Talk:Sniper rifle/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sniper Rifles in Games

I once heard that Team Fortress introduced sniper rifles in computer games (maybe only FPSs). Does anyone know if there is truth to the statement? I can't say that I know of any prior sniper rifle... -- Philip Nilsson

Barrel Length

"Military sniper rifles tend to have longer barrels of around 300 mm to allow the cartridge propellant to fully burn and get the fastest bullet velocity for a given charge." is clearly incorrect or at least poorly worded. 300mm isn't even a foot long!

I dont know what the right length should be, but 300mm is about 1 foot, so it cant be correct.say1988 16:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Just to demonstrate, a few lengths are: M-16 (standard US assault rifle, not sniper rifle)=508mm (just for comparison), G3=450mm, M-21=560mm, Dragunov=610mm, M24 SWS=610mm, M40 =610mm, L96=686mm, M82A1=737mm, Steyr IWS 2000=1200mm.
Based on these numbers (all off of weapons listed on this page, excluding most "designated marsmanship rifles", because most listed there are just slightly modified assault rifles) I think that it should probably be 600mm and I will change it to that, if anyone doesnt like my research, just change it back.say1988 17:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Also "There is no correlation between barrel length and accuracy"? I have always believed that longer barrels (to a point) are more accurate, also on the sniper page there are a list of reasons why barrel length is important to accuracy. (resonant length, rifling, etc.)say1988 17:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
*Keep in mind that shorter barrels are stiffer which also allows for greater accuracy. Not extremely short barrels, but more like a 24 inch barrel vs. a 26 inch barrel.
In my experience, the article is correct: barrel length does not appreciably effect accuracy. There are a number of secondary effects, such as rifle weight, muzzle velocity, sight radius (not applicable to optically sighted rifles), muzzle blast, etc., that effect practical accuracy, but the effect on the precision of the rifle itself is negligible. 600mm sounds about right for a military sniper rifle.
Scientific barrels used to test the accuracy of ammunition are extremely short, perhaps only 10 inches or so. They are the most accurate barrels there are. Longer barrels have more resonant frequencies than short barrels, so the shorter the better. The sacrifice is muzzle velocity. Qwasty 17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

redoing this article

this article is badly in need of a rework. I changed a few things here and there, and then completely rewrote the introduction with more specific details on what a sniper rifle is. Hopefully that will get the other editors off on the right foot to make this article more educational. There's a great deal of interest from the public on sniper rifles, and a great deal of paranoia as well, and I think it's important for this article to be a good one. Qwasty 18:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of the soldier holding the M21 is from the movie 'Blackhawk Down' and is not an actual special operations soldier. -anonymous 23 JUN 2006

If you're talking about the first picture, he's A) not special forces and its B) not from BHD. That is a real picture of a US Army soldier in Iraq with what is more likely an M14. -- Thatguy96 22:20, 23 June 2006

