Talk:CheyTac Intervention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) 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. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force WikiProject Firearms  (Rated Start-Class) 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. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Critics

This article has generated mild critics to being tagged as written like an advertisement. The claims on the long-range capabilities this rifle system by the manufacturer and a 3 shot demonstration of a sniper in a television show of great accuracy almost invite critical minds to review these claims and put them in perspective. Mathematically the most accurate shot group is a 1 shot group, so adding more consecutive shots will make a shot group statically grow bigger and bigger. The chance of shooting a “flyer” that spoils an impressive group grows when the samplesize increases. How statistics effect the real world can be observed in the sport of benchrest shooting (for benchresters achieving the smallest possible groups is a goal in itself). Breaking 10 or more shot benchrest “world records” is hard and people who break those records are highly regarded, since active benchresters know that it is much harder to do well consistently then have a string of tries and remember and show the best 3 or 5 shot group results. Critical remarks are meant to encourage the reader to make up his own mind about the scientific value and validity regarding (accuracy) claims on rifle systems and are by no means intended to raise doubts. Francis Flinch 11:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The article would be neutral, but you are trying to include negatively biased text with sneaky wording designed to make readers doubt the effectiveness of the rifle. The technical data provided by the manufacturer isn't grossly exaggerated and readers can decide for themselves whether it is hot air or accurate indication. Some guy 05:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that there are still a lot of POV statements in FAVOR of CheyTac in the article that need to be cleaned up. I assume good faith on the part of Francis who is trying to make the article better, and I don't think based on his other work he has any desire to use "sneaky wording". I think that comments about accuracy need to be not challenged but sourced and put into context so people understand how to make the comparisons. Arthurrh 06:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Arthurrh. I indeed never intended to use "sneaky wording" or make anything or anyone look good or bad. I just try to explain that a X MOA at range Y result is not a very well chosen measure for the capabilities of inherently accurate systems. This approach leaves to many capability related questions open like; how was the air density during the test? Look at the end of http://www.lima-wiederladetechnik.de/Englisch/LM-105-long-range-bullet.htm#G-06 for a 69 mm (2.7 in) at 1005 m (1093.6 yd) 3 shot group made by an Italian made .408 Chey Tac rifle. Just like the mentioned internet text I just try to point out that accuracy and indications on capabilities have to be thoughtfully reviewed. Francis Flinch 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that to get this article to where it needs to be we need to look at all the POV words both pro and con and remove them. Then on the test results, we need to add reliable third-party sources per WP:VER. Finally, we should put those results in context so that readers can make an accurate assessment for themselves, knowing that they have a chance of comparing an apple to another apple rather than an orange. With that in mind, anyone have good sources already in hand for third-party assessments of this? Arthurrh 17:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bunch and cleanup and removed the tone tag. -- Arthur (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)