Talk:SVD (rifle)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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.
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
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
SVD (rifle) is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the class scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Photo

Since this article is about the SVD, shouldn't it include a photo of an actual Dragunov rather than a PSL? Musha 10:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the picture. Could someone identify the soldier's country and change the caption accordingly?--Gяaphic 12:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a russian trooper. Most probably, from "internal forces" of MVD. --jno 15:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defining "Dragunov"

One of the biggest current debates that exist on the "Dragunov" Rifles is whether only NDM/SVD based rifles are the only rifles capable of holding the title "Dragunov". Though some of the components and mechanics of similiuar rifles differ from the SVD/NDM rifles, (ex. Zastava M76, Romanian RomAK-3/PSL marksman/sniper rifles), their appearanace and action are remarkably similuiar, effective range, ammunition, and several exterior parts are compatible with the SVD/NDM and vice versa... In many cases, modern AKM-based marksman rifles (ex. Romak-3) have been known and found to more accurate at longer ranges with a wide variety of ammunition than a Izhmash or Norinco "Dragunov" SVD/NDM, and far more reliable due to true AKM-based mechanics.

One could arguably note that since the SVD is the only true "dragunov" designed rifle, the chinese NDM should also not be reffered to as a "Dragunov" rifle. While many say the NDM is the closest in design to the SVD russian Dragunov, just as the RomAK-3 (aka SSG-97, PSL) or Zastava M76, it is not of russian design by Evgeniy Fedorovich Dragunov, and therefore, is not an authentic rifle that would be classified as "Dragunov".

Like the AK-47, there are many variants that differe considerably, and if one was to thin Dragunov variant, the Romak-3 and M76 fall well within the range of influenced by and romanian variation of a "Dragunov" rifle, classyfying it as a "Dragunov" variant, like the NDM.

It could be categorized as SVD/NDM-based "Dragunov" variant, and AKM-based "Dragunov" variant rifle(s). beavermatic

[edit] Title

Although the title is the proper name SVD, shouldn't the common words be translated to English, per WP:UE: "Dragunov Sniper Rifle" or "Dragunov sniper rifle"? —Michael Z. 2006-01-11 20:16 Z

I agree, the translation is straightforward. GregorB 16:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Since there was no objection, I moved it and adjusted the intro. —Michael Z. 2006-01-14 16:40 Z


I would query the use of "sniper rifle" as a noun for this weapon. reasons for this are, 1 its fitted with a bayonet lug. 2 its fitted with iron sights. both of these charecteristics indicate it is to be used by a marksman in a normal rifle team/section rather than specifically for sniping use by dedicated sniper team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.252.37 (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The picture

Why is there a picture of a rifle (Romanian PSL) that has little to do with a Russian Dragunov SVD? I have several pictures of SVD's and there are many floating around the Web. How do we add a picture of a real Dragunov?

I agree. The article is about the Dragunov, so therefore should display a picture of a Dragunov. Musha 08:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I agree, an actual dragonov rifle should be pictured. This could be either a schematic or profile photograph, preferably both.

[edit] Dragunov photos

I can provide photos of 2 Dragunovs (US Tigers) if I am instructed how to do it.

login to Commons, click on Upload link, fill-in the form (pay attantion to the License choise!) -- voila! --jno 10:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction / Popular Culture

I have moved the "Fiction" section out to a separate page (Dragunov in popular culture) in keeping with en effort to move such sections where they become too long. It also aids in the inclusion of pages such as List of firearms in films and List of firearms in video games without even going into the pro's and con's of having such references as part of a firearm's page (few pro's, but some con's include):

  • they clutter the page
  • the list will grow forever with every new video game release
  • it does not really contribute much to information regarding the firearm in question unless it's really central like the PPK and James Bond.

See any number of other pages (and their discussion pages) where this split has been made:FN P90, Heckler & Koch PSG1, Heckler & Koch MP5, 1911 etc. etc. etc.)

  • What about List of firearms in films, or List of firearms in video games

? SVD isn't in there.

[edit] .338 Lapua?

I've seen at least once source say the rifle is available in .338 Lapua. Anyone confirm or deny?

