Talk:Sniper rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sniper rifle article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4


Contents

[edit] Maximum effective range

"Sniper rifles are sometimes characterized as having exceptionally great range capability compared to other small arms, but this is not necessarily true. lol big boobs oooh yeh!!!

For example, police snipers usually employ their rifles at very short ranges, frequently under 50 meters, which is within the range of common pistols."

This is incorrect. Sniper rifles typically do have a longer range than other small arms. Just because police snipers usually use their weapons at short ranges does not mean the rifle is not capable of shooting accurately beyond that. This article is a bit of a mess. Hope no one mindsme chipping in. Geoff B 06:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you. This is another section added by Qwasty with which some editors disagree (along with intro, teyp classification and importance of telescopic sight). If you have the time you can follow the long discussions on this Talk page that don't seem to go anywhere and we have as yet not been able to resolve our differences. His motive is appear to be to make these rifles look less "special" than they are in order to prevent them from being singled out by gun control advocates in the US (where he appears to reside from his comments), see the 2nd paragraph of his comments from this diff [1] as well as this talk section for other's concerns Issues for Mediation & General Suggestions & problems with article.
Deon Steyn 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope we can get some mediation, in that case. I'll work on the article in the meantime. Geoff B 07:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More edits and Reference concerns

I've added the new intro (ever so slightly modified- I changed "a typical sniper rifle will be adapted for the highest levels of accuracy" to "a typical sniper rifle will be engineered for the highest levels of accuracy"), and made a few other changes throughout the text to enhance readability, remove a buzzword or two, and generally clean things up a bit, but without making any drastic changes (at least, I don't think I did).

I do, however, have some concerns about a the lack of balanced references- specifically:

  • Tobias, Ronald (1981). They Shoot to Kill: A Psycho-History of Criminal Sniping. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press. ISBN 0873642074.

Now, I haven't read the book in question so I'm not familiar with it's contents, but it does seem to need balancing with a book on military or police snipers= because as the "further reading" section stands now, we've got a book on psychos with high-powered rifles, and a generic book on bolt action rifles. I'm not objecting to the inclusion of a particular title, you understand, I'm just concerned that it isn't balanced out with another, more mainstream subject work as well. --Commander Zulu 10:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The changes look good. As for this reference, I think it definitely needs to be removed, at best it belongs on the sniper page, but not on this page (it's also not specifically references anywhere) and there are many other books more specific to the subject (rifles not snipers). --Deon Steyn 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Due to their large size and heavy weight, such rifles are normally deployed by 2- or 3-man teams rather than a single shooter."

Not sure whether to tweak this. Snipers often operate in pairs anyway, regardless of the size and weight of their weapon. They are much more effective with one acting as a spotter and offering close protection. Geoff B 11:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it needs tweaking, if only to reflect that rifles are deployed with 2-man teams because one is acting as a spotter, rather than any weight issues. --Commander Zulu 12:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of these "anti-materiel" rifles can physically not be transported by one person (weight approaching 30 kg) so even though you would normally have a 2/3 man team in any event, I think it deserves mention that you HAVE to have a 2/3 man team with these rifles. --Deon Steyn 12:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still more worried the Distinguishing characteristics section. The idea (and original format) was to describe features that would distinguish a sniper rifle from other military small arms since they are so similar. For starters a large telescope would something that sets it apart from an assault rifle. Secondly a larger calibre (e.g. 7.62x51) than commonly found on assault rifles (e.g. 5.56). Thirdly a "bolt-action" would be an indication that it might be a sniper rifle and so on. Should't we make the following tweaks:

  • tweak the intro to the secion to clarify
  • move telescopic sights back to the top
  • claridy each section's lead in