Order of features

I have reverted the recent changes made by an anonymous user. I can appreciate that they changed the order of the features (telescope, caliber, action, stock) to correspond with the order of the intro's bulleted list of features, but these features were listed in order of importance and should remain in this order. I have returned the original order and simplified the lead-in paragraph. Other changes made by this user were also reverted in the process, but they were not correct either: "It can be broadly defined as a rifle used for selective destruction of targets from a concealed position" could apply to any rifle and sheds no light on the particular nature of sniper rifles, which the original sentence did (that they are used at greater distances than normal rifles) and concealment is also outside of the scope of these rifle's designs and relates more to the human role as any rifle can be concealed in the same manner. Deon Steyn 14:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the order that I created was the order than sniper rifles are designed and assembled in. First, an action is selected and accurized, then a barrel is selected and fitted to it, and finally the assembled components are bedded in a stock. Technically, the scope is not even a part of the rifle, it is an accessory.
Also, sniper rifles are not any different from ordinary rifles, contrary to public opinion. Usually it is the accessories, or the rifle reassembly techniques that make it slightly different, and even then, it's still not much different from any other accurized rifle. The idea that a "sniper rifle" is a special type of rifle stems from military efforts at standardization. They produce a specific model of rifle, give it a name, and then class it as a sniper rifle, when in reality, it's just a regular rifle that's been ordered in an identical large lot.
Lastly, one of the most popular sniper rifles in drug enforcement is the lowly .22 caliber. It's used at ranges under 25 meters to kill sentry dogs and remove lights in a quiet manner. So, in short, the only common thing about a sniper rifle, and sniping generally, is that it is done with stealth, from a concealed position.
Qwasty 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I should add that the primary differences between ordinary off-the-shelf rifles and sniper rifles are as follows (and should be in the article somewhere, maybe I'll do it)
  • the stock is designed for prone firing, usually mcmillan A3, A4, or one of the other similar mcmillan models
  • The rifle is usually just an ordinary rifle that has been "tweaked" in the assembly process to increase accuracy, but not as much as a competition rifle would be, in order to allow space in the component tolerances for dirt and grime
  • The scope usually is adjustable only in large increments, such as mils, for simplicity reasons. This obviously reduces accuracy, but enhances proper use under stress. Specifically, scopes selected for sniper use contain Ballistic Drop Compensator cams (BDC's) tuned to the rifle's type of ammunition (.308, .270, etc), rather than fine adjustment knobs. This makes the scopes very simple, reliable, and "idiot proof".
Qwasty 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The order of design/assembly is totally arbitrary and tells us absolutely nothing about this type of rifle or what distinguishes it from other rifles. This order of assembly and specifics like "bedding the action" is also only relevant to some types of modern sniper rifles, you forget entire sections of history (world war 2) and entire classes of weapons (semi-automatic sniper rifles). The order I listed is explained in the introductory paragraph of the section as the order of importance in setting this type of rifles apart from "normal" rifles, e.g. the most important distinguishing features are 1) telescopic site etc.
Your list of "most important differences" is also completely inaccurate, because you only consider the very limited area of modern american/european designs (e.g. mcmillan stocks) again forgetting entire sections of history (world war 2) and entire classes of weapons (semi-automatic sniper rifles).
Once again, the way it these rifles are used (you said: "So, in short, the only common thing about a sniper rifle, and sniping generally, is that it is done with stealth, from a concealed position") is completely arbitrary and also tells us nothing of this specific type of rifle, if one applies your logic the silenced .22 pistol would be called a "sniper rifle". You are confusing the role of "sniping" (please see it's own article Sniper) with this article which describes a specialised type of rifle most often employed by snipers, but not all weapons used for shooting from concealed postions. Deon Steyn 06:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please add your extra detailed info regarding the telescopic sights (to the paragraph covering that. Deon Steyn 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. There's little if any difference in sniper rifles and ordinary rifles. If you compare WWII era "sporting" rifles with "sniper" rifles from the same era, you'll see that they're virtually identical. If you compare modern equivalents, once again, they're virtually identical.
And yes, as a matter of fact, .22 caliber pistols ARE used for sniper work in special circumstances. There's an entire section on pistol sniping in Maj. John Plaster's Ultimate Sniper book. Like all other sniping weapons, there's no difference between sniping pistols and other pistols used for, say, varmint hunting.
About the ordering, semi automatics are assembled in much the same way as bolt actions. First an action is selected, accurized, and then a barrel is fitted. Both require bedding in a stock, whether it be antique wood, or modern fiberglass, there is no difference. The importance of a scope is not unique to sniper rifles either, and, as I mentioned before, it's an accessory, not a rifle component.
There's no distinguishing features of sniper rifles that allow you to say "AHA! This rifle must be a sniper rifle because it has such and such". So, it's not really a class of rifle at all, it's an application of the rifle. Some organizations mass produce a custom design to their specifications, give it a model number, and call it a sniper rifle - but in reality, it's just another custom rifle that would blend in with all the others if it weren't for the fancy model number printed on the side.
Qwasty 09:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I like teh parts you added about accuracy (that competition arms may be more accurate etc.).
As for the rest, please listen carefully to the distinction I am trying to make between components and distinuishing features. This section was never meant to be about the components that make up a sniper rifle. This section is there exactly because – as you rightly point out – sniper rifles are soo similar to ordinary rifles, therefor I wanted to have a section describing the things one might find on a sniper rifle that sets it apart from another rifles employed in a military environment, e.g. it would probably have a telescopic sight, secondly it might be bolt-action which would otherwise be unusial for an individual soldier's rifle, thirdly it might be of a more unusual caliber (7.62 instead of more commn 5.56, thirdly it would have unusual adjustable stocks. This section - which I should have called "Distinguishing features" doesn't make much sense now... first it includes paragraphs and then the whole "components" thing you are obsessed with... clearly all rifles are made from these components, a sniper RIFLE is by implication a RIFLE and if someone wants to know what a rifle is made of they can look at that page. They way you describe these components are also not accurate (pardon the pun hehe), because not all sniper rifles are assembeled this way (action first accurized etc.) some are mass produced semi-auto rifles that are just slapped together some have been normal rifles manufactured like any other that someone just stuck a scope on after the fact.
