Talk:Sniper rifle

Archives
September 2004 – July 2006

Zoom power

What are some usual zoom levels for a sniper rifle scope and how far can you shoot accuately for each zoom level? Wizrdwarts 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Most sniper rifles are at about 10x. DMR rifles can be as low as 3x or so, and a steyr aug is 1.5x. High power rifles go to as high as about 17x. Some specialized rifles may use higher power but that's rare. Qwasty 22:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The scope's magnification doesn't determine the rifle's accuracy, it only makes it easier to see targets further away. Target scopes (sometimes called "target/varmint") can be up to 40x magnification [1], but at these levels it becomes difficult to follow movement and the scope becomes larger, heavier and possibly more fragile. The happy medium with sniper rifles seem to be 6x to 12x. Deon Steyn 08:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Legality

Are there any special laws against sniper rifles similar to the laws on automatics (in the United States)? Or are they completly legal? Zachorious 04:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

currently there are no laws relating to sniper rifles specifically. There are laws about things such as flash hiders and suppressors that affect sniper rifles, however. Probably the main reason there are no laws regarding sniper rifles is that there is no distintive feature of sniper rifles that can be used to decide which rifles are legal and which are not. Consequently, any law addressing sniper rifles is likely to affect nearly everything. Qwasty 05:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the only difference between some sniper rifles and some hunting rifles is the targets to which they are applied. — DAGwyn 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, some of the the current crop of bolt-action models are civilian hunting or target types that have been modified to increase accuracy and adapt the mounting for optics to the more "universal" Picatinny rail. Restrictions on "sniper rifles" fould either have to be made on what the target is--which is essentially already done by laws regarding homocide--or rather nebulous traits like accuracy or accessories. Deathbunny 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much focus on US equipment?

Just an observation... all the images are of US military personnel and equipment... surely there are some suitable photos of military sharpshooters from other countries using their rifles as well?--Commander Zulu 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think so and it's not just the images, the content seems to have turned towards "modern US sniper rifle tactics and training". There are plenty of other images out there, more focused on RIFLES and not snipers (which belong on the sniper page. I will source some better images from other articles. Deon Steyn 14:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the two images at the top of the article with one showing a typical sniper, which I feel is more appropriate since the articl's subject is the rifles and not people shooting them only and this is a typical sniper rifle. I have also found a historical pic and added it to that section and further one replaced one of an M14 with another of a French FRF2 which is also bolt-action. Deon Steyn 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell whether that french rifle has a magazine or not. At first glance it appeared that it did and I was about to note that some bolt actions have magazines similar to semi-autos, but the other photo on the page for that rifle doesn't appear to show a magazine. Neither photo is clear enough to tell for sure.

The article started out being too US centric, and it's gradually improving. As far as photos go, it's hard to find photos of non-US stuff on wikipedia sometimes.

Qwasty 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Types of sniper rifles

How can we class the different types of sniper rifles? Here's a list of what is possible:

• antipersonnel
• antimateriel
• military
• police
• covert urban, assassin
• criminal
• semi auto
• bolt action
• small caliber and ultra-quiet (used equally for for materiel such as lights, personnel, and other living things like dogs and birds)

Any other ideas? I'm not sure if it's even possible to come up with a consistent classification method

Qwasty 21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not much of a classification method, since most of the "categories" you listed are overlaping. For instance, a military sniper rifle may be anti-personnel or anti-materiel, bolt-action or gas-operated (semi-automatic), and so on. Also, I don't think "covert urban/assassin" and "criminal" are much of a categorization either.

If we have to come up with a classification method, it has to begin with the most general "classes", which in my opinion consists of military and law enforcement types, and then breaking these two categories down into more specific types. A separate section/subsection could then be used for weapons that don't fit on neither categories. —Squalla 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why categorise them at all? "Military" and "Police" really seems to sum it up pretty well- there are no "Civilian" Sniper Rifles, AFAIK, beyond commercial hunting rifles which have been accurised and had a scope mounted on them. While we're here, there seems to be a little bit of Tom Clancy-esque Ninja Fanboy tone to the general article- it's 1000 percent better than it was before, but I can't help but feel the article still seems to be aimed at people who play CounterStrike a lot... I'm just not entirely sure what I can add to the article, since modern weapons really aren't my area of expertise. --Commander Zulu 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Commander Zulu. The commonly accepted categories are the ones I left after cleaning up the section, namely military, police and anti-materiel. It is also a categorization used by other sources like World Guns (although he calls uses large caliber instead of anti-materiel), see [2]. This covers all types of "sniper rifes" in the scope of this article without including completely different weapons that snipers might also use (pistol, suitcase guns and goodness knows what else) that is outside of the scope of this article, but might be relevant to the sniper article. Deon Steyn 08:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we decide on, I think there ought to be a "special" category to cover the oddball weapons that don't fit neatly in any category. The ideal example of this, with common usage all over the world, is the suppressed .22 long rifle. That weapon is used equally for anti-materiel and anti-personnel, and both by military and police. The rifle-caliber thomson contender pistols are another good example. There may be others that I haven't thought of.

For example, the scoped crossbow was used before the suppressed .22 became popular, so if there's odd weapons like that, I'm sure there's others that don't immediately come to mind. I have heard that the scoped crossbows are still used by countries that can't buy the suppressed .22's due to sanctions or whatever. So, while not a rifle, it fills the same niche as the .22 and may deserve a mention if it turns out that it's still actually getting used somewhere

Qwasty 20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Introductory definition

We need consensus on the introductory definition. Firstly, I think we should remove any mention of "stealth" or "from a concealed position", because these rifles are not specially designed to cater for this (any more so than any other rifle). "Agree" or "Oppose"? Please keep answers as short as possible. Deon Steyn 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. (Refer to the "Intro" discussion for reasons.) —Squalla 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

They are designed for stealth. The stock's butts usually have a butt hook, and a relief bevel, that are solely for use in the prone position. (mcmillan A3, A4, and a few others). The forends are flattened rather than rounded so they're more suited to resting on something that helps conceal the sniper, such as a window sill, rucksack, logs, etc. (hunting rifles have round forends to be rested on a hand).

We've argued this back and forth for a while now, and to me it seems obvious that a sniper rifle would be intended for exclusive use in a concealed fashion. Otherwise, the lousy bolt action must compete with machine guns. The only times I've seen snipers operate unconcealed is when they're part of a force that has already so-thoroughly dominated their enemies that they can get away with it. That's more like shooting fish in a barrel than true sniping, and I've only seen it happen in extremely one-sided conflicts involving the USA somewhere (although the sniper may be canadian, or whatever).

Qwasty 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The stock and forearm of a sniper rifle are designed for comfort/stance reasons, not "stealth". You should stop making these narrow-minded statements about sniper rifles being used exclusively by snipers in a "stealthy" fashion—this is simply not true.

—Squalla 21:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My narrow minded statements about stocks having features designed for stealth are industry facts you fool. Talk to Rock Mcmillan at Mcbros and try to convince him you know more about it than he does (Yes, I have done it myself). Here's his phone number: 623 582 9635.

We've already expanded the definition of "sniper rifle" to include marksman rifles. If you expand the definition of sniper rifles to rifles not used for sniping (or not designed for it), then there is no longer any such thing as a sniper rifle. The subtle differences blur away very quickly. I haven't written the stocks section yet, but I'm nearly ready to, and when I do, you'll see more clearly. Or, you can start it yourself, and I'll pick up on it later today. Here's a starting point for you (all of these features aid stealth):

• The rounded forearms on civilian hunting rifles neatly fit into v-shaped padded rifle bags.
• The flat forearms of a typical modern sniper rifle stock does not fit in v-shaped rifle bags, but is better suited to impromptu rests such as a log, rock, rucksack, etc.
• The butt of a civilian hunting stock is rounded on the bottom to better fit in fancy shooting bags
• The butt of the sniper's stock is flat on the bottom so a sand sock or micrometer can be used to change the vertical aim point
• The civilian usually fires from a standing position ("stance"), or from a sitting position with bags on a shooting bench
• The sniper usually fires from a low-observable prone position, the stock has bevels and cutouts to support that ("comfort")

Or, if you prefer, watch some TV and play some computer games to come up with your ideas about what a sniper rifle is. As for me, I have more knowledge on this topic than all the other editors combined, including you. That's not a jab at anyone, it's a fact. This article has exploded with a tremendous amount of information since I started editing it. Look at the history if you want to know who's been putting it all in. On top of that, I've found cites without fail on every fact where I've been disputed, and eventually I'll put in cites (or information that makes it obvious) for everything we're talking about here.