It would seem unlikely given the different between the 7.62x54R and .338 Lapua cartridge. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible with the right amount of engineering. 198.236.216.252
There is a version made for a new Russian 9mm cartridge (9.3 by 64 mm), which is a lot like the .338, but they are not the same thing. There is a page on it on Izhmash's website: [1] Moonshiner 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting. Thanks for the link.

[edit] unsure

is this female sniper using a SVD in the 2003 film .50 Woman ? Thanks for any help. Buenaparte Social Club 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rifle in picture is not an SVD nad the SVD is not a .50 cal weapon either. --Deon Steyn 07:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
hey thank you! ok i'll search what it could be then (.50 woman is the name of the movie). Buenaparte Social Club 17:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok people found the model. It is an US sniper rifle "RAI 500" (Research Armament Industries Model 500). Specs are available here if interested. Buenaparte Social Club 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, your mission – should you choose to accept it – is to create a page for this rifle :-) --Deon Steyn 08:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I accept! Here: RAI 300 It still needs a lot of work.... It's a start, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CeeWhy2 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Under Battlefield use

"As seen in the picture, guerilla forces may adopt considerably more informal tactics than used by professional armies: this insurgent may make up to some degree for a lack of a spotter by adopting positions on the fly." What picture? Carnivorous caveman 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the pornographic picture

How do one remove the picture which is not of an Russian rifle? I can't find a link to the picture in the text...

- Turbogooner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turbogooner (talk • contribs) 10:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Medved Rifle?

Isn't the Medved hunting rifle a variant of this arm? Might be an interesting addition. 66.191.17.168 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes it is, already added. Koalorka 06:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Price

The general pricing for the weapon is not mentioned; given that the AK47 only costs around 100$ (see the wikipedia's article references), this rifle too should be cheap (I suppose). This as it too was mass produced and is used all around the world and in the developing world. Perhaps a general price can be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.181.73 (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it would vary a lot by location. I don't think you'll be able to easily find an AK for $100 in the US. I generally see them for several times that. I know they cost that much in some poorer countries. --Kalmia 05:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There arnt to many actual SVD's in the US. There all basicly Kalashnikovs built to look like SVD's ForeverDEAD 19:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I read an article (sorry, don't remember the source) that put the price of an AK-47, wholesale, is around $40--especially in the suburbs of civilization.
Given that it is estimated that the Soviet Union produced 40,000,000 AKs, it's not surprising that the wholesale price is quite low; especially since the Soviet Army (the term "Red Army" was dropped by Stalin, before) couldn't possibly have used more than a fraction of the number manufactured.
As for the American price, I've seen them in a couple of gun stores for $500-$600; though that was yrs ago when the ridiculous "Assault" Rifle ban was still in force. I would imagine the price has dropped (?) since that constitutionally heinous law's expiry.
PainMan (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effective range

I do not intend to start a dispute with anyone on maximal effective range of riflesystems, effective range for me in this case being the maximum range at which a high probability exists to deliberately hit a standing, man-sized target and not a (manufacturer provided) maximum sighting range with optical sight.

The snipershide website defines effective range as: The range in which a competent and trained individual using the firearm has the ability to hit a target sixty to eighty percent of the time. This ability to hit the target is effected by the length of the barrel of the firearm, the actual cartridge fired, and quality of construction. In reality, most firearms have a true range much greater than this but the likely-hood of hitting a target is poor at greater than effective range. There seems to be no good formula for the effective ranges of the various firearms.

Using a sight that is capable of aiming at a distance X does not automatically mean or guarantee the rifle system to which it is paired can be practically employed at point targets at that distance. In daily life not only the sights of the rifle system but also lots of other components like the employed ammunition and external and terminal ballistics govern its maximum effective range. Most .308-caliber sniper rifles using 7.62 x 51 NATO (this is the closest western equivalent to the cartridge the SVD uses) or more powerful .300 Winchester Magnum cartridges including have maximum effective ranges stated in the 800 - 1200 m range in Wikipedia. This list is for high end sniper rifles.

