User talk:Francis Flinch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Francis Flinch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Shotmenot 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] .408 Chey Tac edits

Please use references whenever possible. See 6.5_x_47_Lapua as an example. Your efforts are commendable and I would hate to see them washed away for lack of references. Thanks, btw! --Crimson30 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7.92x57mm

Thank you for your edits to the 7.92x57 mm Mauser article. It was struggling for quite a while, and now it's looking better and better. You've added a lot of info and references. Great stuff. Geoff B 12:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

I think your expansion of the Sako TRG article was quite impressive - you seem to know quite a lot about the subject! Due to this, I want to award you with my own MoRsE medal! --MoRsE 07:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The
MoRsE
medal
Image:Bronze_medal_2_green.jpg in Bronze with a green ribbon has been awarded
Francis Flinch
on May 7, 2007
for the work with the article
Sako TRG


[edit] Image:8 x 57 I.jpg

I took the liberty of editing away a mouse pointer from the image 8 x 57 I.jpg. --Ifrit 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 m fixed parallax

The Schmidt & Bender 10x42 PMII (is still produced) is a 300 m fixed parallax telescopic sight. They also produced 6x42 PMII telescopic sights. Specifications for the 10x42 PMII can be found at Schmidt & Bender PM II. I suspect that the Hensoldt (now sold under the Zeiss Optronics brand - Zeiss: Telescopic sights for handheld weapons) and Austrian Kahles fixed 6x42 military models often mounted on Steyr SSG 69 sniper rifles also are 300 m fixed parallax scopes.

OK, I put in a reference linked to the PM II specs, that covers the 300m fixed parallax.

I am always rather careful with ‘focus’ and ‘side focus’ since side parallax adjustments are often confused with the actual focusing adjusment controls on telescopic sights. Focusing (meaning getting a sharp image of the target picture and reticle) a scope is done on the ocular end. This focusing adjustment control, found on almost every telescopic sight, has nothing to do with bringing the target picture and reticle crosshairs in one optical plane avoiding parallax aiming errors. Francis Flinch 16:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but the "side focus" term was taken directly from BSA'S website (which I picked because they make 7.5 yard AO scopes, the shortest range I was able to find when I was looking). On that page they refer to adjustment as "side wheel focus" and "side wheel parallax adjustment"; while "focus" is confusing, it's not technically incorrect, since you are "focusing" the reticle image out to a given distance. Maybe there should be a section on "adjustments", wherein we can cover ocular focus, parallax focus, windage and elevation, magnification, bullet drop compensation (which can be a function of elevation or separate), and adjustable and "drooper" bases. scot 17:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the BSA website. It looks to me like they sell telescopic sights, made in one of the huge Asian optics plants where you can get OEM products stamped with anything you can imagine on. The telescopic sights of Schmidt and Bender, U.S. Optics (S&B and USO only produce high end telescopic sights) or Zeiss play in a different league. For about 10 to 15 times the price of a BSA it is not unreasonable to expect near optical and mechanical perfection, quality control, reliability, durability and hassle free after sales service.

Yes, BSA sells inexpensive, made in China stuff, but they also offer a fairly wide range of products, and have good information on their website, which makes them a good reference. And while Zeiss might might a far better riflescope in general, it'd be awfully silly to mount a $1000 scope on a $50 airgun for shooting at 10 meters or less--especially given that Zeiss doesn't make a scope suitable for that task. Better a cheap tool that fits the task than an expensive one that doesn't.

I think that a term like "side wheel parallax adjustment" or “parallax control” describes the function of such a turret-wheel or AO ring quite well. I know the term “side wheel focus” is often used by telescopic sight manufacturers, but I think it causes avoidable confusion.

Perhaps, but all we can do is describe the state things and try to explain them. I don't know about you, but unfortunately no one has decided to let me be in charge. If they had, there'd be a whole lot more mid-range, compact, fixed power scopes with rangefinding reticles out there...