As for sniper pistols again you miss the point, anything can be used in a sniping role, but that doesn't make it a SNIPER RIFLE, which is what this page is about. Deon Steyn 13:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The following statement is also very far from the truth: Nearly all sniper rifles are variations or adaptations of existing rifles. The only notable exceptions are rifles based on the .338 Lapua cartridge, which is ammunition specifically designed for modern sniper needs. The Dragunov Sniper Rifle is one of many more rifles designed specifically for sniping sharing almost no components with any other rifle, other examples are Walther WA 2000, Heckler & Koch PSG1 etc. etc. etc. You keep limiting yourself to current western developments. Deon Steyn 13:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
We're getting closer to reaching a consensus on this issue. I had completely forgotten about the PSG1, which I think uses a custom action, and I know nothing about the walther you mentioned. As for the Dragunov, if remember correctly it still uses a common AK action that's been accurized or otherwise slightly improved. However, even with the PSG1, I can't think of any distinguishing feature of it's design or operation that would indicate that it's designed solely for killing people, rather than say, glass bottles.
I mentioned these rifles to refute a sweeping claim you made that nearly all sniper rifles are adaptations of existing rifles. Deon Steyn 07:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
One thing that I should try to impress upon you is my point of view that motivates me to steer this article away from labeling "sniper rifles" as a unique class of rifle. Firstly, gun control advocates will read this, and they want to know what types for rifles to try to ban. Since I stand by my assertion that nearly all sniper rifles are merely ordinary rifles that are being used for the task of sniping, differentiating is impossible. If a law is passed somewhere that says sniper rifles are illegal, does that mean M40A3's are illegal, or does it mean that any rifle that has camouflage paint on it is illegal?
Wikipedia should not be "steered" by such concerns, which are only relevent to one country and entirely inappropriate to Wikipedia which is an encyclopedia not a battleground for pro- and anti-gun advocates from one country. If differentiating sniper rifles from other rifles are impossible why then do we have a wiki article of this title and a category that many users have deemed it appropriate to classify more than 50 rifles as;. The simpe fact is that many rifles are built with only one thing in mind and cannot be used for anything else and they can only be called sniper rifles, not hunting rifles not assault rifles. Deon Steyn 07:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you're probably right about getting rid most details about components and construction. However, it may be necessary to discuss it only as far as is necessary to point out that sniper rifles are not really much different from ordinary rifles, and in fact, in cases of accuracy, they may be intentionally designed to be less accurate than their components and technology would otherwise allow them to be.
The statement also makes no sense at all, please provide a reference to a rifle that was intentionally designed to be less accurate! Deon Steyn 07:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, most sniper rifles in service today are simply made from an off-the-shelf remington 700 action, an unremarkable barrel, and perhaps a stock that's slightly different from the norm. The only difference from a factory Remington 700 and an M40 military issue sniper rifle is that the components are accurized, and then more care is taken in assembling them. In short, it's just a "rebuilt" Rem 700.
I think these facts need to be clear in this article. Granted, it wipes away much of the awe, mystique, and even hatred surrounding a "sniper rifle", but it is the truth, and that is what wikipedia is for.
Once again you have an insufficiently limited view, only a tiny fraction of sniper rifles designs use the remington 700 action. Please have a look at the category for all sniper rifles before you consider more changes to this article. Deon Steyn 07:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
One approach that may solve some disputes is to mention that sniper rifles are just slightly more accurate versions of regular rifles (or something that touches on that topic), and then from then forward focus solely on specific models of rifle that are called "sniper rifles" by their manufacturers or purchasers. That's why I put in the phrase "This article will focus on aspects of rifles that are well-suited for sniping, with specific information on important models of sniper rifles." in the introduction.
There would be very little to write about - other than accessories such as stocks, drag bags, and scopes - if this article didn't focus on specific models designated as sniper rifles. It's like the subtle difference between ordinary cars, sports cars, and race cars. Well, in the case of the rifles, I think there's vastly less difference, since in the cars you can use numbers such as power to weight ratios or whatever. There's no similar way to quantify what a sniper rifle IS. Sniper rifles are essentially just rifles that are used sneakily, AKA, sniping.
This is exactly why there was a section explaining that they are often different to distinguish from ordinary rifles, but that there definitely were distinguishing features, but I see you have reverted this title change. Deon Steyn 07:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I think we're making some progress here towards crafting a truly fine and authoritative article on sniper rifles. We've fleshed out quite a lot of the core features of what this article should contain. We're by no means finished, but progress inevitably leads toward perfection.
Qwasty 18:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a new heading for your nice paragraph on accuracy and trimmed down our clarified and trimmed down our "features" section into "distinguishing features" to which I also gave your paragraph on accessories it's own heading, which is an important distinguisging feature as you point out. Deon Steyn 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deon, I can't find your interspersed paragraphs when I try to edit this section, so I'll address your concerns here. US military M40 rifles are reminton 700's that have been accurized. The design of the remington 700 is capable of at least .1 MOA, as evidenced by the best rifles accurized by Tactical Operations, and countless others. The M40 rifles are designed to be less accurate than they are technically capable of due to issues of cost, reliability, and ease of operation and maintenance. In sheer numbers, Remingtion 700-based sniper rifles are vastly more common than any purpose-built rifle, especially exotics like the PSG1. Qwasty 20:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone one knows the US Marine M40 and US Army M24 SWS are based on the Remington 700 action (as are other rifles) and they may well be the most popular rifle IN THE USA, but if you look at the numbers objectively you will however find that their numbers pale in comparison to many other sniper rifles from the rest of the world and throughout history. How big was the US military order for these rifles, 5,000 or maybe 10,000? Let's call it 50,000 for argument's sake, that still won't come close to many other sniper rifles used in the rest of the world. Interestingly a 2003 article mentioned that only 30 examples of the new replacement M40A3's were being produced each month. [1]
Please keep in mind that this is not a marketing page (for Tactical Operations) or a discussion for US residents interested in comparative shopping or current purchasing options.
Deon Steyn 09:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actions