Qwasty 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does everything you wrote in your reply directly relate sniper rifles to stealth? It relates them to the stance they are supposed/normally fired from—a prone position—which is exactly what I stated. "Prone position" does not equal "stealth". You have just confirmed my point, which is kinda ironic when you consider yourself such a good writer and expert on the subject.

By the way, I'm not exactly sure, but I think personal attacks aren't exactly encouraged in Wikipedia. Keep the attitude up and I'll find out about it. —Squalla 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You called me narrow minded. You could have said "narrow statements" instead of "narrow-minded statements".

Back to the stealthy stocks issue. Lets see if I can make this more clear for you:

• Stocks on sniper rifles have features to accomodate the prone position
• The prone position accomodates stealth more than any other position
• Sniper's use the prone position more often than any other position

As you said, the features I mentioned don't directly relate to stealth. But, as a matter of fact, little if anything about a sniper rifle does. As I've said before, sniper rifles aren't much different from any other rifle, and so if we don't include some reference to "used by a sniper" as part of the distinguishing criterion, we don't have much to write about. I think it's ridiculous I have to argue this in an article called Sniper rifle.

Additionally, if the rifle is not used stealthily, then:

• It's not being used for sniping (which requires stealth, by definition)
• A "sniper rifle" is not required

And then the scope opens to include pretty much everything. I accept the inclusion of DMR and marksman rifles because they are closely related, and are frequently used in sniper roles, and so they sometimes have correspondingly suitable features - but not always!

Sniper rifle logic leading to a definition, with article scope breakdown:

• Used by a sniper - see Sniper
  • Sniper uses his rifle stealthily - details on usage, see Sniper
  • Rifle features must accomodate stealthy usage - within scope of this article
• Not used by a sniper - outside scope, and not a sniper rifle, see Rifle

There's no defining physical feature of a sniper rifle that makes it unequivocally identifiable as a sniper rifle. Here's some things that do not count towards defining a rifle as a sniper rifle, with examples:

• Caliber - BB, .22 Long Rifle, .338 Lapua
• Range - 3 inches, 5 meters, 2500 meters
• Accuracy - 40 MOA, 1 MOA, .5 MOA, .25 MOA
• Sights - 1.5x scope, 40x scope, iron sights, laser sight, dot sight, none at all
• Model numbers - M40A3, M21, Remington 700
• Model names - Tasco Super Sniper Scope, Remington PSS (Police Sniper System)
• Who uses it - US Army, LAPD, Charles Whitman, Carlos Hathcock, Vasily Zaitsev

So, to sum up, there's only 3 canonical rules of what a sniper rifle is, and that this article should be primarily built around:

1. Rifle is used for sniping
2. Rifle is used stealthily
3. Rifle features accomodate stealthy usage

Qwasty 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

...Which brings us back to the previous "Intro" discussion. You refuse to accept that a sniper rifle is not necessarily used by a sniper, and thus is not necessarily used in a "stealthy" fashion. There are several physical features that set what we call a sniper rifle apart from other types of rifles. As with pratically any other type of firearm, there is rarely a consensus for classification; as an encyclopedia article, the page should offer reasonable distinctions that set a sniper rifle apart from other weapons, and as much as you want to convince me otherwise, "stealth" is not a very reasonable one. I've said it before, and I'll say it one last time: a sniper rifle, despite its name, is not necessarily A) used by a sniper, B) used in a "stealthy"/concealed fashion, and C) designed to accomodate stealthy usage (but rather stance, which may not necessarily be prone). I'm not the only one who thinks you are wrong, but you refuse to accept anyone else's opinions, and this is getting old, really. You can't just pick an article and do whatever you feel like with it, especially when there are other users repeatedly questioning your opinions and editing work. —Squalla 01:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Stealth" is definitely the wrong word to be using here, IMO... it has far too many "l337 CounterStrike pl4y0r" connotations in this context for an academic work. FWIW, I'd argue that a Sniper Rifle can be defined thusly:

• Rifle is specifically designed or modified for accuracy;
• Used by Military or Police
• Has a telescopic or other special purpose sight.

The "Military or Police" thing is very important, IMO... after all, simply bolting a Leupold 3-9x40 scope and a bipod onto an over-the-counter Remington 700 does not automatically make it a "Sniper Rifle" (unless you're one of those people who hang out at rifle ranges with a backwards "SWAT" hat or USMC cover on, yet are not actually in the police or military), and the article should reflect that. Otherwise, I Agree with Squalla. --Commander Zulu 02:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the older version that said the rifle is used from a concealed position, but since we've expanded the scope of this article to include DMR's and marksman rifles, "stealth" covers everything without implying it's required.

Your definition is incorrect:

• Rifle is specifically designed or modified for accuracy - This applies to most rifles, but may exclude some like .22 cal sniper rifles
• Used by Military or Police - plenty of organizations and individuals use sniper rifles that are not formally part of any government recognized military or police organization
• Has a telescopic or other special purpose sight. - Once again, this applies to most bolt action rifles, but may exclude .22 cal sniper rifles

Qwasty 02:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the phrase "obsolete antiques" in the opening paragraph to "obsolete miltary surplus or sporting arms"- "Antique" has a specific definition in the Arms Laws of most countries, being any gun (or modern replica thereof) manufactured before 1898 in the US, and any gun (for which cartridge ammunition is not available) manufactured before either 1901 (in Australia) or is more than 100 years old (New Zealand, UK?). Whilst some of the muzzleloading rifles- such as the 1853 Enfield and the Kentucky Rifle- were capable of incredible accuracy (for their day), they're not even close to the accuracy levels required by "Modern" Sniper rifles- but most of the WWI/WWII rifles are, hence the change to clarify this, without changing the overall thrust of the intro. --Commander Zulu 02:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence where you changed that is about civilian arms, not military surplus, so I changed it back, but I also changed the phrase "obsolete antiques" to "obsolete models" to avoid definitional vagaries. That should fulfill your intent in fewer words. Qwasty 03:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right- "obsolete models" does make more sense in context and is a better term. --Commander Zulu 03:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So myself, Commander Zulu and Squalla agree that the term "stealth" and "concealed position" be removed from the definition on the following grounds

• This article doesn't cover all weapons used for sniping
• By far the greatest majority of sniper rifles around the world and throughout history have had no special features designed to aid stealth or concealment.

I will change the intro accordingly. Deon Steyn 05:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Those changes are outside the scope of sniping. I will revert until the cows come home. I would like to add that the sentence refers to requirements, so if it makes you feel better, just think of sniper rifles as rifles that aren't required to be used stealthily (however wrong that may be). Qwasty 06:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The next item in the definition I feel should be removed is selective engagement of specific targets. This is redundant when the subject is already defined as a rifle which by implication is used to engage a target of the shooter's selection and therefore this definition can apply to pistols, missiles or clubs ans as such serves no purpose. Remove this? Agree or Oppose? Deon Steyn 06:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Sniper rifles are the most selective in their targets, of all other rifles. Since this article is primarily about rifles, comparisons to clubs and missiles don't really apply. Qwasty 06:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree in Principle. I agree that Sniper rifles are designed for precision accuracy (and are considerably more selective than, say, an AK-47), but the phrase "selective engagement of specific targets" sounds like the PR department of the US DoD came up with it- it should be changed to something a bit less "doublespeak", IMO. --Commander Zulu 06:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support changing the word selective to tactical, since that leads to some more depth of meaning than is immediately apparent from the word selective Qwasty 06:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again Qwasty attempts to divert attention from the issues at hand. tactical makes even less sense. Deon Steyn 06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maximum effective range ammunition table

I'd like to see some check boxes in the table for police and military usage so that people can see that police usage is mostly 7.62 and under, and military usage is mostly 7.62 and over, with the crossover being at 7.62. Maybe just add two columns titled "military usage" and "police usage" with asterisks in each cell corresponding to each category? Qwasty 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gadget Guns???

