Talk:Scout rifle: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===This Article is all opinion, and should be deleted or re-written=== |
|||
While it is true that the Scout Rifle is popular among the shooting press, it is far from the proven concept that this article suggests. There are several problems with this particular Wiki. |
|||
1. It fails to cite sources, and merely re-states popular opinion. |
|||
2. It looks more like and advertisement for Jeff Cooper than anything else |
|||
3. It fails to point out the problems of the Scout Rifle concepts such as low rate of fire, fragility of front mounted optics under harsh conditions..... and so forth. |
|||
4. The portion about shorter barrels being just as efficient due to faster burning modern powders is simply incorrect. |
|||
I could continue.... but I think I've made my point. From an encyclopedic viewpoint, this article is far below even Wiki standards. |
|||
[[User:12.96.65.14|12.96.65.14]] 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Can we get a photo? I'd think a photo from someone that owns one wouldn't violate any copyright laws. [[User:210.79.184.101|210.79.184.101]] 13:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
Can we get a photo? I'd think a photo from someone that owns one wouldn't violate any copyright laws. [[User:210.79.184.101|210.79.184.101]] 13:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 12:28, 30 March 2007
This Article is all opinion, and should be deleted or re-written
While it is true that the Scout Rifle is popular among the shooting press, it is far from the proven concept that this article suggests. There are several problems with this particular Wiki. 1. It fails to cite sources, and merely re-states popular opinion. 2. It looks more like and advertisement for Jeff Cooper than anything else 3. It fails to point out the problems of the Scout Rifle concepts such as low rate of fire, fragility of front mounted optics under harsh conditions..... and so forth. 4. The portion about shorter barrels being just as efficient due to faster burning modern powders is simply incorrect.
I could continue.... but I think I've made my point. From an encyclopedic viewpoint, this article is far below even Wiki standards. 12.96.65.14 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we get a photo? I'd think a photo from someone that owns one wouldn't violate any copyright laws. 210.79.184.101 13:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)