I liked your adjustments section idea, so I added it with a hopefully illustrative picture. Your addition on adjustable mounts reminded me of old hunting rifles which had ‘mounts with a support’, the support being the adjustable part. In the old days (wire) reticles were not centered if the telescopic sight was adjusted for elevation or windage. This often looked odd and was a reason to align things by manipulating the mount to obtain a nice looking centered reticle picture. A contemporary user of external adjustments is the Dutch Army. They use 3.4x Elcan telescopic sights on their Diemaco assault rifles, etc. Elevation adjustments are made via a horizontal thumbwheel at the rear of the integrated mount. This features a bullet drop compensator calibrated from 200 to 800m in 100m increments. This mount is not dirty environment and rough handling proof, so Elcans are unpopular with Dutch soldiers. On the EAW website you can find information on European-style mounting systems. Francis Flinch 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the old Unertl target scopes, like this: http://www.alexweb.net/unertl/16171.jpg, and here's a good picture of the mounts http://www.alexweb.net/unertl/q2.jpg One ring acts as a shock absorber with a spring to return the scope to position, and the other has click adjustments to position the scope in the rings. But now that you mention it, lots of modern red dot scopes use external adjustments, especially the open type; the reflector and reticle emitter are fixed to a rail, and the rail is moved relative to the mount. One of the early Aimpoints I have (it's about a 15mm tube variety) even goes so far as to have horizontal adjustments at one end of the mount, and vertical at the other. As far as the Elcan goes, I would expect a good adjustable base design to be just as solid as an adjustable rear sight--like the M-16A2's range adjustable rear sight--so I'd guess that's an implementation issue, not a design issue. I still prefer the calibrated reticle, but then I prefer to eliminate moving parts whenever possible (see previous comment about fixed power scopes--I know everyone says variable power scopes are "just as good", but they're also by necessity bulkier, heavier, and more expensive for a given quality level--or lower quality for a given price point). scot 19:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Variable power (zoom) telescopic sights almost always perform better at the low to medium power settings than they do at the highest settings. They have an optical "sweet spot" that can be determined by careful observation. A rule thumb for finding the sweet spot is lowest magnification + highest magnification / 2. For example, in a 3-12x variable this often occurs around (3+12)/2 = 7-8x. This is natural, since the entire design of a variable optic is a series of compromises. A zoom optic can not be optimized for any focal length and field of view, since it must be satisfactory over a wide range. The wider the zoom range, the greater the optical compromises that must be made. Fixed magnifications are the always the best choice if you can live with it. The internals of fixed focal length optical instruments can be better optically optimized, have fewer and have less complicated components. Extra optical elements introduce more transmission and resolution loss. In Europe expensive 4x32, 6x42, 10x42, 7x50 and 8x56 telescopic sights of modern design are offered by the major high end manufacturers. Lots of experienced (night) hunters still prefer them over the fashionable variable scopes, since the laws of physics determine that fixed optics will always offer a better more contrasty picture. With a building block mounting system a rifle can be adapted for several types of hunting by switching scopes.

A common photographers wisdom is that the best thing you can do to improve the image quality of any optical system is to put a lens hood on your objective and ocular to reduce/eliminate stray light. On (semi) professional SLR cameras you can close the ocular to eliminate light coming in "from the wrong side" and spoiling your picture. This could happen when you are using tripods etc. I have personally seen cheap photo lenses with hoods producing better pictures then Japanese and German noble glass without them. When the noble glass got their hoods attached their better quality of course became apparent. Francis Flinch 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parallax

I was going over the parallax section in telescopic sight, adding more details and references, and I was wondering if you could provide an example of a 300 yd/m fixed parallax scope, so I could track down a reference. scot 14:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:10 m Air Rifle target.svg

Hi, Francis Flinch. I took the liberty of updating your file Image:10 m Air Rifle target.svg. I hope that is OK, and ask you to check if the proportions (and whatever) are correct. - Nabla 21:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for converting the target drawing to SVG format. If you like to make perfect drawings of ISSF targets look at http://www.issf-shooting.org/rules/english/2006/23_technical_2005_2nd.html. There you will find amongst other things everything you need to know concerning the official ISSF/IOC targets from 10 to 300 m. A thing that differs from the customary 10 m air rifle target is the Times-like font you used. The official targets use Arial-like fonts for the scoring ring values. Francis Flinch 10:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

font: OK, updated. I have left the font to be defined by default, now it is defined to be of the "arial" family. more targets: wow, that's a lot! I don't know much about that, the sport isn't very popular here in Portugal, so I only watch a couple of hours of it every 4 years, in the Olympics. Still, if those are useful here (are they?) then I'll include making them in my tasks, I'm no artist but these are relatively straightforward svg files, possible to do "by hand" to be very small (this one has only 2KB), and the instructions in the rules are quite clear to follow. It may take a while because I do a kind of "random walk" in my WP tasks, but I'll keep you posted. other versions: I see you uploaded a couple other versions, may I delete those? - Nabla 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You can delete the other versions. I tried to upload the original 2D line drawing of the 10 m air rifle file in svg-format but somehow the exported svg-file looked garbled in Wikipedia. Most people are flabbergasted when they read the ISSF rules. Comprehensive rules are probably normal for every IOC approved event. Shooting is a niche sport in a lot of countries, so Portugal is no exception. I uploaded a target drawing of the 50 m rifle target - 50_m_Rifle_target.svg - at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_m_Rifle. In Inkscape it opened looking fine. Sadly the Arial type text got garbled again. I will upload it as a jpg - 50_m_Rifle_target_1.jpg - as well. So you can see the correct proportions. Francis Flinch 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Deleted: 50 m Rifle target.svg, 10 m Air Rifle Target.svg ("T", not "t"), and 10 m Air Rifle target 2.jpg. Skeet is relatively popular here (silver medal in 1976 Olympics, and a few more good performances I can't remember of) mainly because hunting is popular too (not that I apreciate it...) I have no idea what went wrong with Inkspace... I don' use it. I don't use an drawing software at all, a simple drawing like that (its all circles and a few characters) I face as if it was a computer program and coded it "by hand". A slower but produces a very "clean" file. Still *.svg is not yet very well supported so converting from/to it still causes a few seemingly random errors. I'll take on the other targets sometime later. - Nabla 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reticle question