Sorry, what have these got to do with Sniper Rifles? That sort of stuff belongs in James Bond Movies, not a serious article on Sniper Rifles... besides, the fact that they aren't scoped and have to be used at close range kind of precludes them as being classified as "Sniper Rifles". Opinions? --Commander Zulu 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Range isn't really relevant. .22 caliber sniper rifles have ranges of only about 10 meters. Some of the gadget guns are fully functional scoped sniper rifles. I'm looking for more cites, but I've seen some that were assembled from pieces that looked like common objects: The scope was a flashlight, the stock was a book, and the rifle was a cane. Granted, since this stuff tends to be highly clandestine, not much info on modern weapons is available, but I included a wikipedia link to a man who was assassinated with an umbrella gun, and I've seen video of one of Saddam Hussein's secret police machine shops where a much more capable umbrella gun was found partly-finished. Qwasty 02:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think they qualify as "Sniper Rifles"... "Assassination Weapons", yes, but the two terms aren't synonyms. Why not start a new article- Assassination Weapons- link it to the main Sniper Rifle article, and then put the Gadget Guns information in the Assassination Weapons article? That way, it's still tangentially linked to "Sniper Rifles" without straying un-necessarily into James Bond territory. --Commander Zulu 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That phrase about gadget guns is there to illustrate the wide scope of sniper weapons. It's only a few words long, and while they are known to exist, not enough specific information is available on them to justify a seperate article. Qwasty 03:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the point you are missing, this is not a page for sniper's weapons, that can be discussed on te sniper page. This page if for a specific type of rifle (who happens to share it's name with it's most common user), but it by no means defined by only one of the groups who use these rifles or the way they use them. Deon Steyn 06:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

.22 caliber sniper rifles

Doesn't ".22 calibre sniper rifle" strike you as an oxymoron? A .22 rifle has trouble killing a hare at 40yds, never mind being able to kill a person. If you're referring to the sort of .22 rifle used in The Day Of The Jackal (loaded with special ammunition) then maybe- but if it hasn't got a telescopic sight, then it's either a standard commerical .22 rifle (and thus not a Sniper Rifle), or it's designed to be used at point-blank range, in which case it's an assassination weapon- which is an entirely different kettle of fish to a Sniper Rifle. Some sniper rifles are assassination weapons, but not all assassination weapons are sniper rifles. "Military" can include "Paramilitary" organisations, but "individuals" with sniper rifles are either target shooters (most of whom dislike being called "Snipers" because of the Tom Clancy fanclub), or Assassins. Can you give me an example of a ".22 calibre Sniper Rifle"? Quite frankly, I really don't see how any gun that has to be used at point-blank range- even if it is from cover or concealment- can really qualify as a "Sniper Rifle". --Commander Zulu 03:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Click on the cited references. Also read some of the other references in the article, they get a lot of press. They can be quite lethal, even with subsonic rounds. They have replaced crossbows for ultra quiet work, and in fact they are even quieter. .22 cal sniper rifles do pretty much everything:

• anti-materiel on lights, radios, etc
• anti-personnel on sentries
• "anti-guard-animal" on dogs and other critters

As I've said before, sniping is about stealth, not power, range, or even accuracy. In many ways, the suppressed .22 is the ultimate sniper rifle since it can do ANY task that ANY other type of sniper rifle can do, albeit at much shorter ranges.

Qwasty 04:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think we're talking at cross-purposes, especially with regards to what a sniper is. A soldier picking off enemy soldiers across no-man's land with a scoped rifle is a sniper. Someone hiding behind a tree and shooting a guard dog from 6ft away with a silenced .22 is not a sniper, IMO. I strongly disagree that sniping is solely about stealth. Remaining concealed is a part of what a sniper does, but you're making them out to be some kind of "Ninja with a tricked out gun", which I don't think is right. Snipers are supposed to be able to hit a target with unerring precision on the first shot, and in many cases- for example, involving police marksmen/snipers- it's actually an advantage for the sniper to be visible, so the (potential) target realises what they are up against. --Commander Zulu 04:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

These weapons fall completely outside of the scope of this article, Qwasty you have been directed to the sniper page several times. If these weapons are user by snipers as you claim, feel free to add it to that article. Deon Steyn 06:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They aren't outside the scope. I've already added several cites. Maybe you haven't read them? Qwasty 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They are outside of the scope, perhaps you haven't read my reply and this relates to your concerns over "stealth" and other topics too. This article is not about the "rifles of snipers" is is a specific type of rifle, that happens to include the word "sniper". Deon Steyn 06:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard so far today. I can't reason with ideas like that. I think what you want is an article about sniper rifles as shown in the entertainment media. Qwasty 06:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't reason with ideas like this, because you continue to make basic mistakes in logic and you continue to ignore consensus opinion. Deon Steyn 06:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of sniper rifle

Editors, please keep in mind that sniper rifles are not necessarily different from any other rifle, and so if we don't include some reference to "used by a sniper" as part of the distinguishing criterion, we won't have much to write about. I think it's ridiculous I have to argue this in an article called Sniper rifle.

Being "used by a sniper" implies "being used stealthily". If the rifle is not used stealthily, then:

• It's not being used for a sniping task (which requires stealth by definition)
• A "sniper rifle" is not necessarily required for the task

Additionally, there's no defining physical feature of a sniper rifle that makes it unequivocally identifiable as a sniper rifle. Here's some things that do not count towards defining a rifle as a sniper rifle, with examples:

• Caliber - BB, .22 Long Rifle, .338 Lapua
• Range - 3 inches, 5 meters, 2500 meters
• Accuracy - 40 MOA, 1 MOA, .5 MOA, .25 MOA
• Sights - 1.5x scope, 40x scope, iron sights, laser sight, dot sight, none at all
• Model numbers - M40A3, M21, Remington 700
• Model names - Tasco Super Sniper Scope, Remington PSS (Police Sniper System)
• Who uses it - US Army, LAPD, Charles Whitman, Carlos Hathcock, Vasily Zaitsev

Here's the logic leading to a definition:

• If used by a sniper
  • Then sniper uses his rifle stealthily
    • Then rifle features must accomodate stealthy usage (see Sniper rifle)
• If not used by a sniper
  • Then may or may not be used stealthily
    • Then may or may not have features to accomodate stealthy usage (see Rifle)

So, to sum up, there's only 3 canonical rules of what a sniper rifle is that this article should be primarily built around:

1. A sniper rifle is used for sniping
2. A sniper rifle is used stealthily
3. A sniper rifle's features accomodate stealthy usage

To classify as a true sniper rifle, all of the above MUST be true. If one of the above is not true, then the definition opens widely to include pretty much every type of rifle. However, for the purposes of this article we can accept the inclusion of designated marksman rifles (DMR) in military usage and marksman rifles in police usage because:

• They are closely related to sniper rifles
• They are frequently also used in sniper roles
• They sometimes have feature sets suitable for sniping
• They usually are not distinctive enough to justify articles of their own

We may also be able to accept information on sniping pistols if

• They use a rifle caliber
• They are used for sniping

Remember that .22 Long Rifle is a rifle caliber used for sniping! Other more esoteric, or historical weapons used for sniping may warrant a mention in this article, so feel free to discuss it if you have some good information.

Qwasty 05:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with your assertation that only rifles being used "stealthily" qualify as Sniper Rifles. I submit that a Sniper Rifle is "A rifle that is designed or adapted to be used to pick off individual targets at range with great accuracy", regardless of whether the sniper is in a trench, lying in undergrowth wearing a Ghillie Suit, or leaning out of a Blackhawk Helicopter. I think you'll find that many people will disagree with your definition --Commander Zulu 05:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your definition covers battle rifles, assault rifles, hunting rifles, target rifles, and probably all other rifles too. Qwasty 05:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't think of this before... If you don't believe me, believe the dictionaries:

Answers.com

snip·er (snī'pər)

n.

1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place.
2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.

In any case, even if the dictionary didn't say that, I'd call "expertise" over a dictionary writer any day. And in fact, I still have to since the definition is exclusive to people, which as we know, people are not the sole targets. That's one reason I sort of avoid dictionaries in settling arguments on technical topics.

Qwasty 05:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You are aware that Answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror, right? You are, in effect, citing an (old) Wikipedia article on Snipers to try and prove your point, which is... not really a sound debating tactic, IMO.

