Talk:Barrett M82

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Relevant? PoV? Original Research?

Just got to the bottom of the Overview section and saw the following line.

As with all Barrett Rifles, the M82 is hated by Gun Control ralliers, because of it's "Armor Piercing" capabilities. The critical oversight, however, is that most bottle-necked rounds are of the same type.

Not that I disagree with it, but I don't think this line has any place in this article, or at least not as it is currently written. Thoughts? 64.218.89.101 19:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some of it might be good to include (ie - in a Controversy section) but it would definitely need re-wording and expansion. The idea doesn't really flow. The last sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (not being very familiar with amunition). Privong 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misc

OMG, they said that M81A1 appeared in Fallout 2 as Bozar. Bozar was an automatic sniper rifle, 30 .223 rounds in clip, only burst mode. But yeah - it has almost the same design... xPP

Is it appropriate to have the nazairian link on the page ??? free speech et al in the GNU spirit but still

I think it should be noted that there's a difference between a magazine and clip. And you obviously don't know the difference. - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.168.52 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role in Battlefield 2

The gun from BF2 is actually a m95. A bolt action bullpup rifle based on the m82

[edit] Effectiveness of .50 BMG air-to-air

The following unsourced statement has serious problems.

"With the advent of the autocannon, the .50 BMG is no longer used for fighter plane combat since it was shown to be ineffective for that purpose since World War II."

No question, .50 BMG is far less destructive than common types of 20mm to 30mm autocannon in use since WW2. However, US and some allied air forces destroyed tens of thousands of aircraft in WW2, Korea, and other conflicts using .50 BMG, so "ineffective" is a bit of a stretch. Also, .50 BMG was in use post-WW2 into the 1960s, most notably on variants of the F-86 Sabre and F-51. So autocannon and .50 calibers overlapped in service for over 20 years.RandallC 09:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A better question is what does the use of .50 BMG in aircraft have to do in any way with the M82 rifle? If anything this factoid would belong in the .50 BMG entry, NOT the M82 (rifle) entry. I think it should be removed. --Falcon48x 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the comment was included to counter the fevered fantasies of some groups that the Barrett M82A1 (also chambered in .50 BMG) could be used by a terrorist group to shoot down a commercial airliner. D.E. Watters 23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ok...so i don't really know what a BMG is, however i do know a good deal about firearms, and the likelyhood for a terrorist to shoot down a commercial airliner with a M82 or an M107 is highly unlikely, unless of course the plane is coming in for a landing, because at the range of M107, you cant really reach much else!

[edit] IS "M82" a US designation, a commercial designation, or a foriegn military designation for article naming purposes?

IF it's a US (or similar), in order to conform, this page must be retitled "M82 rifle" or such. Deathbunny 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The designation originated as a commercial one. When the US Armed Services began to adopt it, the original commercial designation was carried over. To prevent confusion with the completely different Valmet M82 rifle, Barrett's name should be included somewhere in the title. D.E. Watters 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
"M82 Barrett rifle" then? Deathbunny 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "Barrett M82 Rifle" would likely be the proper title. NorskSoldat 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

M82 is not the universal term, it is known by our army (Germany) as G82, (Gewehr 82) Gewehr means rifle. I'm not trying to disagree with anyone I'm just saying completely renaming the article to M82 would only apply to America and other conforming countries. - Helmut von Reiker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.89.75 (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversey...

I think this would be better served in an article about high-power rifles which, by their nature, are "armor peircing" against most or all soft armors. I mean, honestly, every .30-'06, Surplus 7.62 Russian, .308 Winchester, .303 British, or any full power rifle round can tear through most soft armors.

That's with FMJ and ball.

Then again, I'm likely preaching to the choir.

Deathbunny 03:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Privong 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that at the very least, the section "detailing" sale of Barretts to Al-Queda should be removed. It has no citation, and I can bet quite a bit on what side of the gun-control debate the person who submitted the "information" is on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.45.247 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, and I bet you're just so "impartial" in the debate, aren't you now?
I actually thought I tried to give leverage to both sides, but the quote simply establishes that gun control advocates have claimed Barrett rifles have been acquired by Al-Qaeda. Whether the claims have been refuted or not doesn't change the fact that I'm illustrating their perspective. At the very least, the quote does not need to be removed ENTIRELY because the other part of it is most certainly valid. The Provisional IRA's use of Barrett rifles is VERY well-documented and is, I think, proof that gun control advocates' claims do have some legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.132.101 (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 25mm version?