The cheap and very common Remington 700 action is the most commonly selected action in police sniper rifles, it should be mentioned with a cite from somewhere. I don't remember for sure off the top of my head, but I think the current US military rifles are built on that action also.

I also think the sections on bolt actions versus semi automatics should be moved under the actions section, and more attention should be given to the types of actions normally selected for sniper rifles (basically cheap ones, that are easy to accurize).

Qwasty 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sniper Weapon System" article title vs current "Sniper Rifle" title

Most sniper instructors, indeed, probably all of them, rarely speak of a lone "sniper rifle". They usually refer to what's known as a "Sniper Weapon System" (SWS), which encompasses the rifle, the scope, the shooting mat, the bipod, the drag bag, and all other accessories that make an ordinary rifle suitable for sniping from a concealed position in the field.

As we have discussed previously, there is little if any distinguishing difference between a so-called sniper rifle and any other rifle. However, we have largely agreed that, with a few exceptions, the primary distinguishing features of a sniper rifle are actually in the accessories such as the scope, the stock, the drag bag, the bipod, etc. Hunters use hunting accessories with their rifles, and snipers armed with the exact same rifle will use sniping accessories.

So, should we rename this article "Sniper Weapon System" and redirect "Sniper Rifle" to it? If we did that, we'd change the subject matter in (probably) the following ways:

  • More coverage of accessories and brief overviews of their roles
  • Less coverage of components such as actions and barrels
  • More international coverage of standard issue SWS's of world armies and police forces
  • Only brief coverage of distinguishing features from ordinary rifles, which I think we already have
  • More coverage of "oddball" SWS's such as pistol SWS's (can't fit in a rifle article!), suppressed .22 SWS's, and anti-materiel SWS's
  • Anything else I missed?

Qwasty 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose – I agree that the modern term (US-centric however, from the M24 SWS) is important and we should add a section on that, but it is only a small (and modern) concept that does not apply to all situations. We can not only look at what current instructors, books and manuals say, we have to look at the concept and in most cases accept for the very limited period of "modern american snipers" this concept (and all the accessories) did not exist. In almost all cases the only difference between a sniper and regular infantry was a sniper rifle instead of a whatever the service rifle was; there was no "weapon system", there was no bipod, no carrying case, no range finder, no shooting mat, no spotting scope, no weather meter. This is in fact still the case for most snipers in most armies (accept US).
I will start off a stub section and if it grows too large it can get it's own page, but it is definitely a separate concept, i.e. a sniper rifle can be part of a "sniper weapon system" or something to that effect.
Once again though all these accessories and even this topic of "sniper weapons system" belong on the sniper page. Pleae have a look at that page, this is where one would comment on the accessories that a sniper MIGHT employ or other weapons a sniper might use... it fits in there perfectly! Deon Steyn 06:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Please stop using the following sentence in the introduction

It can be broadly defined as a rifle used for selective destruction of targets from a concealed position.

It is not incorrect, because police snipers (for one) ARE NOT ALWAYS CONCEALED, they don't wear ghillie suits sitting for days on end in hides in the field, they are out in the open for everyone to see. Even military snipers are not always concealed, they operate from a compound/base/bunker/tower/perimeter or vehicles. Again we are confusing the role (sniper) with the rifle; snipers tend to be concealed yes, but the rifles are NOT designed to be used in a concealed manner and are not any more or less concealable than any other rifle and therefore it is not a worthy definition or description. They are sniper rifles, because they are more accurate than regular military rifles or handguns. To sneak up on someone and shoot them from 50 m doesn't require a sniper rifle, any rifle can be used for that purpose. What makes a sniper rifle different is that in some cases it needs to be used against targets beyond the reach of other rifles. It is about long range accuracy not concealment!

