Talk:Ricochet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.

The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

	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.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

[edit] Vauban

From Vauban:

while at the siege of Ath in 1697, having in the meanwhile taken part in more sieges, notably that of Namur in 1692 (defended by the great Dutch engineer Coehoorn), he employed ricochet fire for the first time as the principal means of breaking down the defence. He had indeed already used it with effect at Philippsburg in 1688 and at Namur, but the jealousy of the artillery at outside interference had hindered the full use of this remarkable invention, which with his other improvements rendered the success of the attack almost certain.

How do you use ricochet fire on purpose? --84.20.17.84 10:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

When statements are made about the topic, you need to have sources, otherwise they are not verifiable. In particular, the following kind of statement doesn't fit will with wiki standards:

One incidence where a man was shooting a pole with a .50 BMG round, the bullet returned to the shooter. The bullet hit the pole, and returned at almost the exact same angle it hit the object. The bullet then, again ricocheted off the ground in front of the shooter, and hit the shooters earmuffs.

Because it's talking about something if unreferenced appears to be original research. This article could use some serious work to turn it into a valuable resource for people trying to learn about shooting. Arthurrh 19:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)