I just occurred to me yesterday (while playing with the Bushnell 7x50 Marine binocs I got for my birthday), that the telescopic sight section on rangefinding reticles might be worth its own article, if for no other reason than that rangefinding reticles are used on other optics, such as said binoculars (which have a compass and 5 milliradian graduated reticle) and some other specialized items, such as golf rangefinding monoculars, which use the standardized height of the flag as the known size item. So what do you think--is there enough content in the rangefinding section to make a standalone article, and do I provide enough argument to justify pulling it out, and adding links from binoculars and monocular? scot 16:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just did a search on "rangefinder" and ran across Stadia (method). It needs some serious work (looks like the bulk of the article was copied from some other source), but covers rangefinding reticles and would be the logical place to put information on rangefinding reticles. scot 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Lots of marine and military binoculars and other optics have mil reticles and lots of sailors, soldiers, surveyors, etc. are trained in the art of “milling”. Please note that mil-dot reticles have become fashionable and that most owners of mil-dot rifle scopes can not use them properly without the basic explanation offered in the telescopic sight article. For serious long-range shooters mil-dots are a passive/emergency range finding system. They normally prefer to use binoculars with built in laser rangefinders or if military snipers fear laserlight detection use triangulation with theodolites to establish the range to target. With very expensive mil-spec kit like the http://www.vectronix.ch/index.php?show=20 Leica/Vectronix VECTOR rangefinder binoculars this can be done quickly and much more accurately then by ‘milling’. Vector binoculars actually even have a mil reticle in case the laser unit fails or can not be used to avoid detection. For shooters, which normally do not have to range targets at 2000+ m with great accuracy, more affordable laser rangefinder binoculars and laser rangefinder monoculars which can range less far and accurate are offered. Francis Flinch 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beware of copyright

The reticle image from the S&B PMII you uploaded a couple months ago was contrary to my copyright. I removed it from the Telescopic sight page. Please remove the image from Wiki. Zak 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied to your query on my page. Zak 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rangefinding scope

I seem to recall seeing a Swarovski 6x fixed power rifle scope with a 600 yard laser rangefinder at a Shot Show back in '97 and I think that was the first commercial laser rangefinding scope to hit the market. Here's an aritcle on it: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n10_v42/ai_20045306 scot 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reading, I see that they're talking about a variable power model--I could be mis-remembering, or it could be a different model. At any rate, laser rangefinding scopes have been around on the commercial market for a decade. scot 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

...and here's a picture of it: http://www.gunaccessories.com/Swarovski/LaserRangefindingScope/index.asp Looks just like I remembered (very odd looking due to the rangefinder) so I'm guessing I was confusing 600 yards with 6x power... scot 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the Swarovski LRS 3-12x50 rifle scope at your URL's. To my surprise I could not find the LRS 3-12x50 at http://www.swarovskioptik.at/index.php?l=en&css=&nID=x434b76b737c887.28186349&c=produkte. Whatever the reason for this might be, your find still proves that this technology was available in 1997. The technology the SAM module offers seems to be more recent. At http://www.elcansportingoptics.com/home.php you can see someone already used CCD/LCD technology as found in viewfinders on camera’s in scopes. The ELCAN DigitalHunter Digital Rifle Scope series makes shooting almost a videogame. Optronics are nice until you are out of batteries or have an electronic bug. I mentioned the Swarovski LRS 3-12x50 in the article and renamed the section to “Optronic technologies”. If you have further relevant information feel free to edit the article. Francis Flinch 12:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I also can't find the LRS in the current lineup, my guess is that it's been discontinued and the retailer I listed has back stock (it's not like $4k scopes just fly off the shelves). I haven't looked at the specs on the current models, but the LRS was very good technically (600 yards, +- 1 yard accuracy, 1500 readings per set of batteries) but quite hefty at over 40 oz; I'd expect current models to be cheaper (the LRS was $5k in 1997, so its current price is quite a bit cheaper) and lighter. scot 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for volume mass conversion