If anyone can provide Doppler radar data of the SVD projectiles external ballistic behaviour (speed-range pairs and dispersion data) out to 1300 m, I and a probably lots of marksmen, engineers and scientists will be most interested in those figures. According to one of the best long range external ballistics simulation tools available for the general public (Prof. Pejsa’s external ballistics mathematical model) the 7N1 projectile fired at 830 m/s V0 has a supersonic reach of ≈ 940 m under standard atmospheric sea level conditions. Going subsonic is problematic, since around Mach 1 rifle projectiles normally exhibit dispersion problems, but maybe someone designed and produces .308-caliber projectiles for the SVD and proved in front of a Doppler radar that no transonic transition dispersion occurred. The design and mass production of such projectiles is a complex engineering task. There is a patent on such projectiles (see note), but these are mono metal projectiles designed for production on CNC precision lathes. These lathes cut the projectiles out of metal rods.

In the design details section of the SVD article it reads that; “The SVD has a practical rate of fire of 30 rounds/min, an absolute range of 350 m to a target at a height of 300 mm, and 500 mm – 430 m, and its projectile remains lethal out to 3800 m”. This is contradictive to the 1300 m effective range stated in the infobox. The 300 mm at 350 m and 500 mm at 430 m dispersion rates indicate ≈ 3.5 MOA target circle potential, but with other ammunition the SVD could probably perform better. Snipercentral.com states the SVD can be expected to shoot 2 MOA with quality ammo. This would place it in the designated marksman rifle category for the snipers of the Soviet Union en other snipers operating according to the soviet snipers doctrine. According to Wikipedia such snipers were estimated to have a 50% probability of hitting a standing, man-sized target at 800 m (1/2 mile), and an 80% probability of hitting a standing, man-sized target at 500 m. For distances not exceeding 200 m the probability was estimated to be well above 90%. To attain this level of accuracy the sniper could not engage more than two such targets per minute.

A brief analysis of the PSO-1 telescopic sight manual learns that it sports a 1000 m range finding reticle and a bullet drop compensation (BDC) feature that compensates for bullet drop at different ranges in 50 m increments. When the BDC has reached its maximum range setting (850 m according to the manual, but that is ammunition and environmental and meteorological circumstances dependent) it offers additional chevron marks for extra long range usage in 100 m increments. Logic dictates that if the chevrons where intended for engaging point targets more chevrons would be needed because bullet drop between 1000 and 1300 m is significant (in the order of 14 m or 8 1.7 cm tall persons for 7N1 cartridges according to Pejsa’s external ballistics mathematical model).

All this does not mean that a SVD or similar riflesystem is not dangerous or useless at 1300 m. I and probably the Wikipedians who wrote the designated marksman and snipers of the Soviet Union article think that it is questionable if a capable marksman can consistently engage a standing, man-sized targets at 1300 m with the SVD riflesystem. Shooting at area targets (harassment fire, etc.) up to 1300 m with such a riflesystem seems realistic for a capable marksman.

Note: The G1 ballistic coefficient (BC) used in the 7N1 projectile simulation was 0.498 found at 7.62x54r.net and the deceleration constant was set at its default value 0.5 due to my lack of actual test firing data. If this BC is correct this still makes a < 4 % deviation of the model simulation possible (BC’s are somewhat debatable).

Note: Lost River Ballistic Technologies (statement of Mr. Warren Jensen) stated that the .408 Chey Tac is the first bullet/rifle system that utilizes what they call a balanced flight projectile. To achieve balanced flight the linear drag has to be balanced with the rotational drag to keep the very fine nose (meplat) of the bullet pointed direct into the oncoming air. It should result in very little precession and yaw at extreme range and allows accurate flight back through the transonic region. This is hard to achieve for small arms projectiles. Mathematically you are at a great disadvantage trying to achieve balanced flight with a lead core non mono metal bullet. The rotational mass/surface area ratio is too high.