Deon Steyn 12:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful not to provide bogus fuel for those who want to ban all personal firearms and use the label "sniper rifle" to stir up support. There is little difference between the features of a modern high-power hunting rifle and a sniper rifle, so if you single out features which characterize the latter, they might also apply to the former. 7.62x51 (or .308 Win) is a common hunting caliber in the US, and 40mm telescopic sights are commonly found on deer rifles. — DAGwyn 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. And yes, the bigger ones, like the Steyr IWS and such, require and are designed with two or more men in mind. Geoff B 12:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Calibre" is really something that sets a sniper rifle apart from a standard rifle- I mean, the M-14, FN-FAL, and H&K G3 are all select fire battle rifles chambered in 7.62x51 NATO, yet they're not sniper rifles in and of themselves. I'm not entirely sure that an "anti-materiel" rifle really qualifies as a sniper rifle, either. Time was, those things were called "Anti-Tank Rifles", and they were desiged for, well, shooting tanks. The sniper applications (such as the Boys .55 AT being used to shoot doors open at range) weren't arrived at till later, of course... --Commander Zulu 12:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Most sniper rifles do share calibre with a battle rifle, the most obvious being the 7.62mm NATO. As for the anti-materiel rifles, they are still used to snipe targets, and can be used against personnel too. Still, if we decide to do a separate article on them oat some point, I don't think it will be a problem. Geoff B 12:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite understandable. One of the things we've been discussing (if you wade through it all) is exactly what qualifies as a sniper rifle in the first place- Qwasty seems to prefer the "any weapon used by snipers" definition, whereas I have to confess I lean more towards the "scoped small arms used by the military/police" definition. --Commander Zulu 13:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "calibre" would NOT be the most distinctive feature and I'd put it after "telescope" and "action". I would still list it though, because with the advent of the assault rifle with their smaller calibres, the larger 7.62mm NATO would set it apart from said assault rifles (especially in law enforcement environments with 9mm submachine guns or 5.56mm carbines etc.). As for anti-material rifle it already has it's own article (also linked at the top of that section), but I agree that it does deserve a mention on this page, but that it should be limited to the current size. --Deon Steyn 13:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Shall I move "telescopic sight" to the top then before we climb into the "classification" sub-section? --Deon Steyn 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Geoff B 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. --Commander Zulu 13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, now about the classification. My first thoughts are that the list under "anti-personnel" has gotten out of hand, instead of a few examples it is now turning into a list of all sniper rifles. My second thought, one which bugs a few editors is the term "anti-personnel" which I feel is non-standard. I would think Military and Law Enforcement are the commonly accepted classes and that anti-material should either be a third category? --Deon Steyn 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of sniper rifles are meant for an anti-personnel role, so they are hardly ever referred to as such. It would be like saying "anti-personnel assault rifle". Anti-materiel rifles need the distinction, because they perform a different role. Geoff B 13:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My exact argument used in a previous discussion (us usual with Qwasty and as usual futile). Any small arm is assumed to be "anti-personnel", otherwise what is the point. --Deon Steyn 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This is one example of what it can look like, it's an old edit (revert by Qwasty): [2]. I'm off for the day, but if there is a vote, mine goes to mil/law enf/anti-materiel classes. --Deon Steyn 13:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps slightly reorder it, so it goes:

  • Military
  • Anti-materiel
  • Law Enforcement

Because most anti-materiel rifles are used in military applications. In LE the only use I can think of for anti-materiel rifles is safely destroying bombs. But either way works. Geoff B 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose "anti-materiel" implies a military setting, but some police departments now also employ .50 cal weapons. Also it still feels strange seeing an "anti-personnel" heading and I'd muc prefer military and law enforcement as the two categories with only a separate note or sub section of military for anti-material? --Deon Steyn 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid to ask, but what possible use could a police department have for a .50 calibre sniper rifle? I agree the "anti-personnel" section needs to go, with just "military" and "law enforcement", and a separate note to the effect that anti-materiel rifles do exist (wikilink), and leave it at that. The article is looking really good now it doesn't appear to be written by CounterStrike fanboys, though! --Commander Zulu 07:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The only use I'm aware of is for destroying improvised explosive devices that can't be safely disarmed, and one or two other special situations. 7.62mm is almost always enough for LE situations. I'm happy with the way it's coming along! Geoff B 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Must be a US thing- in Australia & NZ, bomb disposal is handled by the Army, who use radio-controlled robots with shotguns mounted on them, IIRC. --Commander Zulu 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's pretty much an American thing for their police departments to now also deploy .50 cal weapons... not only for disposal of ordnance, but for its greater abilities against buildings, vehicles or whatever... or maybe just because they can :) I was just thinking that since these is such law enforcement usage that strictly speaking this type can't be put under military only. Perhaps it just doesn't belong on this page at all an only deserves a small mention somewhere? --Deon Steyn 07:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the NYPD has some .50 cals mounted on helicopters for aircraft/boat interdiction. Bomb disposal in the UK is also a military affair, but they sometimes use Accuracy International AW50s. Definitely mention them, if only in passing. Geoff B 07:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough then... although I hate to imagine what sort of situations the NYPD are getting involved in if they're going up against boats and aircraft! --Commander Zulu 08:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
So will we:
  1. trim the "anti-materiel" section down
  2. move it out from military section
  3. just remove it all together and simply mention larger calibres in the "cartridge" section?
Deon Steyn 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3, I think. Geoff B 08:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind option 3 either. As an added bonus removing the "anti-materiel" phrase would make it obvious to remove the "anti-personnel". --Deon Steyn 08:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Option 3 works best for me. --Commander Zulu 09:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I think it worked out quite well, we now have the normal classification of "military" or "law enforcement" and then a slightly expanded "cartridge" section to cover .50 cal etc. --Deon Steyn 11:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOA

I don't see an MOA listed for ANY rifle in the specified statistics. Is there a reason or simply forgotten? Colonel Marksman 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Pun

Does anyone else find it at least mildly (if inadvertently) humorous that the section under Military begins "Sniper rifles aimed at military service..."? Would there be a better wording, or is the pun intended? (And who ever said Wikipedia had a policy against light humor!) 64.90.198.6 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accesories

Sorry if im wrong, as im getting my info mainly from movies, but cant snipers have suppressors? Also they are commonly equiped with laser pointers for aiming. (Gooly 20:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Sniper rifles can be fitted with suppressors and laser aiming point projectors, just like any other firearm, but their use is uncommon, to say the least. Films like to stick whizzo tacticool bits of kit all over weapons for no particular reason at all. Geoff B 04:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sniper rifles aren't fitted with laser aiming devices, because of several important reasons:
  1. The "dot" the laser makes increases in size with distance to the point where it would be too large to be of any use at 1,000 m (if not too fuzzy and dull too).
  2. Even if the dot was small and bright, you would need some sort of magnifying device to see the dot at these ranges, but if you're looking through a scope, then what was the point of the laser sight?
  3. A laser would give away your position
  4. A laser on it's own doesn't provide for adjustment in windage or elevation and neither does it provide visual markers to aid in judgement of distance or "hold off" positions (in simple terms: aiming "off centre" to compensate for wind).
  5. It requires batteries: something you'd want to limit/avoid in military environments.
In short, a laser sight is only useful at short ranges, where no magnification is required (< 100 m ?), fast target acquisition is paramount (you don't have time to take proper aim) and concealment is irrelevant... all these are almost exactly the opposite of a sniper's role. --Deon Steyn 06:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ain't nobody put lasers on anything larger than a pistol. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

[edit] Unnecessary expansion of "Maximum range" section

It isn't necessary to go on at such length about the general concept of ballistics and firearms here. We're in danger of losing focus. The section is constantly fluctuating at the moment, but I'd appreciate it if the general list of things which can affect range were left out of the final cut. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section in question. This article does not need to fully discuss the concept of long-range shooting in order to describe the subject adequately. Chris Cunningham 11:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree. I had trimmed it substantially, but I see it was restored without edit comment by Francis Flinch. The details listed here are either blatantly obvious or absurd (variations in gravity, coriolis effect etc.), they do not belong to this article which already far exceeds the guidelines on size (Wikipedia:Article size). --Deon Steyn 11:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I wanted to wait until editing had calmed down a bit. A considerable amount of general information on ballistics, marksmanship and weaponry has crept into what used to be a pretty tight article, but the information is at least solid and well-written. Editing this down should be manageable. Chris Cunningham 13:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I already had moved the external ballistic parts to the External ballistics article, since they have not particularly much to do with sniper rifles. The “absurd” parts are however factious. The (supersonic-transonic-subsonic) behaviour of projectiles like bullets and the factors that affect their flight are often counterintuitive. It is not unusual that people prefer to cling to their intuitive beliefs instead of believing, for them hard to understand, scientific facts. When shooting long range (1600+ m / 1+ mile) or beyond the 90 % supersonic range of a projectile with the accompanying long flight times, normally insignificant parameters and effects come into play. If an accurate high powered rifle is used within 533 m / 0.333 mile these small effects are camouflaged by the unavoidable imperfections of the rifle system. Francis Flinch 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That's true, but we also have a separate article for sniper which would be a better place to discuss these considerations. All this article should do is explain how specialist sniper rifles compensate for these problems. Chris Cunningham 08:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum effective range criteria

