparently mistook it with IMFDB. Anyway, quoting Raven quoting the SMR page: "A fictional bullpup battle rifle called the "SMR," resembling the Tula Saritch 308". And that resembling isn't being the same. Eitherwhat I'm going sleep mode nao. -- laagone (talk)  00:11, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
Given we're currently debating the name I think quoting the page itself doesn't hold much water. It was only called fictional because it didn't have a link to the weapon, now it does. 00:15, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
When obtaining the Executioner from the mystery box, Marlton says: ""The Executioner...a five-chambered portable shotgun-pistol. Really? I should execute you for giving me this unwieldy thing!" Should we change the description on the page to read "shotgun-pistol" instead of "revolver". Zombies aren't infallible either. 00:13, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
Technically that quote is correct, though. The Executioner combines traits of a shotgun and a pistol. It's not as erroneous as to imply that a Buzzard has teeth (which, by the way, seems a mistake almost impossible to make). And while Zombies quotes aren't completely solid evidence to go off, that's besides the point; the point is that there's no conclusive evidence to suggest that the SMR is a Saritch 308. The burden of proof is on the people claiming it is, not the people claiming it isn't.
So far, the only real "proof" to suggest that the SMR is a Saritch 308 is the fact that it's chambered for .308 rounds, which, itself, comes from a Zombies quote. So suggesting that Zombies quotes can't be trusted as a compelling argument is a bit of an own goal of sorts. As I've mentioned before, game files can't really be used as conclusive evidence since they're prone to error.
I personally don't think that there's any reason to add a Wikipedia link to the Saritch 308. They don't actually look all that similar, upon further comparison, and there's really not enough evidence to come out with any conclusions here. I also don't know why this is apparently a big issue, as I really don't see a massive disadvantage to removing a single Wikipedia link which is based almost purely on speculation. I'm not counting the possibility of it being a Saritch out completely (no doubt the only further evidence will come from Zombies quotes, so if this has to be disputed, quotes are going to have to serve as evidence), but given the scarce evidence, I don't see a reason to add the link. It's actually slightly misleading, and removing it wouldn't at all be a disadvantage to the Wiki as a whole. Why not just leave it until conclusive evidence comes around?
Apologies for the excessively long post. Executioner Menu Icon BOIIAugFC Talk Page 17:07, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
How exactly are the files prone to error? When were they last proved wrong? And again Marlton is just a character in zombies mode, how is his one quote about teeth concrete evidence that the SMR isn't that gun? You're just using hearsay and speculation based on this quote. Similar examples are the FNP-45 and SIG-556 which are never called such in vanilla game, only in the game files yet they have a link to their Wikipedia pages. Also if we're basing weapons info on Marlton's Zombies quotes the S12 should have a note claiming its a sex toy: "Hey Misty, I found your vibrator." — Getting the S12 from the Mystery Box." 20:49, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
Aug just said Zombies quotes aren't completely solid evidence to go off. Also, it might be that the SWAT556 was called SIG-556 pre-release, and I assume Tac-45 isn't taken into note yet. And surely everything Marlton says is serious? You don't have to use a clear joke quote as another example. -- laagone (talk)  20:57, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
"Also if we're basing weapons info on Marlton's Zombies quotes the S12 should have a note claiming its a sex toy: "Hey Misty, I found your vibrator." — Getting the S12 from the Mystery Box.""
I'm not sure if that's an accident or if you really think Reductio ad absurdum is a good way to structure an argument. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk21:17, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
And why shouldn't I use a quote such as that as proof? If we're using quotes from Marlton to claim game files are wrong clearly any and all of his quotes must be correct in terms of canonicy. Also, this still doesn't explain why we're deciding to call the game files incorrect. Also if you're just going to pick holes and link fancy terms about what I say instead of trying to give me a decent reason as to why game files are incorrect I'm just going to assume you just want an argument as opposed to what's best for the page. 21:22, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
The game files state that the Chicom CQB is a QCW-05, that the XPR-50 is an AS50, that the TAR-21 is a MTAR, that the Type 25 is a QBZ-95, etc. The SMR has even less in common with the Saritch than the Type 25 has with the QBZ-95, but there's no Wikipedia link on that page, because it's a fictional gun and it's not based on anything.
All that's really required for the Wikipedia link on the SMR page to be justified, in my opinion, is conclusive evidence that the SMR is a Saritch 308, which no-one thus far has provided. I don't need to prove anything, the burden of proof is on those who think it is a Saritch. I seem to be repeating myself a little here, and I fear this is going nowhere. Does the Wikipedia link have to stay, or would it be too much to wait for more evidence, if any does surface at all? Executioner Menu Icon BOIIAugFC Talk Page 21:30, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
"clearly any and all of his quotes must be correct in terms of canonicity." Here's the problem with your argument: Not all of his quotes are serious. Some, like the one you cited where he calls the S12 a vibrator, are quite clearly jokes, even to someone like me with no idea about the context in which they are given. That's why it's a case of Reductio ad absurdum, because at that point you've gone right past logic and are just trying to confuse everyone into agreeing with you. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk21:34, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty much the same with the Shepherd incident: although dev employees' words are generally solid reference, 402 saying Shepherd's real name is "Hershel von Sheperd III" is questionable as it's considered a joke. -- laagone (talk)  21:36, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
I should just add at this point that the vibrator quote has been attributed to the wrong character. It's actually Samuel J. Stuhlinger who says that line. Most of his lines are intended to be humorous, whereas the majority of Marlton's weapon-related quotes just involve him explaining the magazine capacity, operation, place of origin, etc. Executioner Menu Icon BOIIAugFC Talk Page 21:38, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Re-added the link. Game files make it 100% clear... do not argue with what the developers have done.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  21:45, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