The balanced flight projectile patent can be found at the US Patent Office, Controlled spin projectile, US PAT No. 6,629,669 . According to the patent a projectile engraved and launched according to the teachings of the patented invention should decelerate from supersonic flight through transonic to subsonic in a stable and predictable manner effective to a range beyond 3000 yards (2,743 m). It implies that amongst several other preconditions the rifle barrel has to have specific rifling dimensions to achieve balanced flight. More about balanced flight can also be found in the Chey Tac Information Papers.

The Balanced Flight/Controlled Spin Projectile bullet theory has been questioned/disputed by the German physicist Lutz Möller.Lutz Möller's .408 Cheyenne Tactical Bullets Page

Francis Flinch 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Keeps Changing 'Snajperskaja' to 'Snaiperskaya?'

According to the GOST 7.79 (an adoption of the ISO 9:1995, which itself is the international standard), which is what the Russians officially use when changing Cyrillic into Latin text, the former, "Snajperskaja," is more "correct" than "Snaiperskaya" as the letters "й" and "я" in "Снайперская" formally transliterate to "j" and "ja" respectively. If this article is being aimed towards Anglophones, then the letter "й" would change to the letter "y." - Identification01 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "anglophone" is not generally used in the Anglo-Saxon world outside of Canada (which has it's Quebec headache; I'll bet Wolfe, as he laying dying on the Plains of Abraham, never imagined what a can of worms he was bequeathing to future English Canadians by his astounding victory).
"English-speakers" is the more common term. (Anglophone is, in fact, a French and not an English word.)
Whenever one is dealing with transliteration, i.e. not just translating from one language to another when both languages share alphabetical systems (e.g. English & French), but translating from one alphabetical system to another. Also, there is always going to be variations among translators.
In point of fact, both "i" and "y" are perfectly acceptable for use in English transliterations since both letters can be used to express the same sound. It's really a hyper-technical linguistic argument; to put it another way, it's distinction without a difference.
My opinion is that the traditional transliteration should be used, no matter how inconsistent this maybe. This inconsistency is often seen in personal names. For instance: the term Czar is the French form of the Russian word for Caesar; the UK form is generally Tsar. Wilhelm II is sometimes translated as "William II" though in my opinion this is confusing since the world has known him by his German name since his reign (1888-1918--ok that was showing off). Conversely, the Kaiser's ancestor, the King of Prussia Friedrich Wilhelm I is usually spelled Frederick William I in US/UK historiography.
PainMan (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Anglophone is indeed in common usage in english outside of Canada especially in britain, it is listed in the OED on-line for anyone to check, while of french origin it is a widely used term in english as it offers a one-word compound that is crisper than the phrase "english-speaking" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.252.39 (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more precise. "Anglophone" is rarely used in the United States. As for the relative "crispness" of the terms that's a matter of opinion. But your other point is well taken.
It should also be kept in mind that 90% of English vocabulary is of foreign origin. Roughly 40% French and 40% Latin (though there's overlap there since many Latinate words came to us via Norman-French or standard (i.e. Ile de France or Langue d'oc) French.
PainMan (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made

1. Far too technical for "lay" reader

I added the

This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.

tag because the article is filled with recondite firearms terms that the average wikipedia user is unlikely to be familiar with. This necessitates repeatedly following wiki-links (if that's the term?) in order to understand much of the article. I found myself having to do just that.

The article needs a rewrite by someone familiar with firearms terminology to translate as many of the technical terms as is reasonably possible so that users don't have to click twenty links in order to understand the article. Especially a casual perusers of the article. I looked up this weapon because it's used in a mod of Half-Life 2 and I wanted to know some of the basics about it. I don't think one should have to spend a half an hour reading many other articles in order to gain a basic understanding of the subject.

2. Added US Standard measurements

I added the US standard equivalents to the metric measurements in the summary info box. I don't feel that the text itself needs to have an equivalent for every metric term, but the info box provides a handy reference for those either innocent of the "SI" (i.e. the metric system's official name or Systéme Internationale) or, like myself, learned it in school but it is not my natural "language" of measurements.

(I did learn metric starting in 4th grade--my Old Man threw a screaming sh*t fit when he found out they were even teaching it; like many Americans he cheered when Reynaldus Magnus cancelled the official conversion that his predecessor had begun. It should also be noted that the UK didn't officially adopt metric until the Blair Ministry; many Brits opposed this and the government actually fines merchants for not posting weights/measurements in metric [if this info is out of date, pls let me know].)