An article found here mentions a 25mm version of the M82. This is hardly a reputable source, but I think it's something to look into. Walther Atkinson 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. I missed it earlier. Walther Atkinson 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggested merge

I know nothing about weaponry, but someone noted that L82A1 looked like the same thing. I'll leave that to you folks to figure out - either to merge or to take off the tag. --Alynna 08:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm certainly no experts on Barretts but it is my undertanding that the L82A1 is the commercial designation for the XM107 which is currently in service as a Cat. I weapon in the US Army. The M82 (specifically the M82A1) still remains in service as a Cat. II weapon. I suppose one could call the M82A1 the XM107's predecessor in more ways than one but they are, at least as far as I know, not the same firearm. Hence, I'm leaning towards oppose for now but I'd appreciate it if someone with more knowledge on the subject could chime in here. --Seed 2.0 14:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak support - They are the same rifle. The military just likes to give it's own designation for things. The L82A1 article has little content and could easily go into the M82 article. Heck, even just a redir to the M82 article might be enough as it would infer that they're the same. But... with some expansion the L82A1 atricle could stand on it's own. As a side note, it should be renamed in any regard. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 17:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - L82A1 is just the British Army designation for the Barret M82 rifle. I should just take the time to put in a quick table for international designations so as to properly address this and prevent a "G82" article from cropping up too -- Thatguy96 20:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XM500

Has anyone found anthing on the XM500 besides the World of Guns website? I've looked and all Barret will say about the Rifle is that it is a Prototype. As such what information there is becomes questionable. Paulwharton 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • There is a single slide in a 2006 NDIA briefing titled "Anti-Materiel Sniper Rifle Congressional Briefing." It gives the length as 46 inches, the weight as 26 pounds, and notes that it is gas operated. D.E. Watters 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The briefing can be found online here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/lee.pdf -- Thatguy96 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The XM-500 now has it's own page.I am going to re-direct some of this pages information to there.Paulwharton 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge XM107/M107 article with this one

Support - In my opinion, the M107 rifle does not deserve its own article as it is 99% equivalent to the M82A1M/M82A3 rifles. It is a subvariant of the Barrett M82 series (as indicated on their website), and not a seperate system in any regard. The information it presents is redundant and should be included in this one for purposes of clarity in any case, further making the case for integration. -- Thatguy96 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - They're variations of the same rifle. No need for second articles. Also, note the Patton tank article: there are 4 major variants (and several subvariants) with different model numbers. And there's a lot more changes between the different models than you'll find between the M82 and M107. Yet we don't have separate articles for the M46, M47, M48 and M60 tanks, and nor do we need to. The same applies to these two rifles. Redxiv 04:29, 24 April 2007 :
Support - Truly, there isn't much difference, so i think that it would make sense to merge them...again, if you look some other product or weaponry, there are bound to be some variations in designs that were incorperarted in the article. However, make sure to be very clear where it separates, for they do have very different histories and features...
Support - The fact is that the CIVILIAN rifle came first... and wasn't really developed for the military until after it's popularity with civilian shooters got it noticed. Target shooters looking for a bigger boom and longer range pretty much made the whole .50 BMG rifle happen. Ted C Hall 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Support - XM107 is just a redesignation by the US military for a specific model of the M82. Nathanm mn 17:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Support -the M-107 is a M-82A3 given a military designation. Paulwharton 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I think we might want to hold off on this one. Is there not enough information on the M107 and the procurement competition aloneto validate a seperate article? Furthermore, I think this is more then just a simple change in designation. If it were just that, and if the weapon is so truly similar to the M82, why would it not just be designated the M82A4 instead of adding another designation. I also think it is significant that the weapon was orignally supposed to be the M95 (which is a bolt-action weapon), and was changed to an automatic design. The Army is also going to continue to operate the M82A1A rifles under the M82 designation, so does it not seem a bit superfluous to designate an allegedly identical rifle (atleast to the M82A3)under a different designation. I have also heard that there are some differences, espiecially in terms of long-range accuracy, in favor of the M107. This was also hinted at during the Discovery Channel's Futureweapons program when they covered the then XM107. Can anyone also explain to me how the weapon magically lost 10.5lds. The M82A1A weighs in at 32.5 pounds, while the M107 weighs in at 22 even. Also, the M107 is going to be unique to the Army, as the Marine Corps already operates the M82A3 as the Special Application Scoped Rifle. I may be wrong, but I think we might need a little more time before making this desicion. I will have to finish this later. Between then and now, I will do further research adn so if I am truly wrong.SAWGunner89 19:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Response:There is no information currently on the XM107 that is dramatically different from that on this page. The change in designation is noted in almost every official and semi-official source as a product of the fact that money had been allotted to purchasing "XM107" rifles and not anything else, and the US Army found it easier to simply procure the weapon under a new designation than to otherwise lose the funds. The US Army is not exactly immune to such things. The M73A1 was redesignated the M219 because they decided seven years after its introduction that it was actually different enough to designate as a seperate system, and the M2 and M3 Bradley are basically identical except for intended operation role and the typical internal stowage (hardly a reason for them to have seperate designations). Even more specific to this example is that the M82A3 was unique to the USMC, but is basically identical to the US Army's M82A1A (as you can note from the variant table). There are more examples. I cannot think of anything that has changed between the M82 and M107 that would give it additional accuracy, and to cite the Discovery Channel which has been outright wrong (as the History Channel) on many occasions when it comes to such issues, can easily be problematic. Just things to consider. If you find information seriously to the contrary from official sources, I will happily concede the merger proposal. -- Thatguy96 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: FWIW: The M82A1A was used by the USMC, not the US Army. The M82A1A's scope rail was modified to allow mounting of the USMC's then standard Unertl 10x optic. Prior to the adoption of the M107, the Army's Barrett rifles were straight M82A1. D.E. Watters 21:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Barrett's own official site lists the M82 and M107 as the same rifle. 71.203.209.0 09:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - My 2c worth... Maybe a decision on merging can be delayed until more info on the M107 is available? Looks that the M107 is a development of the M82, and if that's the case then a separate article (removing any unnecessary duplication) would make sense. -- By the way, the statement about the "Patton" tank series is wrong: M47/48/60 are different tanks, evolved as a family (as cited in most bibliograpy), and as such there is a wiki-article for each one. (have just checked that) -- Regards, DPdH 05:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Response - I would still vote for merging now and splitting later when that turned out to be the case. As it stands now the M107 page contains of a lot of duplicate information as the weapon described here and there is virtually identical. -- Thatguy96 12:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger (From M82A3)