Also, the phrase destruction of targets is also misleading, because in some cases humans are shot to be wounded and not killed so that more humans can be shot and killed or simply to incapacitate the person (police snipers) so the target is not destroyed. In any event, ONCE AGAIN, it doesn't tell us anything about the rifle, because almost all rifles would qualify. This entire sentence was taken from some unknown source and used completely out of context for this wiki page and when taken out of context in this manner it applies to almost any weapon even a smart bomb (selective destruction) of dropped from a stealth bomber (concealed position) nevermind other rifles... you might as well say sniper rifles are things that can shoot stuff. Deon Steyn 06:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The sniper article differentiates snipers and sharpshooters in that snipers always use some type of concealment and sharpshooters don't quite so much. I agree with that. Most weapons are used from a concealed position, but not necessarily exclusively, as in sniping. A police sniper may want to be visible for intimidation reasons, in which case they're no longer sniping, they're sharpshooting (Even though the officer's official title may still be Sniper). As a matter of fact, the term "police sharpshooter" is used pretty frequently in the media, and by the police themselves.
As a rule, snipers are concealed. No other definition sticks as well in all circumstances.
Range can't be used as a general definition. For example, police sniping is usually done from 25 meters or less. Range isn't a concern, and at that range, neither is accuracy, since any decent off-the-shelf rifle can hit a half inch target at that range.
We could change the phrase "selective destruction" to "selective engagement". That'd cover the whole spectrum, and it'd be clear without seeming pedantic too.
Don't get too crazy about smart bombs and the like being similar to sniping. One word that was edited out at some point was "small" in the phrase "selective destruction of targets". Snipers invariable target man-sized or smaller targets. Even in anti-materiel sniping of things such as fighter jets, the target isn't the jet, it's the jet ENGINE. A smart bomb might do fine homing in on a jet, but only a sniper would target a specific component.
Qwasty 09:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Your arguments just go to prove my point that concealment has nothing to do with the definition of a sniper rifle, if a sniper (police) is not concealed and he is now more of a sharpshooter than a sniper does his rifle also suddenly change from a "sniper rifle" into a "sharpshooting rifle"? No, of course it does not. If I mount a Dragunov sniper rifle above my fireplace is it no longer a sniper rifle? What if I'm a sniper and I conceal myself and shoot someone with an Uzzi, does that make it a sniper rifle? The point is that almost any rifle (or any weapon) can be used for "selective destruction of targets from a concealed position" and that many sniper rifles are never used "from a concealed position", but they remain sniper rifles. So even though this definition might describe a "sniper", it is not an inclusive enough definition of a "sniper RIFLE". I guess after repeating myself numerous times we will have to find some sort of arbitration if no other users want to comment. Deon Steyn 10:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, a "sniper rifle" is quite vaguely defined to begin with; quibbling over the exact semantics of the resulting definition probably won't be too productive. Why not leave the definitions to sniper and sharpshooter and merely define it here as "a rifle [meant to be] used by a sniper or sharpshooter"? Kirill Lokshin 12:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion, which is pretty much how my introduction read (albeit more wordy):
This page defines rifles specifically designed or adapted for use by a sniper although any rifle or pistol could be used for such purposes a sniper rifle is capable of more accurate fire at greater distances.
I feel that precisely because it is so vague the intro should include and exclude exactly what the article covers and Qwasty's definition is too loose since it could include almost any rifle and this article should include only rifles that can serve no other purpose (those rifles have their own pages). The sniper page could lise all rifles employed by snipers, i.e. "sniper's rifles" as opposed to "sniper rifle". Deon Steyn 12:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the word "designed" in there, since so few rifles (less than 5?) are actually designed from the ground up to be used exclusively for sniping. I prefer "built", "assembled", "adapted", "customized", etc, and so I've taken the phrase purpose-built from the sniper article (which seems carefully thought through), and customized, to encompass all types of sniper rifles - except of course impromptu rifles, but that's where I'm drawing the line on pedantics. To try to encompass impromptu rifles, which were or are legitimately employed by panicked law enforcement and partisans in warring countries, we would have to keep using my original phrase, which I agree is a bit too broad.
Here's my updated sentence that addresses your concerns, but is still brief and well written:
It can be broadly defined as a rifle purpose-built or customized for the selective engagement of targets from a skillfully concealed position.
I changed "concealed" to "skillfully" concealed to differentiate the sniper's special and dedicated expertise in concealment. As I've said less eloquently before, skilled and professional training for concealment in a thought-out and carefully prepared location is the biggest difference between a sharpshooter and just any guy with a gun hiding in a barn.
I also broadened "destruction" to "engagement", so that it will encompass targets that are not meant to be completely destroyed. That's also the preferred word in military and police circles, albeit probably more for euphemistic reasons.
I don't believe that range is a differentiating factor at all. Yes, in a military context, it (usually) has greater range than the weapon of a typical soldier, but that doesn't apply in police contexts. In a militart context, due to accuracy requirements, the effective range is actually shorter for the sniper rifle than for the machine gun in the same caliber, since the machine gun isn't accuracy-dependent. .308 machine guns are frequently used to out-range and kill a sniper who is also using a .308 sniper rifle. Hmm, that may be good info for the "accuracy" section, or maybe a new section on either "range" (to complement the section on accuracy) or "counter-sniper" weapons.
That reminds me, I still haven't added that scope information you requested. One step at a time I guess.
Qwasty 18:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There has only been on other user and they suggested a neutral sentence in the introduction that you have now reverted. All your arguments for the "from a (skillfully) concealed postion" are not relevant to the rifle, but to the role and you failed to answer this challenge. Police and military snipers are often not concealed. The "engagement" or "destrcution" of targets is also superflous, because this is a rifle and this is implicit in the definition of a rifle. Deon Steyn 12:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of a neutral (rifle-related only) introduction as well. Kirill Lokshin has a good point—this article deals with sniper rifles, and while the term obviously relates to the term sniper, this type of weapon is not necessarily used by one. Whether or not a sniper necessarily engages its targets from a concealed position is not the focus of this article, and should be left for the Sniper article to cover. The introduction should note the accuracy/range aspect of the weapon rather than role-specific details such as "selective engagement of targets from a skillfully concealed position." —Squalla 17:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right, this type of weapon is not necessarily used by a sniper. Since most of them (in terms of numbers in service) are merely accurized remington 700's, you could say they're commonly used by farmers with gopher problems. The definition of a sniper rifle is inseperable from the definition of a sniper, and if the rifle is used by a professional sniper for a task other than sniping (no concealment), it could easily be argued that it's no longer a sniper rifle. Sure, it doesn't physically change the rifle if a farmer uses it on gophers, but that's only because nothing needs to change: all functional components of gopher rifles are interchangeable with sniper rifles.
I mention gopher shooting specifically because gophers are actually used by police snipers for practice (I could probably find a published cite if I felt like it). Gophers are the right size - similar to the exposed portion of man's head behind a hostage - and they're fired on from similar ranges that police snipers operate from. Farmers love police snipers because they solve their problems for free.
That's only one specific instance where there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between a rifle used for sniping and a rifle used for a civilian purpose. Even when used by a farmer rather than a professional sniper, the stock, the scope, the shooting mat, the ammunition, the bipod, the range finder, the suppressor (where required by noise ordinances), and other accessories, are all precisely the same.
The only unchanging difference between a sniper rifle and any other is what it's used for: "selective engagement of targets from a skillfully concealed position."
Qwasty 20:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You are clearly missing the point here, while simultaneously contradicting yourself. A rifle is a sniper rifle as long as it has the same accessories/configuration that dedicated sniper rifles tipically have. Hence, they should be considered sniper rifles independently from who is firing them, and how they are firing it. If a farmer somehow acquieres an M24 SWS to solve his "gopher problems", will it simply cease to be a sniper rifle? It's still an M24, with the same optics, bipod, stock, trigger, barrel and what have you. The only difference is the farmer behind it.
Although I was referring to other types of engagements (that is, not necessarily "from a skillfully concealed position", i.e. an unconcealed police sniper—be it a sniper, sharpshooter or whatever you like), your example serves the purpose just as well. A sniper rifle is a sniper rifle; it doesn't matter if the shooter is concealed or not, or if he/she is technically a sniper or not. I hope you finally get our point. —Squalla 21:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
There are no defining features of a sniper rifle that can allow it to be unequivocally identified as a sniper rifle.
What is an M24? Obviously a sniper rifle, right? Wrong. It's a remington model 700, one of the most popular (and common) rifles in production today. The M24 is more of a military specification than a specific kind of rifle. There's lots of toilet paper in the world, all made to a long list of different specifications (depending on the brand), but they're all still toilet paper. Sometimes toilet paper is used right next to a toilet, and sometimes toilet paper is used in front of a mirror. Still other times it's used in the kitchen, and sometimes it's used to make a mess in someone's yard. All the exact same thing, no matter what name it's given, no matter who makes it, and no matter what it's used for. You know, I bet there's even a milspec brand of toilet paper, and maybe even a type specifically for snipers.
There is no set of accessories and configurations that define the makeup of a sniper rifle. As I said previously, gopher rifles are ideally suited for sniping and vice versa - But not only that, they're absolutely identical in every way. Just stamp "M24" on the side of one rifle, and stamp "Super Gopherizer" on the other. Two rifles, one assembly line. This particular example extends not just to the rifle, but to the accessories also.
Don't forget that the term sniper means "one who hunts snipe". Gopher hunters, deer hunters, and man hunters do the exact same kinds of things, and in most cases there is absolutely no difference whatsoever in the features of the weapon they use to do it. The only difference with a hunter of people is that he is in much more danger if he is found, and so, more stealth is required.
This line of reasoning could easily extend to a justification for the elimination of a sniper rifle article, but I'm going to stop short of that if only because the things we are discussing here are precisely the kinds of issues that need to be covered in an article about a nearly non-existant class of weapons. Well, that, and the "easy" topics about specific examples of mass produced sniper rifles and their accessories. See the section about renaming the article "Sniper Weapon System" for other discussion about that (I agree with Deon that we shouldn't do it).
In short, the rifle doesn't make the sniper, the sniper makes the rifle.
Now, while I stand by everything I've just said, things may change in the future. For example, some high caliber rifles seem to be used exclusively for either civilian or sniping purposes (but not hunting and not for things like infantry). We have yet to see a rifle that is exclusively suited for sniping, but it could happen some day. I've seen interesting research into high caliber guided bullets that would have almost artillery-like ranges, and MAY someday become the world's first rifle suited ONLY to sniping. (Who wants to hunt deer 3 kilometers away?). That remains to be seen, and I am quite skeptical that such a rifle would find no uses in any other kind of application.
Qwasty 00:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"What is an M24? Obviously a sniper rifle, right? Wrong. It's a [R]emington model 700, one of the most popular (and common) rifles in production today."