Nay-the-less, I did become familiar with it--a must of course in high school science classes. But I'm not comfortable with it. I have to do the conversions in my head except for smaller measurements. Therefore, I feel that it makes wikipedia more useable to the average American (and UK) user.

I hope these additions aren't controversial, it's hard to imagine they would be as I made no fundamental changes to the article; I freely admit I'm not qualified to do so.

PainMan (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted US Standard measurements in Infobox

Reverted the removal of US Standard measurements in the Infobox.

US users (and some UK users) will have to do manual conversions of the metric measurements. That's an unnecessary hardship for the metrically-challenged.

There is absolutely NO reason to remove them. They in no way harm or diminish the article. So everytime they are removed I will replace them. (Of course, I will conform to the 3-revert rule.)

PainMan (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical box

I reverted this tag:


This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.


The article is still too technical for the average user. Since I see no edits to make the article accessible to the "lay" reader, the tag goes back. PainMan (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what your issue here is? Technical? How so? It contains information on how the firearm operates in plain English. I don't think it can be any more clear. Take a look at the remaining articles, they're identical. We're not going to lower the accuracy of the description. Please advise on what it is that is unclear and I will try to help you to the best of my knowledge. Koalorka (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


As I have already explained my reasoning (for the tag), repetition is pointless. I have a cousin who is a fire arms expert. He could easily explain these terms to me but that is not the point.
If one is already fluent in the lexicon of firearms, then one should have no problems with the terminology. If, however, one is not so well-informed as my cousin, a wikipedia MUST be comprehensible to the average reader.
There is no way that this article is accessible to a "lay" reader?
I have an IQ of 200 (if IQ scores meant anything, which they don't) and the terminology used presents a problem for me, imagine the problems it presents for someone of average intelligence.
The tag goes back until the above-mentioned "de-expertification" (there's a neologism for ya). I'm not qualified to do it. I mean, I could certainly do all the research and do it but I shouldn't have to: it be the editor(s) job to assume his reader has little or no in depth knowledge of such highly technical subject as firearms specs, etc.
I've explained it again. I will not do so again.
PainMan (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered the question. There is no specialized phraseology used here. The article is written in plain English. There are no advanced concepts here that require any sort of comprehension, it's just a technical description. No different then the one you would find in any manual. Unless you can provide a specific example, I might try clarifying, I am removing the tag. It has no basis, and you're the only one to ever complain in all the other technical pages. Koalorka (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is so mysterious to you about "too technical"? I suggest a sesh with a dictionary.
And of what relevance is your claim that I'm the only one to "complain"? I didn't complain about anything; I only made a factual observation.
And many of the "technical" pages are definitely full of the specialized argot of the particular subject/field. Try reading some of the articles on pharmaceuticals. Without at least a BSPharm or a chem degree, you're clicking "interwiki" (an awful neologism) links till your fingers bleed.
The target audience of Wikipedia, if you will, is the general reader and not specialists.
Tag reversion is reverted.
PainMan (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, we don't cater to the intellectually challenged. It's a technical description. You might as well argue that the page lacks wheelchair accessibility. Koalorka (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's the entire point of Wikipedia. People come here to read about things they don't know much about, not about things they already happen to be experts on.

With that said, there isn't too much that is terribly overworded although I could try to break up some of the larger textblocks into smaller ones for easier reading. The main barrier for most would be understanding the parts of a gun and concepts like bullet drop or that there are many versions of any given firearm or rifle.

Should I try to add more information about the SVD's effective range?