I have replied to your comments on my talk page. I'll likely be making changes accordingly, so if you have any response first I'd appreciate hearing from you. Gene Nygaard 19:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 8x60mm S

thanks for improving the 8x60mm S article. I started that article, and I still follow it's progress. You made significant contributions to it and fixed several inaccuracies, for which I want to thank you. Keep up the good work! --Boris Barowski (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zimbabwean Sako TRGs

I saw your addition of Zimbabwe to the list of Sako TRG rifle operators and put it in alphabetical order. The reference states Zimbabwe bought "light weapons and accessories therefore - sniper rifles and accessories" worth FIM 142.000 (€ 23.883) in 1999 from Finland. Can you provide a better reference that Zimbabwe bought Sako TRG rifles, since "sniper rifles and accessories" can also stand for other rifles and components exported by Finland? If so, did Zimbabwe buy TRG-21/22 or TRG-41/42 rifles and how many? Regarding the price of fully kitted out TRG sniper weapon systems (2007 prices range around € 4.000 - € 6.000) Sako will not have sold many TRG rifles to Zimbabwe.

Francis Flinch 09:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is where I got in information from:
www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/FIN_99.pdf/download
There are several sites mentioning the same deal
http://www.defmin.fi/index.phtml?l=sv&s=174
http://www.nisat.org/Export_Reports/Finland%201999%20to%20the%20EU/1999%20annual%20to%20the%20EU.pdf
If you tell me "sniper rifle" does not mean "SNIPER RIFLE", I beg to differ.
I too was thinking of the costs and the quantities involved and they are likely to be very small - I agree with you there. The deal was in 1999 before the embargo. They way I see it if Finland is going to sell rifles to Zimbabwe, I cannot see the distinction between a sniper rifle and an assult rifle making much difference.
I did not specify the exact sniper rifle because that info is not given. If you know other "military sniper rifles" sold by Finland, please let me know.
I have seen (live with my own eyes) the police in Zimbabwe with AUG Styers which you don't see on the internet and other public records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempest II (talk • contribs) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I mean “sniper rifle accessories” as stated in the EU source on what was exported in 1999 to Zimbabwe leaves room for questions and speculations. Accessories can mean stocks, bipods for sniper rifles, etc. Finnish companies/brandnames like Valmet and Tikka also produced precision shooting orientated rifles around 1999 that could be classified as sniper rifles, since there is no official exact definition on what rifles are (military or police) sniper rifles and what rifles are not. Sako for instance markets the TRG series as a “sharpshooting system”. TRG rifles are actually quite often used in civilian full bore target shooting events that have nothing to do with tactical shooting events, pseudo sniping or official service usage. I realize it must be hard to get concrete information on the internet on the service use of a probably small batch of Finnish made rifles in Zimbabwe.

Francis Flinch 18:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testing - proofing

Hi Francis, I just let a message for you on the CIP page. Just don't know where to put it, here there or on my user's page ?
--MDeby (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Françis, I see your touches on the articles here and there. Unfortunately I don't have much time at the moment to participate. If you feel I can provide you with some information, please do not hesitate to drop a message on my user's discussion page or anywhere else in the articles I edited in some way (thus watching them). Regards, --MDeby (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AI AW vs. PSG-1

Which is more accurate assuming they use the same scope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecutnut (talk • contribs) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your query on your page.--Francis Flinch (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Range

According to the Tac Pro Shooting Center AI Brochure it states that the AI AW 26 inch barrel with the .308 winchester has a range of 1100 meters/1000 yards (the measurement is incorrect on the website). Does this mean that the bullet travels approximately 1100 meters/1000 yards before it becomes too weak and like becomes a poke to someone rather than a kill?

Because I'm hoping to shoot (when I get some experience, and more) at targets approximately 2000 yards/meters away. Thecutnut (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your query on your page.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So it is possible to shoot and kill at 2000 + meters with a 7.62 x 51 mm calibre, but it would require a lot of skill and accuracy as well as the knowledge of the environment? And that the military uses other calibre's to make it easier when shooting correct? Thecutnut (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for helping me throughout the knowledge of firearms. In truth, I don't really study much (as you most likely saw in me) and I want to (and am forced to) know how to use a firearm for the military. If there are any books you think I should read (I do read books completely), then please suggest those to, overall thank you for your contributions, I may continue to ask them, as for my talk page, I will keep removing the answers when they get long, but I do save them. Thecutnut (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tactical vs. Standard Muzzle Brake

I wasn't able to find an image of a tactical muzzle brake, but what does a tactical muzzle brake look like?

And what is the difference between a tactical and standard muzzle brake? Thecutnut (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)