Just from reading this sentence I can tell there's really not much of a point in this discussion. As you pretty much stated yourself, your line of reasoning defeats the purpose of this article, and also contradicts your own contributions to the article. I don't see how this discussion can go any further. —Squalla 15:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Squalla. Many sniper rifles are vastly different to civilian/hunting rifles and have no civilian equivalent and even those that are similar (Remington 700 actions) have been adapted in small ways. You employ a logical fallacy (specifically Correlative-based fallacies) when you imply that because you can hunt with a sniper rifle any hunting rile ("gopher rifle") could be a sniper rifle, because this is clearly false.
You have a very limited US-centric view (and based in the US according to your IP address) and make inaccurate claims without providing references, the simple fact is that rifles based on Remington 700 actions do not even come close to being the most common sniper rifle and is only really employed by US military/police agencies. You forget the rest of the world (Dragunov Sniper Rifle, Accuracy International Arctic Warfare, FRF2 to name but a few) and the rest of history (Mosin Nagant, Springfield 1903 rifle again, to name but a few). You see, if we leave all references to Remington based rifles out of this article, there would still be an article called "sniper rifles".
You have alterior motives relating to US gun politics, because of your stated fear that certain rifles are classified as "sniper rifles" and restricted. This is why you thought up the inappropriate and non-sensical definition in the hope that your "gopher rifle" would not be banned, because "it wasn't designed for shooting from concealed positions". You are the originator and only supporter of this wording for the introduction, the majority of editors have decided against it, so please refrain from using it.
Deon Steyn 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

B-class rating

When I first started working on this article, it was pretty messy. It seems to have a small following of competent editors now, and it's progressing quickly. Have spent a lot of time on this article lately, and I just notice that today it's been rated B-class. Congrats to everyone who has contributed. Qwasty 05:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this rating was given when the article was in a state quite close to what it was before you started editing it and secondly "b class" is not very high and indicates an article that still requires extensive work. Deon Steyn 15:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I started working on this article about a year ago, when I vowed to ensure that it becomes a good article, due to public interest relating to gun control issues. Since then I've been collecting information and planning a rewrite. See "redoing this article", near the top of the page. I have no doubt it still requires extensive work. Qwasty 20:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

I have trimmed this section down. I have also removed reference to Police sniper rifles requiring less accuracy, because the opposite is in fact true. Yes, the work over shorter distances, but they in fact require more accuracy, please see [2]. Another example is the FBI (surely Police not military) requirement for .5 MOA which is TWICE as accurate as the US Military figure quoted, see [3]

Deon Steyn 06:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maximum effective range

I have trimmed down this section and added some examples of typical ranges and better qualified references to police sniper rifles.

Deon Steyn 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Capabilities Section Discussion

I have reviewed and reverted the changes that Deon has made today. While I think some of them are good, I disagree with most of them, and the new text is of lower quality than the text that was replaced, with numerous grammatical, and punctuation errors. I spent about 14 hours on the text that was replaced, and I feel that the section now covers the topic excellently, and further changes should be discussed a bit before it is changed so substantially.

In particular, since I have above average writing skills and knowledge on this subject, I would like the opportunity to ensure that new edits to this section are of high quality. So, Deon, let's pull out the best parts of your edits today and discuss a way to incorporate them in the article, if you would like.