We have a lot of maximum effective ranges listed, but don't describe the criteria for such an assessment. What IS the criteria being used? Is it ft/lbs at given range? Supersonic at given range? Accurate at given range? All of the above? Something else? Arthurrh 18:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by to be corrected here but I think it was accuracy. Geoff B 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the numbers in the table are wrong, because MOA accuracy is more a factor of firearm than cartridge. Accuracy typically starts to be affected adversely during the transition from supersonic to subsonic, some some use that as a criteria. In a sniper rifle where you need to stop the target, I would expect energy to come into play. Arthurrh 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think most of these figures are simply in concert with the claims made by military organizations and materiel manufacturers. In my Accuracy International (AI) brochure I could for instance not find anything conflicting with the mentioned figures. AI did point out that maximum range depends on rifle system, ammunition, environmental and operational conditions. The AI brochure is military orientated, so I guess they indicate maximum ranges with typical contemporary military sniper loads and military clientele expectations in mind. The problem with a pure ballistic approach is that modern military long range precision bullets are often designed to behave as well as possible during the transonic transition and tested for that in front of Doppler radars. Francis Flinch 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying transonic is the issue, I'm saying that we have a max effective range table without any criteria for defining what the max effective range is. This will inevitably lead to conflict and confusion. We should state what the criteria are so people know how to figure them, or at least source the numbers we have if we don't know the criteria. Either of those will prevent future edit conflicts over the numbers, as well as provide readers with some context. Arthurrh 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If we would choose an approach for getting an idea on the range potential of cartridges I would probably vote for V projectile = Mach 1 (340.3 m/s) under international standard atmosphere conditions (rho = 1.225 kg/m³) with the help of the Pesja method as “less bad for normal people accessible/verifiable assessment method”. Only if someone came along with actual Doppler radar data I would be inclined to thrust that information more (the results of those test are generally not made public). Even then I would rename the table to something like “approximate supersonic range for the given cartridge”, since it is V0 and drag behaviour dependant. Radar data also only applies exactly for the specific components tested (rifle system model A serial number X will produce slightly different results compared with rifle system model A serial number X+1). A rather elaborate but also complex calculator that could be helpful for this purpose that uses the Pesja ballistic model can be downloaded as a 30 days trail at http://www.precisionworkbench.com/. A manual with some nice information can also be downloaded there. A nasty problem will remain that the BC's we get from projectile manufacturers are not always 100% accurate/comparable (differing air densities and measuring/calculating procedures will make that you run the risk of comparing oranges with apples). Francis Flinch 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that velocity alone is the correct criteria. Many rounds will likely not have enough energy at that distance to perform effectively. Others will work well long past that point. Arthurrh 08:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Velocity is to my mind the less bad criterion if you want to choose a criterion. You might win an award if you could find one or a combination of more external ballistic factors that would adequately predict and or describe terminal ballistic effects. Most people do not realize enough it is only the projectile that will ever interact with a target. This implies that the properties and velocity of the projectile (parts) and properties of the target (can also be a materiel target for a sniper bullet) are the only relevant factors. The projectiles total energy alone is only part of that equation. The first important factor when shooting game animals is shot placement, the second relevant factor is how the projectile (or its parts) interacts with the tissues it encounters before reaching V0 or (parts of it) exiting the animal. If you want to start to read more about the rather sinister science of the effects of rifle bullets on animals/humans I advise to start looking at the Martin Fackler article and here http://www.lima-wiederladetechnik.de/Zielwirkung/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html. Another intresting article is Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories: The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics. You will find out that this is a complex subject and a lot of theories around are based on urban legends. Also some types of bullets are not allowed by international treaties for anti personnel military use, though they are know to be very effective bullet types for hunting purposes. Francis Flinch 14:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. From what I can tell the max ranges people seem to use here and elsewhere on wiki are completely non-scientific and using completely different criteria, rendering them meaningless. Perhaps the only thing we'll be able to do is say that the max ranges listed have no consistent criteria, and briefly explain the dilemma as you've done here. Arthurrh 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Something like this?; The listed maximum ranges are mainly in concert with the claims made by military organizations and materiel manufacturers but not based on consistent or strictly scientific criteria. The problem is only the bullet interacts with the target (can also be a materiel target for a sniper bullet). This implies that the properties of the target, properties and velocity of the employed bullet (parts) and desired effect are the relevant factors. Terminal ballistics and stopping power are complex subjects and a lot of theories around are based on urban legends. Francis Flinch 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acronym?

According to a military-inclined (read: going to fail in school) friend, 'Sniper' is actually an acronym — the last letter of which stands for 'rifle'. Can anybody confirm or reject this? And if so, add a section explaining this? Azrael# 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] comparison chart?

How about a comparison chart of all the modern sniper rifles used by militaries today? To start (NATO)Accuracy International Arctic Warfare, Alex, M40,Barret Series, Accuracy International AS50,CheyTac Intervention etc... tons of info hereDreammaker182 (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)