-Taospark (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I truly do not see the need. Unless you'll be introducing new material. Koalorka (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


There's no reason to be a jerk, Koalarka. Tag goes back up.
PainMan (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One quick question, could you actually point to something and say that it is too technical and needs explaining, or are you just going to keep making general statements claiming it is too technical?--LWF (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair request.
In no particular order I'll list some phrases/terms that I would have to do further reading to fully understand (or undersstand at all--even if the component words are common by themselves:
  • slotted flash suppressor (why does a flash suppressor need to be slotted? what does it gain the shooter in combat?)
  • a semi-automatic gas-operated rifle with a short-stroke gas-piston system (Obviously I know what a piston is, but exactly how does a fire arm's piston system work? what's the difference between other types of firing systems? Advantages/disadvantages? I would need to look a lot of this up.)
  • The rifle's receiver (?)
  • The rifle's receiver is machined to provide additional...torsional strength. (exactly what does this mean in firearms jargon?)
  • A capable marksman should be able to expect ≤ 2 MOA consistent accuracy with appropriate ammunition (uh, hunh?)
I could add many more examples but I think these five suffice to illustrate that this article was written not for the general reader but for firearms enthusiasts or those trained in their use.
Many of the pharmacological articles are far worse than this one with the jargon--and I'm a trained pharmacy tech! But this one suffices. Just as I shouldn't have to have a Taber's in my hand when looking up, say, diazepam, I shouldn't have to click forty-eleven inter-wiki links in order to understand this article.
After all I read it mainly because I "use" the SVD in a mod (the justly famous "Smod"; HIGHLY recommended if you a HL2 fan and haven't played it, it's up to v. 40) of the game Half-Life 2 and was curious about the real item. That shouldn't require a degree in mechanical engineering.
PainMan (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
While I'm waiting to get some discussion on the article naming, let me elucidate as to why the above are perfectly reasonable to include in a generalist encyclopedia.
  • slotted flash suppressor - the flash suppressor has slots in it - seems pretty straightforward. Moving right along...
  • a semi-automatic gas-operated rifle with a short-stroke gas-piston system - I'll meet you halfway on the short-stroke piston part. Maybe if there was a corresponding link to the gas-operation page that explained what that does, exactly...
  • The rifle's receiver - Yes?
  • The rifle's receiver is machined to provide additional...torsional strength. - no firearms jargon here. the receiver is machined, as in put through the process of machining (there is an article on this, linked accordingly) in construction. Torsion implies twisting action - a receiver made of a solid block of steel is stronger than one made of stamped and riveted sheet metal. This should be a no-brainer for anyone with a slight amount of mechanical knowhow.
So, there ya go. MalikCarr (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If those points you have listed are why you chose to tag this page, EVERY single other firearms article should also be flagged as too technical. Koalorka (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You just made my point. Thanks. PainMan (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I still fail to see how the article is too technical, a few points notwithstanding (see the stroke system comment above). I'd really rather not reduce this article to the equivalent of what you'd find on, say, a Battlefield 2 fanpage with no useful information (saying that it holds 10 rounds and is semiautomatic [hopefully this isn't too technical] and designed to shoot someone far away is pretty simple, but it doesn't tell us anything important).
Anyway, as long as you're here, could I get some more input on the article name issue below? As an outsider from the firearms project I'm sure you'd be able to provide an honest opinion. MalikCarr (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is the malfunction here?

There's no reason to be a wise-ass, "Malik". Your handle may mean King in Arabic, but you're not ruling wikipedia. I'm pointing out (and using this article to do so) that far too many articles on wikipedia are too technical to be of much USE (and isn't the point of the entire exercise making comprehensible information easily available) to the generalist reader?

If YOU and this Kolarka dude want to start your own wiki stuffed the gills with arcane firearms industry jargon, go for it. The rest of us should not have to click fourteen thousand links in order to understand what should be a simple subject: a Soviet sniper rifle!!!

Is that REALLY so hard to understand? Really?!

As I've said before, there are many article in scientific fields--especially pharmacy--that literally require at least a bachelors (a BSPharm or a BS Chem) in order to understand them without spending six hours reading other articles to understand the dense argot used by the experts of a particular field. After all, it's WIKIPEDIA and not EXPERTOPEDIA.

How many different ways do I need to write it before it penetrates the Iron Curtain of smug condescension used by those who've criticized me for daring to point at that this article does NOT effectively reach a general audience and assumes said audience is a fire-arms enthusiast or an ex-Green Beret.