My definition does NOT include "most guns"- a military battle rifle (including an assault rifle) is designed to hit the centre mass of a man-sized target at a range of between 100-300 metres, which is totally different from shooting the walkie-talkie out of an enemy's hand from 500m away, or being able to pick off an enemy officer/radio operator/El Presidente of a small Banana Republic with one shot. If you can't understand this fundamental difference, I must find myself questioning what real expertise you have to discuss the subject with. We've established that Sniper do sometimes- even often shoot from cover or concealment, but they don't always shoot from cover or concealment, and they're certainly not the Ninja Sharpshooters you appear to be making them out to be. We're still going to have to come to some sort of agreement on what a Sniper Rifle actually is, because I feel yours is straying too far from the commonly accepted definition, and mine may not be precise enough. --Commander Zulu 06:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether someone trained as a sniper always shoots from concealment or not, that's what their rifles are for, and they're not performing the task of sniping if they don't. I'm totally not following you on the ninja references. Either way, the commonly accepted definition is rarely the correct one in the world of firearms, and sadly, this instance is no exception. Qwasty 06:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The term sniper is attested from 1824 in the sense of "sharpshooter." The verb to snipe originated in the 1770s among soldiers in British India in the sense of "to shoot from a hidden place," in allusion to snipe hunting, a game bird known for being difficult to sneak up on. Those who were skilled at the hunting of this bird were dubbed snipers.

The term thus emphasises field craft and skills of camouflage as well as marksmanship, and is typically used for infantry soldiers so skilled, who specialize in killing selected enemies from concealment with a rifle at long distances.

From the Sniper article. Qwasty 06:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You can supply all the quotes and reference you like, but the fact is that it is not relevant to this article. You are still trying to ascribe characteristics to these rifles by associating their definition to that of snipers. This is incorrect, because these rifles were also designed for sharpshooters and they don't share concerns of "stealth" or concealment. You are being blinded by the term "sniper", it is just the commonly accepted name for these rifles, because they are associated with the aforementioned, but not defined by them. Once again I have to refer you to logical fallacy. Deon Steyn 06:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This argument has come full-circle. We have already agreed that this article should cover weapons "similar to sniper rifles". However, that's not what this article is solely for, and it is what you are advocating. This article is about sniper rifles. We've expanded the scope to include similar rifles, but it's still about sniper rifles. This is the second most ridiculous thing we've talked about here today. Take a step back and realize how silly it sounds, especially when you start talking about logical fallacies (which one exactly?). Jeez. Qwasty 07:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the passage from the Sniper article that you quoted- although its definition does contradict your assertation that .22s and Gadget Guns are Sniper Rifles- but the definitions of words do change over time, and I think you'll find I'm not the only one who has trouble accepting the idea of shooting something at point blank range as "Sniping", regardless of the presence of cover/concealment/camouflage. As for the Ninja thing... it comes from the Pop Culture image of Ninjas clad in black ninjasuits, appearing out of nowhere, striking their targets, and then mysteriously vanishing (maybe in a puff of dramatic smoke), and generally having all sorts of Mad Ninja Skillz(tm)... much like the image you seem to be painting of people who use sniper rifles. --Commander Zulu 06:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The passage doesn't contradict. Note the usage of the word "typically":

typically used for ... killing selected enemies from concealment with a rifle at long distances.

That passage is true, most of the time a rifle is used at long distances. However, the word "typically" leaves room for oddities like gadget guns and .22 sniper rifles.

In the same way the word "requirements" leaves things open in the following sentence:

A sniper rifle is ... adopted to fulfill requirements for power, accuracy, range, and stealth as needed by snipers...

So, maybe accuracy and range aren't needed in the case of a gadget gun? Maybe stealth isn't needed in the case of a marksman rifle? The sentence is true on all instances.

Qwasty 07:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this article is not there for oddities such as gadget guns or .22 pistols. that belongs to a discussion on what snipers may or may not use. This article focusses on a specific type of rifle that HAPPENS TO SHARE THE NAME. Deon Steyn 07:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

have already agreed that this article should cover weapons "similar to sniper rifles"... Have we? I don't recall agreeing that at all- quite the opposite. It's just crazy to be including pistols in an article entitled Sniper Rifles. Like I've said before, if you want to put that sort of thing in an article related to snipers, create one entitled Assassination Weapons or Special Purpose Weapons, or something like that. And you're not trying especially hard to convince us that you have any idea what you're actually talking about. --Commander Zulu 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have. We have information on marksman rifles in the introductory paragraph, which I believe Deon originally entered in against my protestations, and I have since relented. As far as knowing what I'm talking about, I've spent a lot of hours writing most of this article and I have 15 or 16 cites throughout my text (adding more daily), so take your ungrateful attitude elsewhere. What have you contributed? How many cites? How many hours? How many years of research? Qwasty 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The section on "historic" sniper rifles was largely written by me, in case you hadn't noticed, and I've refrained from editing much else in the main text without discussing it, so everyone has the chance to comment. And as for the "ungrateful attitude", what should we be grateful for? Some of us feel the content of this article is either incorrect or irrelevant, and frankly you'd be doing everyone a favour if you just left it alone and stopped editing it all the time to suit your views and thoughts. --Commander Zulu 07:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I actually hadn't noticed. I have noticed it has been greatly improving, but I hadn't noticed that it was you doing it. Qwasty 08:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Qwasty

Qwasty is reverting changes AGAIN. He is has on numerous occasion tried to drown out opposing views by making close to 300 edits in less than a week, reverting edits (some reached by consensus), creating large, repetitive and often irrelevant comments on the talk page and making personal attacks all the while pretending to be in collaboration with other editors. I have already reported him for violation the 3RR|3 Revert Rule (awaiting reviwe on WP:AN3), what would the next step be, a :Requests for Mediation??? Deon Steyn 07:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I spent many hours making over 300 edits in order to improve this article, not to drown you out. I have read, considered, and replied to every concern you've had while I've been doing it.

Why don't you add something to this article instead of deleting things? Haven't you got any unique or useful information to add? Come to think of it, what exactly have you contributed here? You spend a lot of time complaining, and most of your edits involve deleting something.

Qwasty 07:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the following:

• You ignore the concerns of other editors (for instance reverting a change reached by consensus regarding the opening definition)
• The article is already too long (see Wikipedia guidelines)
• You add information and ignore critical debate
• You seem to pay no regard to Wikipedia guidelines on ettiquete
• You site incorrect sources (like conversations)
• You attempt to create advertising (Tactical Operations)
• You misunderstand the scope of the article as agreed upon by all other editors.
• Most importantly you have a stated goal of changing the article to suite your own political views as it relates to US gun politics.

Deon Steyn 07:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My rebuttal:

• You ignore the concerns of other editors (for instance reverting a change reached by consensus regarding the opening definition)

I haven't ignored them, I have responded in great detail to every concern direct towards me on this talk page. The specific change you mention is the usage of the word "stealth", "concealment", or something to that effect in the definition of "sniper rifle" in the introduction of the article. While I acknowledge I stand alone amongst 3 other editors who disagree with me, I believe the definition of "sniper rifle" must involve the definition of sniper, which is predicated upon concealment. I won't reiterate the details, but you can find them in the first post under "definition of sniper rifle"

• The article is already too long (see Wikipedia guidelines)

The article is 33kb long. Much of that is citations, notes, further reading, etc that is specifically excluded by the guidlines. I realize some of this article should eventually be moved to it's own article, but since this is the first time anyone has complained about it, you can't fault me for waiting until the article grows a bit larger before we begin discussing it.

• You add information and ignore critical debate

This is a repeat of your first complaint. See above for my rebuttal.

• You seem to pay no regard to Wikipedia guidelines on ettiquete

What specifically are you talking about? You have vandalized the article with mass deletes, if I have not discussed at length on the talk page before reverting, forgive me.

• You site incorrect sources (like conversations)

One piece of information that is relevant to one specific manufacturer has a cite of a conversation, but it also has a cite to other published materials. You deleted the entire cite as well as most of the (unrelated) section - not just the part you supposedly objected to - with no discussion at all. So, when evaluated together with your other mass deletions, I took it as a personal attack rather than an attempt to improve the article, and I reverted it. As I have proven repeatedly, I will find better cites if you ask for them. Why didn't you ask for them?

• You attempt to create advertising (Tactical Operations)

Very few manufacturers will make an accuracy guarantee. Tactical Operations is of the 4 or 5 I can think of that do, and it's the ONLY ONE that guarantees .25 MOA accuracy. You deleted that cite from a piece of text that talked about rifles manufactured with that accuracy level. Since that company is unique, that cite is also unique also and cannot be replaced. If there WERE another company making such rifles, the cite could be replaced, but still, it would have to be replaced with info about a company. Once again, you deleted not only the cite, but nearly the entire section without any discussion. Why didn't you try to find a better cite yourself in order to improve the article, rather than just deleting everything?

• Just because one manufacturer gives such a guarantee, does not prove that no other manufacturer does not also. More importantly, this so called cite is only a link to the company website and NO WHERE does this guarantee appear. 1) The cite does not confirm this claim and 2) even if it did, it does not prove they are the only one. --Deon Steyn 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• You misunderstand the scope of the article as agreed upon by all other editors.