It's a little bit different when the game files have been incorrect previously, as AugFC pointed out. -- laagone (talk)  21:47, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
Well sorry, I don't think the developers randomly name their files whatever crap comes into their head. If they named a file "Saritch", that means they were obviously basing it off of that gun. I don't see why you're delving into semantics when the basic answer is staring right at us, i.e. developers named file Saritch, developers were therefore thinking of Saritch, it is only therefore logical that the SMR is based off of the Saritch.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  21:49, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
So the XPR-50 page should have a Wikipedia link to the AS-50, the Type 25 page should have a Wikipedia link to the QBZ-95, MTAR to the TAR-21, Chicom CQB to the QCW-50, ect., ect. I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic or anything, this is a serious question. Executioner Menu Icon BOIIAugFC Talk Page 21:54, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
I checked the MTAR page, it already links to the TAR-21 page, the MTAR variant section. 22:01, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
It's not like they've called a gun a "G36" and in game it's modelled on an MP5 while being called F99. All those Game File names are what the guns were based on originally. TAR-21 and MTAR are the same gun family, M27 (IAR) is based on the HK416, the Type 25 is based on a Type 95. The game files are hardly "wrong" just because they've been changed in development, the SMR has hardly changed that much from what a Saritch looks like, it's likely that "Saritch" was its development name or name prior to licensing issues. This isn't even the first time this has happened, in MW2 game files the .44 Magnum is called "Colt Anaconda". 21:58, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
As I've stated before, though, I accept that the SMR may have been based on the Saritch at some point in development. Clearly they couldn't accidentally called it the Saritch in the game files, that's slightly ridiculous. However, it's clear that, judging from the behind-the-scenes trailer for BOII, and the game files, that the XPR-50 was at one point based on the AS50 sniper rifle. Do we have a Wikipedia link for that? No, we don't, because in the final game, the XPR-50 doesn't share all that much in common with the AS50. I believe the same is true with the Saritch; other than the naming of the files, there's zilch evidence to say that it's a Saritch. Upon observing them, there's not that much in common cosmetically except for the trigger guard, which, as I have previously proven, isn't even unique to the Saritch.
To go off the naming of game files alone is pretty questionable. There was a time in which everybody thought the Chicom CQB was based on the Chinese Military QCW-05, and the game files even name it that, but externally it shares much more in common with the JS9, and hence we have a Wikipedia link for that. Evidently, according to the game files, the M27 was at one point supposed to be a HK416, and is modeled off one, but we have a Wikipedia link for the M27 IAR. With the SMR, we have the game file naming and that's it, since Zombies quotes are out of the question now.
I still don't see the disadvantage of just leaving it without the link. Executioner Menu Icon BOIIAugFC Talk Page 22:08, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the disadvantage of having the link either. Considering that the status quo is to have links to Wikipedia articles where applicable, and this is clearly an applicable situation, can we leave it at that?  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  22:10, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
I still don't see how the game files present conclusive evidence, and I do still think it would be far better for everyone if we just left it until further evidence for either side emerged. However, if you feel this is going to cause any sort of problems, then it is probably best that this does come to a close, but I'm a little concerned that the points raised haven't really been taken into much account, and the conclusion here still seems to me somewhat speculative. Executioner Menu Icon BOIIAugFC Talk Page 22:27, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
I just looked up the JS 9mm since you brought that up, the only results were pistols and a "Type 05", which in turn was a nickname for the QCW-05, I've since updated the Chicom page. 22:21, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
The JS9 and the QCW-05 are in fact different guns, they have as much in common as the AR-15 does to the M16. The Wikipedia link for that should be left alone, because the QCW-05 is not the same as the JS9. Compare them externally, there is differences, and you'll find that the JS9 is near-identical in appearance to the Chicom CQB (albeit without the MagPul-stype carrying handle added to the top rail). Executioner Menu Icon BOIIAugFC Talk Page 22:27, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
I would like to personally apologize to AugFC for being totally lorldly and jerky in my words of haste, but incivility is incivility, and I do apologize.
I would also like to state, I am at a loss STILL as to the motivation and mentality of AugFC in his personal battle against what, now, the leaders of this "wiki" have themselves personally supported to be empirically substantial and relevant to inclusion. I do not trumpet vindication, but simply am at a loss as to WHY AugFC is absolutely totally obessively oppositional and defiant concerning this matter. I once again apologize AugFC, even if your state of mind seems unfathomable to my own...
Sincerely, "R"
—Unsigned comment was added by 75.52.186.148
Well, I guess that "this wikipedian attitude makes me sick so I'm leaving and never coming back" thing didn't last long. And saying that someone shouldn't have a differing opinion like that is probably more incivil than trying to argue said differing opinion in a rational manner like he has done. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk07:21, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so, I read through your chuck-o'-text, and I'm confused as to what exactly you're trying to say. You don't understand why I discussed something? "obsessively oppositional" - How? I made some points, people responded to those points, so I responded to their points with some more points.
All I'm getting from this is that you're so vehemently in favor of one side of the discussion that you can't even begin to fathom how someone could say otherwise. If you read the discussion in full, which, personally, I don't think you have, you would see that good points were raised on both sides of the issue. There's no big conspiracy going on here, no "personal battle" behind the scenes, all that has happened here is that a discussion has happened and now it has ceased. And you find that concept hard to grasp?
I understand the opposition's viewpoint on the matter entirely, but I don't happen to agree with it. Basically what you're telling me is the opposite; you don't understand my viewpoint and you aren't willing to even consider it.
I also understand that you're trying to be as polite and civil as possible here, but that doesn't prevent the fact that you're making wild assumptions which basically aren't true. Executioner Menu Icon BOIIAugFC Talk Page 08:24, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

