Talk: A280 blaster rifle/Legends

Back to page |
< Talk:A280 blaster rifle
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "A280 blaster rifle/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Move

Definitely move. -Danik Kreldin 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars: Battlefront

In the Prima's Official Game Guide of Star Wars: Battlefront, it says that the blaster rifle used by rebel soldiers was a BlasTech DH-17 blaster rifle, and it didn't say anything about the blaster rifle being called A280 blaster rifle. Can someone tell me if the names of the models of the weapons in the guide is canon and if the information canon? Also, I'm wondering if they're the same blaster rifle since they looked pretty much identical. I'm just curious since the Star Wars: Battlfront series have a reputation for including non-canon information except in the storyline. Cyfiero 02:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The book is probably referencing the common rebel soldier weapon. This is the specialized weapon used by ndor commandos.Xzylongann 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The DH-17 blaster was the smaller weapon used by the Rebel troopers aboard the Tantive IV in A New Hope. It's pretty clear that the "standard issue" weapons for Rebel soldiers in the Battlefront games is the A280; there's just no reasonable way to confuse the two.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 05:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • But on the Battlefront I page it says that the rifle they use is the A295 blaster rifle. Which one is right?--Captain Martin Adamian 05:52, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

images of both models?

are both the Stg. 44 and M-16 based props avalible? If so prehaps both images could be used?SargeLIVES 01:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A280 vs A295

The pic of the A280 on Hoth is the same as pic of A295, what goes on here?!Xzylongann 07:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I was wondering that, too...

Kai Ell 22:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

    • The two seem awfully similar. Could they be the same?--Captain Martin Adamian 05:53, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Focusing crystal

The link redirects to lightsaber crystals, and I can say with some degree of certainty that the A280 blaster rifle is not a lightsaber! Are we sure this weapon includes a focusing crystal? If so, why isn't there an article for a blaster's focusing crystals? Kai Ell 00:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Image is reversed

The main image for this article is reversed. Since this is built off of an AR-15, the safety selector should not be visible from this perspective (It is on the rifle's left side, as held by a shooter). Other items also indicate this is the case, including the magazine release and a lack of ejection port. —Unsigned comment by 72.45.203.22 (talk • contribs)

  • The image comes from The Complete Visual Dictionary. Does this book depict the rifle reversed from its real-world configuration? This would mean the design of the in-universe A280 is different from that of a real-world AR-15 (which could be noted in Behind the scenes). Or is the Wookieepedia image a reversal of the Visual Dictionary photo? If so, this should be fixed on Wookieepedia. Asithol (talk) 06:49, February 8, 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless it used an ambidextrous safety selector.

For Behind The Scenes

The basis of the main image is an AR-15/M-16. It won’t hurt to mention this. —Unsigned comment by Mandatory Carry (talk • contribs)

  • If there's a source for it then we can add it Lewisr (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Uhm, ¿what? ¿Do you mean documentation? I can provide you a photo of an M-16 (I checked it is an M-16) if that’s what you asking for, but there’s no documents… —Unsigned comment by Mandatory Carry (talk • contribs)
      • We'd need an official source that supports the claim for the information to be included. Without it, the information is completely conjectural and rather trivial. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 07:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
      • I can see where this is going and I won't waste any more time. It is an M-16 (you can see the third hole when you zoom in), but it doesn't matter what is say (those goal posts are moving faster than tissue paper in a tornado). I shall however close with this; You can SEE the gun is an M-16 stripped of it's forward stock and with holes drilled into the lower receiver for the sling (the maker apparently doesn't know about sling end plates). Mandatory Carry (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
        • Please see Wookieepedia:Attribution: 'The threshold for inclusion in Wookieepedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true' Lewisr (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
          • Please see the published photo, which is clearly a M-16 (third hole and all. If your only though is "written word" then you might as well never publish anything. Mandatory Carry (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
            • I'm just trying to explain, there's no need to be like that. Just because it looks the same, it doesn't mean outright that it was based on, since it can be entirely coincidental. A source that specifically says it was the basis for the weapon therefore is needed otherwise it's entirely speculative, even if there's probably some basis in it Lewisr (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)