This complaint is the same as You ignore the concerns of other editors (for instance reverting a change reached by consensus regarding the opening definition). See above for my rebuttal.

• Most importantly you have a stated goal of changing the article to suite your own political views as it relates to US gun politics.

I said no such thing. In 2005, under redoing this article, I said There's a great deal of interest from the public on sniper rifles, and a great deal of paranoia as well, and I think it's important for this article to be a good one.

I would like to add here that none of these complaints are directly related to your recent mass delete vandalism on this article, other than your personal beef with me. None of the material you deleted is related to anything we have discussed here in the last several days, and you begain your deletings immediately after a heated discussion here on a topic unrelated to the material you deleted. Most of the material you deleted was written by me and was replaced with your unrelevant complaining commentary, and so serves to point out that your changes were in fact vandalism, and were in fact motivated by hatred rather than a genuine desire to improve the article.

Qwasty 09:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Etiquette, especially:

• 3 Revert rule
• Personal attacks (for instance claiming I don't add aything useful)
• Not working towards agreement (in fact ignoring consensus)
• Not assuming good faith
• Etc. etc.

Deon Steyn 09:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• You mentioned a conversation and claim it is also "touched upon" in that publicition, neither of which constitute a proper source.

Deon Steyn 09:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Claiming something is true, because no one can disprove it is yet another logical fallacy, specifically Burden of proof (logical fallacy).

Deon Steyn 09:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I quote from a previous post of yours (on the archived talk page) where you freely admit to a non-neutral POV: One thing that I should try to impress upon you is my point of view that motivates me to steer this article away from labeling "sniper rifles" as a unique class of rifle. Firstly, gun control advocates will read this, and they want to know what types for rifles to try to ban.

Deon Steyn 09:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• 3 Revert rule

Does not apply to vandalism

• Personal attacks (for instance claiming I don't add aything useful)

Mass-delete vandalism and replacing text with piss-and-vinegar commentary is not useful.

• Not working towards agreement (in fact ignoring consensus)

I participate here frequently in order to work towards agreement, which has been successful many times. Disagreement, in this particular case, is not consensus

• Not assuming good faith

I looked over each of your edits in an effort to find good faith additions to the article. I found mass-delete vandalism with complaining commentary in place of huge portions of article text. Those were not good faith edits and you're not convincing anybody that they were.

• You mentioned a conversation and claim it is also "touched upon" in that publicition, neither of which constitute a proper source.

Did you read the source? Why didn't you ask for a better one? Why didn't you find one yourself? In any case, the math that accompanies it proves the correctness of the passage insofar that a mass-deletion of it (and mountains of other text) is unwarranted. This is your only point of contention that holds any water, but I should also add here that you have put forth some efforts in rewriting and improving that section before you suddenly decided to delete the whole thing after a heated exchange on an unrelated topic here. So, taken in context with all of your other vandalism, the changes were reverted by me.

• Claiming something is true, because no one can disprove it is yet another logical fallacy, specifically Burden of proof (logical fallacy).

This is ridiculous. My cite proved the piece of text it was attached to. I'm not going to discuss this further with you. (Refers to You attempt to create advertising... above)

• I quote from a previous post of yours (on the archived talk page) where you freely admit to a non-neutral POV: One thing that I should try to impress upon you is my point of view that motivates me to steer this article away from labeling "sniper rifles" as a unique class of rifle. Firstly, gun control advocates will read this, and they want to know what types for rifles to try to ban.

You quoted out of context as if I intend to advocate gun control in this article. Anyone looking at this article will not see a hint of pro or con on the gun control issue, only facts, for which I am BY FAR the #1 contributor. My point of view is neutral, but the article reader's point of view may not be. The point of view I was referring to is that the article should include coverage of information that does not put sniper rifles on a pedestal of military and police superiority (which you advocate in exclusivity, whereas the text I write compares the rifles objectively, with numbers and facts). Either way, this complaint of yours is also new to the discussion and refers to your complaints about things I've written here on the talk page, not in the article, and so being irrelevant to your vandalism and my subsequent reverts, this is the end of this line of discussion.

In fact, since this is only the latest in numerous rounds on all of these irrelevant issues (irrelevant to your main complaint about the usage of the word "stealth" in the article introduction), I'm going to consider your case in favor of your mass-delete vandalism closed. I'd also like to point out that I believe the entire discussion here, including the following:

• Mass-delete vandalism
• Angry commentary replacing deleted text
• Complaints about my subsequent reverts
• Your reporting my reverts [3][4] (verdict was in my favor)
• Complaints about cite quality that have never been brought up by you before
• Complaints about advertising in cites that have never been brought up by you before
• Complaints about old quotes within the talk page
• Complaints about article length that have never been brought up by you before
• Complaints about my level of participating in the talk page that have never been brought up by you before

...Are all merely red herrings to distract from your original complaint about the usage of the word "stealth" in the introduction, and to garner administrator support in your new personal campaign against me. As such, due to your vandalism and the hours and hours required to address your associated red herrings:

• I will not address on the talk page new complaints by you on the topic of yesterday's vandalism
• I will revert without discussion any of your repeated edits that delete large portions of text, as you did in your mass-delete vandalism yesterday

Qwasty 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing inappropriate text (factually incorrect, outside scope of article or violates wikipedia guidelines/policies) with a descriptive edit note, is not "vandalism" and not "mass delete vandalism". Accusing me of a "personal campaign" against you when I tried to form a consensus opinion amongst editors of each contested point only hinders the process. In fact, you have made it impossible for us to reach such consensus opinions, because you ignore the very first one reached ("stealth") by the only 3 other editors participating in the debate, reverted the changed and made it very difficult to continue with that process of reaching consensus on all the outstanding points. The very fact that the introductory definition still contains all the elements only you support and no other editors ((along with Kirill Lokshin original suggestion (diff [5]) is indicative of this break down. Deon Steyn 06:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation seems like an extremely good idea, IMHO. --Commander Zulu 07:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is the next step as set out in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. All parties have to agree to submit to mediation. I would agree to it, would you Qwasty? Deon Steyn 07:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate whether you whish to submit to mediation or not, so that we can proceed further. During this process we can also discuss what is vandalism and what is not. Deon Steyn 09:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please spell out for me exactly what issues you want to present to a mediator. Qwasty 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The issues have been presented in this very page countless times, by myself, Commander Zulu and especially Deon Steyn. There's no need for them to be repeated yet another time. I agree with a mediation, I don't see any other way to solve this. —Squalla 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There has to be an agenda with specific points, agreed upon, and presented to a mediator. It can't be left open-ended. What I may want to have mediated may be different from what Commander Zulu wants. You never know, in the process of agreeing on points of mediation, we may reach a solution of our own. As I understand it, there is only one issue in dispute that we agree on so far: The usage of the word "stealth". Most of the other issues talked about in this section are new as of yesterday, and don't warrant mediation yet. Qwasty 21:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I will have to create a formal request of mediation with the issues we wish to discuss then. Who wants in? --06:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Issues for Mediation & General Suggestions & problems with article

If I may, I'll outline a few of my concerns in bullet-point, with explanatory notes:

• The entire definition of what a Sniper Rifle actually is. Qwasty seems to feel a sniper rifle is "a rifle used by snipers"- which is a very simplistic defintion, and which crosses over into things I feel are more appropriately called Assassination Weapons (or, as Deon Steyn says, anything else that might be used by a Sniper). We're not arguing the definition of a Sniper (as a description or profession), but the popular defintion of a Sniper Rifle is "an accurised, specialist, or modified rifle with a bipod and telescopic sights". Yes, I realise this does cover a large number of "conventional" guns- but the intro to the article says much the same thing. Sniper Rifles don't necessarily have capabilities that are "quite different from other small arms"- they're capable of putting a bullet into an exact spot from great distance, but Weatherby guarantee their rifles will do the same thing out of the box too-- hence, I think we need to add a "Military or Police" clause to differentiate the Accuracy International AWM (a true Sniper Rifle) from a scoped & bipod-mounted Weatherby Vanguard (a rifle which may be used by a Sniper, but is not a Sniper Rifle in and of itself).

Furthermore, you make extensive mention of the "stealth" requirements for Sniper Rifles, but I'm not aware of any standard-issue centrefire Sniper Rifle that is fitted with a Silencer as-issued- which you'd think would be highly necessary for a "stealth" mission.