I support the merge there is no need for a artical on the same gun with little differences. If it was completly different the designation would be different and not just A3 ForeverDEAD 16:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the merge since it is the exact same gun and there is no need for a article for something as little as a variant. Spitfire8520 04:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally support the merge, a variant of a firearm should not have a separate article but a section on the main version article. Is there any relevant guidance in the Wikipedia guidelines? Just to be sure on styles, etc. DPdH 03:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of the Barrett M107 with the Barrett M82

This merge is not a wise decision.

The M107 will be the new sniper rifle of the future making the M82 obsolete. Not to ention that the M82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.152.8 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of the M107 with the M82

This is not a wise decision.

This is where the small differences and changes do matter.

The M107 will prove itself in battle to outmatch is predecessor, the M82. The M107 has, I believe, better cooling systems than the M82. The M107 also has an effective and accurate range of 1.5 miles (over 2000 meters.) The M107 has no recoil force after being shot unlike the M82 that has a small recoil force. I believe that the M107 will become more widely used in the war in Iraq which will make the M82 obsolete.

Look forward. Look ahead.

    Face the future.

Phantom Regime —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatom Regime (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 25mm XM-109

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m109-ampr.htm


this is wrong i got rid of . A recent episode of a TV program called FutureWeapons has proven that the rifle is capable of, when equipped with the 416 Round, maintaining fatal velocity and accuracy from up to 2414 meters (1.5 miles).

the episode was showing use of an m99 with the .416 round and it was over a mile and half '2500 meters plus '

Why would they discuss one rifle, then exhibit the performance of another rifle? It makes no sense. It is my assumption that the M107 sniper rifle was in fact the weapon being used during the demonstration. DOwnsYou 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Given that the rifle is no longer a prototype, shouldn't the now-defunct XM107 designation be dropped from this article's name? Redxiv 07:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why this article deserves to be seperated from the M82 article. -- Thatguy96 02:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That's another topic entirely. If you request a merge, I'd be inclined to support it, though. Redxiv 05:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right that its a separate topic. Merge request already done. -- Thatguy96 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged because the M82 article is already too big as it is. X360 02:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Two things 1) Much of the information in this article would be redundant and unnecessary after a merge anyhow, and 2) if you think the M82 article is too long I'd hate to see what you think of the M16 one. -- Thatguy96 02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the C8, the Canadian M4 has its own article. I suppose it could be merged... Anyway the M16 is a very famous weapon, it deserves a big article. Plus it's just on one weapon, the M4 and all the other hundreds of variants are seperate. X360 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The C8 does not have its own article. It is contained with the C7 article, which actually covers all of the variants produced by Colt Canada (formerly Diemaco). No subvariant of the M16 rifle in American service has its own article (not even the Mk 4 Mod 0). The M107 is not even a seperate subvariant, but a redesignation of an existing system (this is stated in this article and on Barrett's website), in this case the M82A1M/M82A3 rifle. This would be akin to giving M16A4 is own article. -- Thatguy96 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm sorry... Jeese you don't have to get your nose out of joint about the subject. If your really desperate about merging the articles like its a life and death situation, fine just do it. I do understand what your trying to say, I just thought the article was quite good and it would be a waste to delete most of it. X360 04:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't mean to come across that way (sort of the problem about having a discussion in text where inflection and the rest of it is impossible to hear), I just meant to defend my point against good challanges. -- Thatguy96 14:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] L82A1

This appears to describe the same weapon known as the M82 Barrett rifle Rich257 13:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no expertise in this field, but I've suggested a merge; someone who knows about these things can see if they're the same --Alynna 08:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

To follow the proper article title format with manufacturer, then the weapon name. Also keeps similarity to Barrett M95 and Barrett M468, or any other firearm article such as Heckler & Koch G36 or Steyr AUG. M82 Barrett rifle is not a U.S. Military designation, so that is not a reason to object the move. Hayden120 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to discuss? Hayden120 07:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I entreat you to look at "what links here" and see the number of page names that we've gone through for this article. Each time I feel like its been part of some consensus heh, so I'll wait here until someone comes along who can tell me what the most relevant consensus for this article is. -- Thatguy96 15:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. Neil ☎ 10:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)