Due to the fact It's called the explosive rifle i think it's be like a grenade launcher and probably shoots dynamite and fire bottles
It's very similar to that of explosive shotgun in TBOGT, GL aren't created in 1914 yet. --Blaff 60 17:11, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
'I reckon' counts as a possible Wiki entry? Edit
With little to no facts on the weapon other than a few screen shots should you really be allowing Red Dead Wiki entries which are just guesses? The only facts on this page are that it resembles some of the rifles already in game and it has explosive rounds. You can't then claim that you will 'probably' obtain it through whatever means you think is likely with nothing to go on.
Should speculation be a part of the main page? Edit
I think there is too much speculation. And the way it is written is amateurish. I do not think the wording in the following sentence is fitting in a wiki: "Since it's DLC, you would probably obtain it the same way you'd obtain the Tomahawk". In my opinion, it should be something like this: "Considering that it is downloadable content, it is likely the player will obtain the weapon in a similar fashion to how the Tomahawk was obtained." or something like that. Buddy Dacote 13:51, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you make a cosmetic change to the content. Both sentences are amatuerish as they are both opinion and not facts. Wiki entries should be facts and figures not 'probably' and 'I reckon'.
Yes, I agree. But my wording is a lot better than the other. The author must refer to the player in third person, not second person. Should be "the player can ..." instead of "you can ...". Anyway, I think speculation should be removed, or at least be marked as speculation. Buddy Dacote 09:33, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree it would sound better in the 3rd person.
It sounds better, and it is the rules. I took the liberty of editing the page, removing the speculation. While it is a possibility that the weapon will be obtained in the same way the tomahawk was obtained, I think it is unecessary to write it, mostly because it could be dead wrong. - Buddy Dacote 10:20, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
"Arguably the most expensive weapon in the game?' Edit
How is it arguably the most expensive weapon in the game? It definatly is the most expensive weapon in the game. It costs $5000-$10000 and each bullet costs $10 bucks. I think it should read, making it the most expensive weapon in the game. Just wondering how it is arguable that it is the most expensive weapon in the game.Greyhound721 20:00, September 25, 2010 (UTC)Greyhound721
I agree, and I took the liberty to edit the page. -Buddy Dacote 10:25, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Before and After Screenshots Edit
I've noticed that the 'Before' and 'After' pictures in the gallery have John using the Buffalo Rifle instead of the Explosive Rifle, as seen by the external hammer. Is this a graphical glitch or something?
JohnnyT 18:12, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- The main pic and the 'before' and 'after' shots are all taken from official pics released by R* which they obviously designate as the explosive rifle. Why it looks like the Buffalo Rifle I don't know, but they still have all these shots on their site and still call it the explosive rifle...
- -JackFrost23 21:17, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
Friendly Free Roam kills patched? Edit
On various occasions on friendly free roam, I noticed that I can no longer kill players using the Explosive Rifle (after bypassing the weapon retract, of course.) It leads me to believe that the rifle no longer kills, but if aimed right, only knocks down players (like dynamite). I'd like to have another person's confirmation, since the bit about killing players in the trivia section should be edited or removed if verified. Anko the Great 04:53, August 5, 2011 (UTC)