• The usage of the world "stealth"- and the general tone of the article- comes across as being very much aimed at the "1337 CounterStrike p14y4" demographic. Also, comments like "Engagement Range" seem to be US Military Buzzwords- something like "Effective Range" would convey the same meaning, without necessarily sounding like it came straight from R. Lee Ermey or the PR Department of the USMC.

• The article states that "Nothing is of more importance in a sniper rifle than the selection of a caliber", yet Qwasty has made frequent mention that "Stealth" is the most important requirement.

• The constant editing, especially by Qwasty. We're not trying to take your article away, but really, every time I check this article you've made some other change or undone something that has been added by someone else- it's very confusing and off-putting.

• The article still feels like it should be entitled Sniper Rifles & Tactics Of The US Marine Corps- there's no mention of, say, the British Army (or the SAS), the French Foreign Legion, the Australian Defence Forces... you get the idea. Actually, a list of "Sniper Rifles By Country" (listing some of the major Military/Police forces in a few countries and the Sniper Rifles they use) would go a long way towards improving readability- especially since it's the sort of thing people would expect to find in an article on Sniper Rifles.

I must say, however, that the MOA section is excellent, especially with the diagrams explaining the concept!

Anyway, those are my major concerns, as they stand at the moment. So yes, I'd like to be involved in the process, if possible. --Commander Zulu 07:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some of my concerns with this article:

1. It exceeds "good size" see Wikipedia:Article size
2. Vague introductory definition including terms "stealth" and "selective engagement of specific targets" supported by one only editor Qwasty.
3. Scope: it attemps to describe all weapons possibly used by snipers instead of only a specific type of rifle (which happens to share the same name).
4. Editor Qwasty has stated aim counter to NPOV: One thing that I should try to impress upon you is my point of view that motivates me to steer this article away from labeling "sniper rifles" as a unique class of rifle. Firstly, gun control advocates will read this, and they want to know what types for rifles to try to ban. (see discussion diff [6])
5. Repeated attempts at re-ordering "distinguishing features" section, but moving "telescopic sight" down the list when it is clearly almost the only distinguishing feature common to all these rifles.
6. Incorrect cite (relating to .25 MOA) does not support claim and could be considered advertising. [7]
7. Dubious category of anti-personnel inconsistent with other sources. Any small arm is assumed to be for "anti-personnel" use, unless stated otherwise.
8. Action section contains unsubstantianed (and clearly false) statement: In military usage, bolt-actions are used almost exclusively. Which ignores the entire (former) communist block countries and large parts of non-communist europe; France (FRF2), Norway etc.
9. Accurizing section repeats too much of main article on the topic, accurizing (now also including link to commercial manufacturer Tactical Operations)
10. Capabilities section is repetative, lacking in citations (ranges of various calibres and too general (several pages cover this topic including: accurizing, minute of arc, external ballistics, ballistics, terminal ballistics, firearm and rifle).

Deon Steyn 08:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's my responses to both of your complaints, in no particular order:

• ...the popular defintion of a Sniper Rifle is "an accurised, specialist, or modified rifle with a bipod and telescopic sights". - Commander Zulu

This article is about sniper rifles. You should start another article that covers your preferred area - the topic of sniper rifles in pop culture. Call it something like Sniper rifle (entertainment) or whatever. Or, probably an even better idea is to just make a section in sniper rifle called "Sniper rifles in entertainment and media".

• I think we need to add a "Military or Police" clause to differentiate the Accuracy International AWM (a true Sniper Rifle) from a scoped & bipod-mounted Weatherby Vanguard - Commander Zulu

What exactly is a true sniper rifle? How is the AWM a "true sniper rifle"? I doubt you can articulate the answer to this, so I'll do it for you. There is no defining feature of the AWM that unequivocally identifies it as a sniper rifle. It's just another rifle used for sniping. Sure, it's big, heavy, and really expensive. It also happens to meet the requirements of a few professional snipers. A lot of rifles can do what the AWM does, and in fact, a lot of them can do it better for nearly half the money. I know of african game hunters who think it's the ideal rifle for shooting wildebeest and hippos. In short, the AWM is a rifle. Snipers sometimes use it. Big whoop.

• you make extensive mention of the "stealth" requirements for Sniper Rifles, but I'm not aware of any standard-issue centrefire Sniper Rifle that is fitted with a Silencer as-issued- which you'd think would be highly necessary for a "stealth" mission. - Commander Zulu

Suppressors are not required for stealth. Ask any veteran sniper. Most of them have not used suppressors and they still escaped undetected from a lot of people wanting to kill them. As a point of fact, suppressors are usually used by police, and only very rarely by military (they're too heavy, they fill up with rain and mud, and they steam when used in the wet weather). When this topic is covered in the suppressor section, I'll add a quote by Carlos Hathcock where, when asked why he doesn't like to use a suppressor, he said something to the effect of "Distance is my silencer". I think that quote can be found in one of Plaster's books.

• The usage of the world "stealth"- and the general tone of the article- comes across as being very much aimed at the "1337 CounterStrike p14y4" demographic. - Commander Zulu

You always lose me when you start talking about computer games and ninjas. I don't play computer games, do you? About the word "stealth": the proper phrase should be "from a concealed position". It was changed to "stealth" as a compromise. I feel it is not better than "from a concealed position", but I accept it for now.

• comments like "Engagement Range" seem to be US Military Buzzwords- something like "Effective Range" would convey the same meaning, without necessarily sounding like it came straight from R. Lee Ermey or the PR Department of the USMC - Commander Zulu

Do you know the meaning of those two phrases? They have completely different meanings. They're not buzzwords, they describe two different circumstances. Let me explain: The "Effective Range" is the range something COULD be done. The "Engagement Range" is the range that something is ACTUALLY done. I don't know exactly where those phrases are used though, so maybe you've found a spot where they're not appropriate.

• The article states that "Nothing is of more importance in a sniper rifle than the selection of a caliber", yet Qwasty has made frequent mention that "Stealth" is the most important requirement. - Commander Zulu

You're talking about two different contexts in the article. Stealth is important in regard to how a rifle is used. Caliber is important in regard to what a rifle is used FOR. Two different areas, in two widely seperated sections of the article. However, caliber selection does affect stealth. Where greater stealth is needed, different calibers are used. I don't think this issue presents as a contradiction anywhere in the article.

• The constant editing, especially by Qwasty. - Commander Zulu

Not sure what you expect for an incomplete article. Pardon me for putting in the time and effort. I have had a lot of free time the last couple of weeks to work on this. Also consider the fact the article barely changed during the last year. Of the long list of cites we have, nearly all of them are from me. You can't complain about tons of edits if it's producing a scholarly article. I honestly don't see how this is a problem.

• The article still feels like it should be entitled Sniper Rifles & Tactics Of The US Marine Corps- there's no mention of, say, the British Army (or the SAS), the French Foreign Legion, the Australian Defence Forces... you get the idea. - Commander Zulu

I agree, but it is improving. Just a little while ago someone put in a nice little list of worldwide sniper rifles in the anti-personnel section, with a bit of explanatory information to go with it.

• I must say, however, that the MOA section is excellent, especially with the diagrams explaining the concept! - Commander Zulu

Thank you very much! Those are rare positive words. I would like to add that the information in that section is unique - There's nowhere else on the internet where you can find all that information in one place, with descriptions and diagrams that show how the whole concept works. Most people think they understand MOA, and it hurts to see some author totally mangle it simply because they only understand part of it, not the whole thing.

• So yes, I'd like to be involved in the process, if possible. - Commander Zulu

I liked your edits on the history section. I have mountains of information for the other sections of this article that I haven't had time to enter in yet, since it seems that for every minute I spend writing, I spend 6 more arguing with Deon. If you have any questions on how to approach an article section, just ask, I'm sort of an encyclopedia all by myself and I can give you whatever you need.

• It exceeds "good size" see Wikipedia:Article size - Deon Steyn

The short answer is, no it doesn't. The long answer is that the 32kb limit is no longer a limit and can safely be ignored. Additionally, the guideline is for readability and includes only prose. As an experiment I just took the entire text of the article, deleted all the non-prose, and checked the size. It's only 19.5kb in total so far.

• Vague introductory definition including terms "stealth" and "selective engagement of specific targets" supported by one only editor - Deon Steyn

1 editor, 100 dictionaries, 1 million snipers, and my revert button. We can discuss exact phrasing if you like, but I will not allow you to remove "sniper" from "sniper rifle". That would open the scope to include all manner of rifles. End of discussion.