As for me, I would like to move on and spend more time on the other sections so we can at least have a complete article to mull over. After we discuss what I have written and how it should be changed, I'd like to begin fussing over the next section.

Qwasty 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please point out – or better yet, simply correct – incorrect grammar or language instead of simply reverting the entire edit.
Your paragraphs on the accuracy of police rifles contain the following factual and logical errors:
The paragraphs
Police rifles are frequently seen with accuracy levels as high as .5 MOA, and occasionally as high as .25 MOA in the most expensive models. However, it is interesting to note that in the realm of police usage, average, or even below average accuracy is usually all that is technically required. This is because police typically employ their rifles at short ranges under 25 meters. At 25 meters or less, nearly any inexpensive rifle with a low accuracy of only 3 MOA should be able to repeatedly hit a 1 inch target with ease. One inch is approximately the size of a man's thumb - 1/3 the lenth of the brain stem - the typical target of a police sniper.
Even though very little accuracy is technically required of police rifles under ordinary circumstances, since police are not free to choose where and how they engage their targets as military snipers are, police agencies will prefer to buy the most accurate rifles they can afford. This gives them the flexibility to safely engage targets at ranges that are not normally encountered, should the need arise.
  1. They contradict each other; the first paragraph claims accuracy is not required from police sniper rifles, while the second explains why it is required.
  2. below average accuracy is usually all that is technically required sufficient. No one would require "below average accuracy", but they might accept it as "sufficient".
  3. Even though very little accuracy is technically required of police rifles. This is patently incorrect, firstly they clearly require more accuracy than any other weapon at the police departments disposal otherwise there would be no need for them and secondly the FBI (a police not military organization) seem to disagree with since they require at least .5 MOA which is MORE accurate than the US Military NOT less. See [4]
Your comparison of accuracy levels is good, but "semi-automatic rifle may be capable of 2 to 4 MOA accuracy" is not accurate or useful. The Heckler & Koch PSG1 is just one example of a semi-automatic rifle with 1 MOA accuracy while most battle/assault rifles are also semi-automatic and you list their accuracy to be 3 to 6 MOA. So which is it now, 2–4 or 1–6 MOA?
Your use of the term downrange is incorrect outside of the context of a target ranges, hence the term "down range".
Deon Steyn 11:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll address your concerns roughly in order:
  1. The two paragraphs are not contradictory. They discuss two aspects of accuracy in police sniper rifles: What is normally required technically, and what is usually purchased by police forces.
  2. This might be a reading comprehension issue on your part. You may not be seeing the difference between technical requirements (needs) and purchasing requirements (wants). Also, your proposed solution to use the word "sufficient" instead does not even solve your complaint. In the case of wants (what you call "sufficient"), the cost and mechanical disadvantages of an unnecessarily accurate rifle preclude some organizations (such as military) from splurging on a "super rifle". Police agencies usually have the financial luxury of being able to afford rifles that are vastly better than what they actually need, according to the numbers.
  3. Police agencies justify buying vastly technically excessive rifles by speculating that they may need the technically excessive accuracy capability "someday". As far as I know, no police agency, not even the FBI, has ever used their rifles at or near the accuracy+range capability of the rifles they buy. Even at abnormal ranges of 200 meters or more, a relatively "junky" 1 MOA military rifle is still technically capable of hitting a grenade, a hand, a brain stem, a lightbulb, or any other imaginable police target. A .25 MOA rifle can theoretically do the same amazing feats at near the maximum effective range of a military sniper. Police do not need such incredibly accurate rifles, and in fact, they rarely have marksman even capable of exploiting such accuracy - But, just like supercharged mustangs, sometimes they want it, and they specify it in their purchasing policies.
  4. I agree with your complaint about the accuracy of semi-automatic rifles. I was thinking of designated marksman or civilian rifles. I think the reference needs to be included and corrected towards what I had intended because civilian semi-automatics are typicall much more accurate than military issue rifles.
  5. Read the definition of downrange somewhere, it is the correct word in the context I used it.
  6. As far as grammatical and other errors, most of your edits contain at least one, additionally, I feel it's sloppy compared to the text you deleted. If you cannot find them, I once again encourage you to refrain from making sweeping edits to text that I have carefully polished and perfected, without first requesting that someone with better writing skills try to implement the changes you want.
  7. One more issue that hasn't been explicitly stated here is that I think you're tightly focused on comparisons of sniper rifles vs. other military weapons (specifically in the USA), whereas I'm focused on comparing sniper rifles with worldwide military AND civilian weapons. Military weapons are usually cheap and of low quality compared to sniper rifles, however, the gap between sniper rifles and civilian rifles is much smaller, especially outside the USA. In short, the difference between sniper rifles and other military rifles is fairly obvious, and doesn't need much explaination, but when compared to civilian rifles, the difference is less obvious and sometimes disappears completely. Your near-exclusive focus solely on obvious comparisons to other military weapons is probably the reason your edits tend to shorten my work, which covers more area, in more detail. I think your edits have helped steer me towards not over-generalizing, though, since most of my work has actually needed more information that's specific to the military realm. In any case, the "Capabilites" section is ideally suited to explaining what differentiates sniper rifles from other rifles, and we haven't deviated from that, so I think we're still on the right track.
Qwasty 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again you have reverted edits and failed to properly address concerns and questions raised and you have yet to provide a single reference to prove any of your contentious "facts" and you are employing questionable tactics (see Argumentation theory and Logical fallacy) at stifling the debate:
  • Questioning "language and punctuation" (see Personal attack).
  • Making multiple successive edits
  • Claiming expertise