If I really want an in-depth explanation of the exact workings of nearly any firearm you can name, I can always call a cousin of mine in Texas who is an expert in guns--and owns many--and have him explain it to me. But I don't want to, and more importantly, should NOT have to do so everytime I read an article about a gun on wikipedia!!

Wikipedia's mission--as I understand it--is present short, concise encyclopedic articles that quickly explain the basics of the subject at hand and refer those interested--if available--to other sites (or even books) which will go into exhaustive, if not exhausting, detail.

Check out Britannica's on-line edition since many "wikipedians" don't seem to have any idea and how encyclopedia articles should be written.

I've spoken to a friend of mine who served for many years in this country's special forces (and retired recently) and he agrees that many, if not most, of the military firearms articles are clearly written way over the head of the average reader. While I'm a member of the NRA and fervent supporter of the Second Amendment, I haven't fired a gun in nearly thirty years and that was a dinky little .22 (while my Old Man and his buddies were skeet shooting with the 12 gauges).

Why should I be penalized because I've spent my time becoming learned in subjects other than the arcana of fire-arms? And no, I do NOT understand WHY a slotted flash supressor is or isn't superior to a non-slotted one. And I shouldn't be sniped at because I don't and say that I don't. And there's no way I'm the only one who feels this way.

Some individuals seem to think that this article/subject--and this is NOT limited to firearms or even Soviet-made ones--is their own, personal bailiwick and that no one else better have the temerity to even try to suggest change, let alone make it.

This is flat-out ridiculous.

The tag goes back. And...

...it's just that simple.

PainMan (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you've pretty much proven that your simply here to troll this page, numerous editors have queried you about your motivation and you have failed to respond with any sort of reasoned argument except for a childish "becuz". Continue to vandalize this page and your irrational actions will be reported. Koalorka (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SVD rifle?

Oh come on, this is "ATM machine" levels of redundancy. Just call it "Dragunov Sniper Rifle" again and let's be through with it. That's the most accurate translation, and SVD is too short (and ubiquitous of an acronym...) for a proper article name. MalikCarr (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"SVD" alone did not work because there's a mathematical term that uses that name is is known primarily through that acronym. Hence the "rifle" suffix. The rifle's name is the SVD, "Dragunov sniper rifle" is just a translation of the of the full, non-abbreviated name. Koalorka (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's still redundant. Put rifle in parentheses if you must, ergo the mathematical term can still have first dibs on the unadulterated title listing. At any rate, it would appear previous editors have already debated this topic before just up the page a bit - WP:UE would seem to suggest spelling the name out in English would be the proper recourse.
Either way, this redundancy is offensive to the senses. Let's agree on some kind of article title that doesn't involve repeating ourselves aimlessly. MalikCarr (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: After we sort this business out, the article should probably be updated to mention the recent SVDK variant. Giant 9.3mm soft-points in a semiautomatic package, ouch. MalikCarr (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
We've already had the rifle in parenthesis, and that is incorrect according to our naming scheme. Dragunov sniper rifle is also incorrect according to these same guidelines for the same reason the AK-47 article is not called "Kalashnikov automatic rifle model 1949" or the PK the "Kalashnikov machine gun". Koalorka (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
...AK-47 is just called AK-47 (as is RPK, AK-74, DShK, etc...). Which I find somewhat silly considering the vast majority of Kalashnikov-pattern rifles are AKMs, but whatever. Anyway, I'm not going to let the excuse of bureaucracy with the wikiproject get in the way. Just because it makes sense to use it on other articles doesn't mean we should not make exceptions in places where it is obviously incorrect from a grammatical perspective. It's -still- redundant, and we should not abide that. It makes our firearms articles look like they were written by people whose experience consists of seeing it in a video game or movie and thinking it looks cool, which is insulting to the editors who have worked long and hard on producing quality articles for them. MalikCarr (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: I should also make note that even this is highly inconsistent - aside from the PK and TT-33, practically every other Combloc weapon article either gives us a translated name or a full acronym with nothing else attached. I would again like to point a finger at WP:UE, but if we're going for consistency at the least, this ought to get rifle tacked back on in parentheses. MalikCarr (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)