• Scope: it attemps to describe all weapons possibly used by snipers instead of only a specific type of rifle (which happens to share the same name). - Deon Steyn

This complaint is in opposition to your other one above. The article is about sniper rifles (all of them), that is the scope. Narrowing the scope would unjustifiably eliminate some types sniper rifles. End of discussion.

• Editor Qwasty has stated aim counter to NPOV - Deon Steyn

I'm not going to address this again. It has nothing to do with specifics of the article, and everything to do with your personal issues with me. Drop it.

• Repeated attempts at re-ordering "distinguishing features" section, but moving "telescopic sight" down the list when it is clearly almost the only distinguishing feature common to all these rifles. - Deon Steyn

Some sniper rifles, both historical and modern, do not have telescopic sights, and telescopic sights are not a prerequisite in any definition of "sniper" or "sniper rifle". The perfect example is the modern usage of night vision sights rather than telescopic sights. The night vision sights in the USA are starting to have some telescopic features, but not all of them, and for most of the last 20 years 1x to 1.5x was not uncommon. Furthermore, it is an accessory, albeit an important one, and justifiably near the bottom of the rifle mechanical features list, just above the "accessories" subsection.

• Incorrect cite (relating to .25 MOA) does not support claim and could be considered advertising. - Deon Steyn

Wrong. Read the cite. If you have a better cite, stop repeating this issue and do something with it. Either way, I have had no luck finding any other cites, so don't bring this up again unless you have something more to offer than unfounded whining.

• Dubious category of anti-personnel inconsistent with other sources. Any small arm is assumed to be for "anti-personnel" use, unless stated otherwise. - Deon Steyn

Completely wrong. You have no place editing small arms articles when you are so badly uninformed, you should feel embarrassed. Small arms are used for air to air, air to ground, ground to air, amongst MANY other things. Sniper rifles in particular are used for both personnel and materiel. End of discussion.

• Action section contains unsubstantianed (and clearly false) statement: In military usage, bolt-actions are used almost exclusively. Which ignores the entire (former) communist block countries and large parts of non-communist europe; France (FRF2), Norway etc. - Deon Steyn

I'm looking for a cite for this, even though it becomes obvious when you observe the number of bolt action sniper rifle models in production versus the number of semi-automatic sniper rifle models - you can probably count the semi-autos on your fingers (list of sniper rifles). The huge advantages of bolt actions, not the least of which is low cost, essentially guarantee that they will be employed in vastly larger numbers.

• Accurizing section repeats too much of main article on the topic, accurizing (now also including link to commercial manufacturer Tactical Operations) - Deon Steyn

Wow, this is amazing, you're wrong again. There is no link to any rifle manufacturers in that section. I didn't write the accurizing section text, I just moved it there from the other sections, and I'm not sure what to do with it yet. I was thinking of either renaming it or moving it to accurizing.

• Capabilities section is repetative, lacking in citations - Deon Steyn

WRONG AGAIN. I count THIRTEEN cites in that section alone, one of which is YOURS. Sad.

• [Capabilities section is lacking in citations for] ranges of various calibres - Deon Steyn

Stop complaining and add a few. I didn't bother to add those cites since they're so common anybody can find them, and I prefer to focus on the hard stuff that nobody else is likely to find. If you need help, ask, I can point you in the right direction.

• several pages cover this [Capabilities section] topic including: accurizing, minute of arc, external ballistics, ballistics, terminal ballistics, firearm and rifle. - Deon Steyn

Only the sniper rifle page talks about it as it uniquely applies to sniper rifles. As a matter of fact, as of right now, the capabilities section is the only place in the world where you can find an overview like that, and now it's near the top of the search results list on google whereas before, it never came up. Commander Zulu liked how informative that section is, and I'm sure a lot of other people do too. You made several good edits to that section, including adding one excellent difficult-to-find cite, and you only decided you didn't like the section after a heated exchange with me here on the talk page. I suspect you don't like it simply because I was the one who wrote it.

- Qwasty

---

To respond to your responsess:

What exactly is a true sniper rifle? How is the AWM a "true sniper rifle"? I doubt you can articulate the answer to this, so I'll do it for you. There is no defining feature of the AWM that unequivocally identifies it as a sniper rifle. It's just another rifle used for sniping. Sure, it's big, heavy, and really expensive. It also happens to meet the requirements of a few professional snipers. A lot of rifles can do what the AWM does, and in fact, a lot of them can do it better for nearly half the money. I know of african game hunters who think it's the ideal rifle for shooting wildebeest and hippos. In short, the AWM is a rifle. Snipers sometimes use it. Big whoop.

The AWM is a "true sniper rifle" in the sense that it has been exclusively designed for Military & Police marksman (sniper) use. It's completely impractical for hunting as most people practice it- and even if Big Game Hunters in Africa use it, it wasn't intended as such when it was designed, and the ammunition is too expensive for Target Shooting.

I could also say your arguments re: ".22 Sniper Rifles" also merit a "Big Whoop" comment- they're Ruger 10/22s with silencers on them. Nothing special about them beyond that- yet anyone in the US who pays the necessary fees and passes the background check can own one as well. I certainly don't know anyone who would consider a silenced Ruger 10/22 a "Sniper Rifle", even if it was scoped and fitted with a bipod

Suppressors are not required for stealth. Ask any veteran sniper. Most of them have not used suppressors and they still escaped undetected from a lot of people wanting to kill them. As a point of fact, suppressors are usually used by police, and only very rarely by military (they're too heavy, they fill up with rain and mud, and they steam when used in the wet weather). When this topic is covered in the suppressor section, I'll add a quote by Carlos Hathcock where, when asked why he doesn't like to use a suppressor, he said something to the effect of "Distance is my silencer". I think that quote can be found in one of Plaster's books.

If you're so far away from your target that they can't hear the gunshot, the concept of "stealth" becomes a moot point, IMO. The sound of a fullbore rifle shot- say, a .308 Winchester- carries for quite some distance.

You always lose me when you start talking about computer games and ninjas. I don't play computer games, do you? About the word "stealth": the proper phrase should be "from a concealed position". It was changed to "stealth" as a compromise. I feel it is not better than "from a concealed position", but I accept it for now.

I do indeed play computer games- not nearly as much as I used to, but enough to be aware of what's out there. What part of the Ninja and Computer Game reference thing are you have trouble with? Perhaps if you did play computer games, you might have a better understanding of where I'm coming from with this. How about we change "Stealth" to "Operational Requirements"? conveys the same image, without being excessively specific, or loaded with negative connotations.

Do you know the meaning of those two phrases? They have completely different meanings. They're not buzzwords, they describe two different circumstances. Let me explain: The "Effective Range" is the range something COULD be done. The "Engagement Range" is the range that something is ACTUALLY done. I don't know exactly where those phrases are used though, so maybe you've found a spot where they're not appropriate.

I'm not in the military, but my understanding (from an academic and common usage perspective) is tha "Effective Range" is the range at which a firearm will be effective, and "Engagement Range" is the range at which a target will be engaged. Since no marksman of any standing is going to try and engage a target beyond the Effective Range, then I'd argue that Effective Range and Engagement Range are synoymns. After all, if you can't guarantee that the shot will go where it's supposed to, then it's not going to be effective- which makes "Engagement Range" a Military Buzzword.

Not sure what you expect for an incomplete article. Pardon me for putting in the time and effort. I have had a lot of free time the last couple of weeks to work on this. Also consider the fact the article barely changed during the last year. Of the long list of cites we have, nearly all of them are from me. You can't complain about tons of edits if it's producing a scholarly article. I honestly don't see how this is a problem.

It's just that when you look at the "history" for the main article, it's had a zillion edits in the space of an hour or so, and the work of other editors is getting drowned out in your editing- it's hard to tell, at first glace, what parts of the article are your work, and what is contributions from other editors. --Commander Zulu 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---

My (Deon) responses to Qwasty's response

• Accuracy International Arctic Warfare

It is funny to see the article stating (under design): The AW is almost unique in being a purpose-designed sniper rifle, rather than an accurized version of an existing, general-purpose rifle. It then goes on to describe a host of features designed specifically to cater for sniping (and serves with many armies as such) so it is quite baffling how you (Qwasty) can argue that it is not.

So it is clearly a sniper rifle

• Article size, Qwasty's response was:

As an experiment I just took the entire text of the article, deleted all the non-prose, and checked the size. It's only 19.5kb in total so far

Everything counts towards the article size and since I still get the warning when I edit, I will assume it's still a concern to Wikipedia.