  • Claiming superior writing skills
  • Making personal attacks
  • Reversing criticis leveled at you (limited POV, US centric POV)
Yes, I am focussed on comparisons to other military and police firearms, because this is a miltary and police weapon designed for and used only by the military and police, because other weapons they employ do not meet the special requirements of effective range and accuracy.
  1. Simply stating that I am wrong is of little use. The second paragraph states that the need for more accuracy might arise, which proves that that they do in fact need them even if only for such "rare" occasions while the first paragraph states that only below average accuracy is required.
  2. -
  3. Your calculations with regard to MOA as well as the size of the brain stem are inaccurate. First of all the brain stem might be 3 inches long, but it is at most 1 inch wide, i.e. a target only 1 inch in diameter, not 3. As for you incorrect use of MOA, let's take the example of a rifle accurate to 1 MOA. At 100 metres shots from this rifle will fall into a circle approximately 1 inch in diameter, but this is not accurate enough to reliably hit a target 1 inch in diameter, because it only allows for the mechanical variation of the rifle. The shooter would have to place the shot perfectly in the centre of the target which is not even visible to them (brain stem). In reality the shooter would require .5 MOA accuracy to allow for variance in the mechanical accuracy of the rifle as well as human error (not placing shot perfectly and not being able to see brain stem)... which is exactly what the FBI specified in their requirements.
  4. -
  5. I have actually gone to the trouble of looking it up, have you? Dictionary.com describes it as "In a direction away from the launch site and along the flight line of a missile test range " [5]. It is a recent Americanism employed to show bravado on the part of the user by describing combat in terms of shooting practice on a target range. Such use does not belong in Wikipedia.
  6. Another personal attack. My edits are aimed at keeping the article relevant to the subject which is a specific type of rifle, not why it may or may not exceed requirements (a simple short sentence to this effect would suffice), not why other weapons could be used instead (weapon choice belongs in sniper article) and not a technical description of MOA (has own article).
  7. Yes, I am focussed on comparisons to other military and police firearms, because this is a miltary and police weapon designed for and used only by the military and police, because other weapons they employ do not meet the special requirements of effective range and accuracy.
Deon Steyn 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As a general reply, I'd like to ask you, Qwasty, to stop reverting other edits completely rather than simply correcting the specific things you see fit. Claiming that your edits are superior or that the edits by Deon Steyn are subpar doesn't mean much when you are simply reverting everything, and not only the allegued grammar errors. Additionally, it is simply not enough to claim you have above-average knowledge on the matter; when you make substantial edits to an article, you can't just expect people to believe everything you write down—if you don't provide sources for your information, it's worth nothing. I also think that this article should be written mostly under a military and police scope, with comparisons between other service weapons, its employment, etc. Of course accuracy comparisons with civilian weapons should have its place in the article, but it's worth noting that sniper rifles are intended for use by the military and the police, and that is what I believe the majority of the article should cover. —Squalla 17:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just added requested cites. There is room in this article to discuss the comparison of sniper rifles to civilian rifles as well as military and police. If we excluded civilian comparisons, we'd say that essentially sniper rifles are more accurate, and sometimes have better range, and that's about it. All of that is pretty generally well known, whereas what differentiates a sniper rifle from other rifles generally is NOT well known. And, referring to what Deon talked about above somewhere, gun control is not an issue in only one country. The public of pretty much every country in the world is concerned about the capabilites of these weapons in the hands of criminals.
As such, sniper rifles are not just military and police weapons, they're also used by criminals and assassins. The "assassin rifle" is a whole topic by itself, with H&K actually commercially producing a rifle specifically designed for assassination! It had a camera connected to the trigger mechanism and a timer so that a photograph would be taken of the bullet at the moment it strikes it's target, presumably so that the assassin could prove that he had killed his target and is ready to be paid.
Focusing solely on military and police uses of sniper rifles is ignoring many issues and features that make sniper rifles unique. While it may appear at first glance that my approach to this article serves to illustrate LESS of the uniqueness of sniper rifles, within the big picture, I'm actually doing the opposite.
At the same time, I'm concerned with the aura of paranoid fear and unjustified mystique surrounding sniper rifles. They're not scary, they're not magic. They're much like a common hammer with a little longer handle. I suspect the entertainment industry has had more influence on this article than any other. In fact, if it weren't for that, this article might not exist, instead being merged into sniper.
Qwasty 20:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again you fail to address the concerns of a fellow Wikipedian (see Wikipedia:Etiquette), instead trying to drown out such questions with long replies much of which is off topic. I think there are 3 broad areas that need to be addressed:
  1. Wikiquette – Qwesty you have added good references, but you make it difficult for others to collaborate by making nearly 250 (I counted them) edits in the last few days. This makes it difficult for others to compare edit histories and see what was changed. You often fail to provide concise and specific answers to question and fail to ignore other users (e.g. suggestions on intro).
  2. Scope – This article now includes too much information relating to snipers/sniping, instead of describing a specific type of weapon class. On the sniper page mention can be made of weapon choice in its section on weapons (silenced pistols etc.) also on the difference between true "snipers" and "sharpshooters" etc.
  3. Military – Yes, these are per definition military/police weapons, because they are designed to meet military/police requirements and nothing else. Even though SOME hunting rifles happen to share some characteristics they are not the same if they were there would be no need for specially designed weapons like the H&K PSG1, or Dragunov or FN SPR etc. etc.
Deon Steyn 14:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/n/i/Talk%7ESniper_rifle_Archive_1_2e45.html"