SMR Zombies Information Error Edit

I've noticed that on the SMR's page it states it will always have a Hybrid Optic with a dual Smiley reticule when PaP'ed, no matter how many times it's PaP'ed. HOWEVER! I have aslo noticed that on the comparative charts for each weapon and what happens when it's PaP'ed, it claims the SMR can have Hybrid Optic, MMS, Target Finder, OR  Reflex, one of the two is incorrect so can someone PLEASE check it completely? thanks!

Krilotfo (talk) 19:46, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia link Edit

The Wikipedia page has been removed, needs a fix like a link to a new website. —Unsigned comment was added by Imjustoverthere

it wasnt removed, its still there. also please remember to sign your comments with 4 of these: ~ or press the signature button. RisingSun2013 21:25, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

oh, now i see. it was removed. RisingSun2013 21:27, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

LinkEdit

On the topic of the real weapon hyperlink in the intro, there's been multiple debates years ago regarding the SMR, as seen above (as well as in the page history), and the outcome was to put the Saritch link (and I was fine with it tbh). However, what came to my attention for a while is the occurrence in recent games of futuristic weapons that are based on real ones (and named after them in the game files), even though they are not exactly these real weapons (such as the Pytaek, HG 40, FFAR, Kendall 44 and NV4). With that in mind, I feel that the best course of action would be to remove the Sartich link from the intro, seeing as the SMR isn't supposed to be exactly a Saritch 308, even though it was intended to be based on it (just like the other examples that I mentioned). Thoughts? Kilo 141 Beta menu icon MW Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 16:10, May 15, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.