• View counter to NPOV, you response: I'm not going to address this again.

In my opinion you have yet to address this properly.

• Telescopic sights

What would be the most different thing found on most sniper rifles then? What types of small arms have large telescopic sights? In military or police service the answer has to be none, therefore the presence of such a device would almost certainly indicate that you are dealing with a sniper rifle and as such it would be the single most distinguishing feature common to most sniper rifles.

Many hunting rifles have larger telescopic sights than the 40mm mentioned in the article, up to 55mm, which has about as large an exit pupil as is feasible for dim-light use. — DAGwyn 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• .25 MOA (Tactical Operations)

It's simple, the reference you gave (currently #12) is for a commercial website and NOWHERE on the site do they make the guarantee you speak of, how do you explain this?

• anti-personnel

I have never heard of an "anti-personnel assault rifle" or an "anti personnel shotgun". And I reckon my understanding of small arms is pretty much in line with the wikipedia entry and Websters (a handheld firearm (as a handgun or shoulder arm) -- usually used in plural). The fact is that it is redundant to describe these rifles and handguns as "anti-personnel" and therefore no one ever does, except you of course.

• accurizing / Tactical Operations

I said that the article for accurizing now also contains a link to this commercial site. You can find it in the "external links" section, but you should know that, because you added it. So exactly which part of my statement was wrong?

• capabilities lacking citations

There may be many citations, but there are still many claims lacking any reference or citation.

• capabilities - repetitive, Qwasty's response included:

Only the sniper rifle page talks about it as it uniquely applies to sniper rifles

Facts and concepts don't change, MOA is MOA and external ballistics is external ballistics. We only need a concise point of fact view as it relates to sniper rifles.

I suspect you don't like it simply because I was the one who wrote it.

I have some reservations, regardless of who wrote it, because I think it could be simplified, because it seems as if these sections go out of their way to show that sniper rifles aren't really that special by saying they don't have to be that accurate or machines guns have even greater effective ranges (an unfair comparison in my opinion).

In summary I also have to say that you don't make the collaborative editing process easy and I'm not the only editor to remark on this. I will read up on the proper options for "dispute resolution" and report back here, because we are clearly only going in circles. In the mean time can everyone have a look at my new ideas on the opening definition, I think it will go along way to addressing our contrary view points... obviously the best and easiest solutions for all concerned (and the article) would be if we could work with each other and not against. Deon Steyn 09:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A New Hope (intro)

What about the following introduction to clear up the confusion:

Sniper rifle is a misnomer for rifles adapted or purpose-built for use by military and law enforcement sharpshooters, not only snipers and as such could have been called sharpshooting rifles. It fulfils requirements of accurate placement of single shots at ranges exceeding other military or law enforcement small arms (such as assault rifles, submachine guns or handguns).

Deon Steyn 08:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion:

The name Sniper Rifle is a term applied to a wide range of rifles specifically designed or adapted for Military or Law Enforcement use, ensuring accurate placement of shots at ranges typically exceeding those of other small arms. A typical Sniper Rifle will be equipped with a Telescopic Sight (and often a Bipod), chambered for a centrefire cartridge such as .308 Winchester or 7.62x54R, and feature a pistol-grip or thumb-hole stock for ease of firing from a variety of positions.

--Commander Zulu 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good! I would perhaps remove the reference to bipods (maybe too modern or specific), but that is not serious. My suggestion set out to focus on the ambiguity of the role versus the rifle (which caused us so much trouble up to now), perhaps it can be shortened and tacked on to a paragraph like yours (maybe also dissociating the term from loose/inappropriate media usage?). Something of the form The term is often used differently/inappropriately (in/by the media) to describe any type of firearm used ....... Deon Steyn 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How about:

The name Sniper Rifle is a term applied to a wide range of rifles specifically designed or adapted for Military or Law Enforcement use, ensuring accurate placement of shots at ranges typically exceeding those of other small arms. A typical Sniper Rifle will be equipped with a Telescopic Sight (and often a Bipod), chambered for a centrefire cartridge such as .308 Winchester or 7.62x54R, and feature a pistol-grip or thumb-hole stock for ease of firing from a variety of positions. The term is often used in the media to describe any type of accurised firearm fitted with a telescopic sight and employed against human targets, in order to differentiate them from civilian hunting rifles and sporting arms. --Commander Zulu 11:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would try and generalize the middle even further with something like: "A typical example will be equiped with a telescopic sight and chambered for a military centrefire rifle cartridges"... this would include more historical examples (without thumbhole stocks/bipods) and calibres (5.56 / .50 cal).

The media sentence is tricky. I think we should distance the term from the loose association to nutters taking potshots. What about: "The term is often loosely used by media for any firearm used in criminal shootings from any (great?) distance" --Deon Steyn 12:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion for the middle section, but I'd add another minor change, so it reads a typical example will be accurised, fitted with a telescopic sight, and chambered for a military centrefire cartridge. The WWII Sniper Rifles generally were accurised- the SMLE Mk III* (HT) had a heavy barrel and cheek-rest, the Mosin-Nagant M91/30 PU had a bent bolt and some work done to the trigger, the Springfield M1903A4 had a cheek-rest and sometimes a flash hider... you get the idea.

I chose the wording for the media section very carefully to include both unstable loners taking potshots from the top of a clock tower/people attempting to assassinate heads of government or VIPs, AND legitimate military/law enforcement use. It's a difficult concept to phrase suitably, since the reality is that the "popular" image of a Sniper Rifle is a tricked out, scoped rifle being used to knock off the El Presidente of a small Banana Republic, and it would be wrong to pretend that sniper rifles are never used for that sort of thing.--Commander Zulu 12:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Accurized is perhaps too specific (some rifles are purpose built and start off accurate?) and it – along with other mods – could be covered by the first sentence's "adapted"? I see what you mean now with the media sentence, I was worried about cases like where the nutters don't use sniper rifles (Beltway sniper attacks), but they call anything and everything a in site a sniper rifle just because the criminal took shots from a distance. Deon Steyn 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that simply saying "A typical example will be fitted with a telescopic sight and chambered in a military centrefire cartridge" doesn't really differentiate a Sniper Rifle from, say, a scoped Weatherby Vanguard. How about: "A typical example will be adapted for the highest possible levels of accuracy, fitted with a telescopic sight, and chambered for a military centrefire cartridge", giving us an intro of:

"The name Sniper Rifle is a term applied to a wide range of rifles specifically designed or adapted for Military or Law Enforcement use, ensuring accurate placement of shots at ranges typically exceeding those of other small arms. A typical Sniper Rifle will be adapted for the highest possible levels of accuracy, fitted with a telescopic sight, and chambered for a military centrefire cartridge. The term is often used in the media to describe any type of accurised firearm fitted with a telescopic sight and employed against human targets, in order to differentiate them from civilian hunting rifles and sporting arms." --Commander Zulu 13:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Very good intro, it's definitely improving. Keep it up! —Squalla 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"The name" isn't really necessary, it just makes the intro more waffly. Mushin^talk 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, lookin' good. I think we can also get away with lopping off the last part of "the media sentence" in order to differentiate them from civilian hunting rifles and sporting arms, becuase I don't think that is what the media's concern, they just use the term to sensationalize some stories. So we would have: The term is often used in the media to describe any type of accurised firearm fitted with a telescopic sight and employed against human targets. We could even lose "with a telescopic site", because I don't think the media even cares about that?: The term is often used in the media to describe any type of accurised firearm employed against human targets? We would then be left with:

"Sniper Rifle is a term applied to a wide range of rifles specifically designed or adapted for Military or Law Enforcement use, ensuring accurate placement of shots at ranges typically exceeding those of other small arms. A typical Sniper Rifle will be adapted for the highest possible levels of accuracy, fitted with a telescopic sight, and chambered for a military centrefire cartridge. The term is often used in the media to describe any type of accurised firearm employed against human targets."

...lean and mean ;-) Deon Steyn 06:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it really needs the "telescopic sight" mention in the "Media" Section- as I've said repeatedly, I'm not aware of anything even approaching the definition of "Sniper Rifle" as used in the Media that isn't fitted with one. --Commander Zulu 07:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of news media, but I wouldn't mind too much either way. I say we make this the new intro then (with scope added to media/pop culture sentence)? What do the others think?

--Deon Steyn 08:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 [8] 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)

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): [9]. 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)

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)

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)

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))