Talk:SR-25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	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.
Deferred	Quality ratings on this article have been deferred to other projects covering the article.

[edit] Proposed merger

I'm in favor. DocWatson42 23:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Aye, and also United States Navy Mark 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System Pete.Hurd 02:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Also in favor.65.9.252.XX

Against. The Mk11Mod0 is not an SR-25, but a heavily modified/accurized derivative. Kythri 06:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the two are synonymous, but whether they two topics are so closely related that they would benefit from a unified exposition. The lead sentence of the United States Navy Mark 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System article says it is "based around the highly accurate Knight's Armament Company SR-25 semiautomatic rifle" which leads me to think that a proper understanding of the "United States Navy Mark 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System" requires having read the SR-25 article. If this is so, then I think they ought to be merged. Pete.Hurd 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ford Explorer and the Mercury Mountaineer are virtually identical vehicles, yet each have their seperate page. The AR-15 derives from the AR-10, as does the SR-25, yet they have their own articles. Merging them doesn't really benefit anyone. As for reading the SR-25 article, that's why Wikilinks are encouraged. Kythri 17:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability?

This is a "dirty gas" system rifle, like the M16 that killed many GIs in Vietnam. Considering the lotsa powder in a 7.62x51 cartridge, there will be much residue and the auto mecahnism will jam. The Dragunov is based on the AK47's remote gas piston system where gunsmoke dirt cannot get into the mechanism, so it is very reliable. I have doubts if the SR-25 will function reliably enough so that the marksmen will not need a separate PDW for back-up. Anyobody with real-world info willing to write up? 195.70.32.136 10:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fouling is neglible for sniper rifles, because the sniper will fire only relatively few rounds on a mission. M16 and similar systems suffer so much from fouling because the soldiers pump out hundreds of rounds without cleaning the rifle. So that's not really a problem for the SR-25 in real life. Still, cleaning this one will be as much of a pain as with the M4 or M16. --84.57.77.37 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To avoid the kind of mistakes I just corrected

MOA is independent of distance and at realistic ranges equals approximately: cluster diameter in inches divided by range in hundreds of yards

1" @ 100 yds = 2" @ 200 yds = 9" @ 900 yds = 1 MOA

3" @ 200 yds = 6" @ 400 yds = 9" @ 600 yds = 1.5 MOA

This is not a perfectly accurate definition, since 1 minute of arc actually equals 1.0471975511966 inches at 100 yards, but again, at realistic ranges the difference is negligible. At ranges greater than a quarter mile, a snake fart halfway down range (or in fact your own pulse) is going to contribute more to your loss of accuracy than the MOA discrepancy expressed in the above heuristic. To say nothing of the thousand or two people in the world that can consistently hit a target at that range. FBI sharpshooters only get a 200-yard practice range, and the FBI has more stringent accuracy requirements than the US Army, and I'll tell you right now that they're not consistently shooting 2" clusters to the end of that range. Maybe Super Dave can.

Nobody short of a trick shooter needs rifle performance better than 2 MOA, and for game hunting (you guys aren't terrorists, right?) even that borders on extreme overkill, since it represents someone who wants to be 300 yards away from their 6" killzone targets.

--76.223.221.122 01:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not as tricky as you think at least not at 200 yards with the right equipment. At any rate, there is a good article on this at Minute of angle for future reference. Re "need" Varmint hunting frequently encounters greater distances than 200 yards with targets less than 8 inches tall. Arthurrh 01:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)