Talk:Heckler & Koch PSG1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Bullet casing flying out[edit]

"[...] the bullet casing is ejected with substantial force, reportedly enough to throw it several meters sideways. While this is generally not an issue law enforcement snipers, it greatly compromises the military use of the rifle."

If I understand correctly, the "empty bullet", or the bottom part of the unshot bullet flies out fast. Why does that compromise the military use? Several meters doesn't sound like much either. Is the article trying to say that the sideways recyle is too substantial for multiple shots at the same target or target area? Please elaborate. —kooo July 2, 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Is it possible that the metallic glint of the casing could give away the position of a military sniper? I've heard that's a reason why the military favors bolt action rifles--the casing can be ejected when the sniper feels it is most safe to do so.--Daveswagon 3 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

Perhaps. The bullet casing is also extremely hot, which could have an effect in a dry forest or so. I still wonder what the original author means. —kooo July 3, 2005 10:31 (UTC)

Thats a good point, and (as Kooo was good enough to guess/contact me) I did write this. What I was talking about was the empty bullet casing (or empty shell), being ejected (after firing) with force enough to throw it a good distance, at least substantially longer then regular semi-auto precision rifles. Herein lies the problem with the statment (that you have rightly questioned) - Although I remember quite positively reading that one (of a few) reason(s) the psg-1 was unsuitable for use by military snipers was the ejecting brass could give away the soldiers position. From memory, the article stated the brass was thrown 20 yards after firing, although because I can't find the reference, I couldn't go so far as to write something so specific on memory. Unfortunatly I can't confirm this (as I have never fired a psg-1, again unfortunatly) so I it's open to revision if you don't think this is substantial enough. Essjay-R 3 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

I must also add, aside from simply hurling bullet casings around I also can only guess why this would be a particular problem. Noise or movement I assumed, however why this is a problem when you've just fired a large rifle is anyones guess. Essjay-R 3 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

One thing that comes to my mind is also that when you push something with a force, it pushes back with a counter-force; therefore in this case the PSG1 would propably jump significantly outwards from the ejecting brass, or more significantly than with assault rifles or other guns. Military snipers might need to shoot more than once, police snipers probably count to "one shot, one downing" (I guess they would prefer not killing the target, but neutralizing it). If there are many targets, there would also be many police snipers, all counting to shoot at the same time. Ah oops, off-topic. Forgive me ;-) —kooo July 4, 2005 18:17 (UTC)
Who knows, even if it throws shell casings 20 yards sideways - I think price is the main limiting factor on military use of the psg-1. That's what will (or has) killed the lockheed F-22, so even with a superior product the economics of such devices rules their use. Post me a message if you happen to read anything to support the shell throwing idea though. Essjay-R 5 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
NEWSFLASH! (I can't believe we didn't check this sooner) This article on Mel's Sniper central (on of the external links on this page) confirms that a psg-1 will throw ejected brass a distance of 10 metres after each shot. It also cites the possibility of giving away a snipers location as the primary reason this would be a problem. Although not definate proof, it's at least a reference. I'll update the wiki page now. Essjay-R 5 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Great, case solved :-) —kooo July 5, 2005 18:43 (UTC)

i don't see any issue here

a case catcher can be applied to the weapon -> problem solved --Kehool (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game References[edit]

I believe that besides Metal Gear Solid, the "sniper" light gun featured in the Silent Scope series are at least based on the PSG-1.

Is "Video Game References" really something we want into an encyclopedia article? —kooo 11:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly...we dont want the PSG article to turn into a video game article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.189.245 (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction references[edit]

I have moved the list of references to films/tv/video games to a new pages and replaced the section with a link to it. This is to keep it the article clean and uniform with other similar articles and List of firearms in video games pages. (see Heckler & Koch MP5 / Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture or MAC-10 / MAC-10 in popular culture) for similar ...in popular culture pages) and also to help with inclusion into the List of firearms in filmsDeon Steyn 09:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


PSG/90[edit]

Why is the PSG/90 under "See also"? Aside from the small similarities in the abbreviations and names, does these rifles even have anything to do with eachother? 213.64.18.236 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The PSG/90 is a bolt-action rifle made by Accuracy International for the Sweden military. The PSG-1 is semi-automatic. The only thing that they have in common is that they are both "sniper" rifles that fire the 7.62mm cartridge.--Davidwiz 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- AHEM. Correction to your correction. The standard cartridges for the AWM (or PSG90) is the .338 Lapua Magnum! The only other cartradegs it uses is 7mm Remington Magnum and .300 Win. Mag. ---

I believe it was supposed to be Heckler & Koch MSG-90 but a small mistake was made. I'll make the change.--LWF 18:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind.--LWF 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging MSG-90 into this article[edit]

I would like to propose that the article Heckler & Koch MSG-90 be merged into this article per WP:GUNS#Variants, as there is not enough difference in design, or enough history to justify having a separate article.--LWF (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough history!?!?! I started the original article on the MSG-90. I do not know where to begin.

Stick to talking and wrting about the civilian or 'sport' version of these weapons.

These weapons were developed for professional military usage. One of the reasons why I no longer edit the page, is this constant changing of the page on a regular basis by the 'sports'.

I am not a 'sport', nor is what I do a 'sport'.

The G3 should be the main article.

Both PSG1 and MSG-90 are derived from the G3, they should be merged under this heading.

The PSG1 is an expensive, percisely machined (tolerance .001) and sensitive device (because of the tolerance), supposedly developed for the snipers role, it was too prone to malfunctions in harsh environments and too expensive for marketing.

The MSG-90 is the 'insensitive' (still at .001 tolerance) military version of the G3 (or G3A4ZF), sharing a common father with the PSG1, one having nothing to do with the other.

Drop the word cheaper...

Urban Legegnd: "(The PSG1) is said to have been developed in response to the Munich Massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSG HT Simpson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I doubt you started the original article, seeing as how that was Joffeloff, who is still active on Wikipedia. Add to that the fact that no history or design information would be lost in a merge, and I don't see why not to merge, unless it can be shown that the MSG-90 was not based off of the PSG-1.--LWF (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree — Merge. Even the official company information states that it is a variant of the original PSG-1. --09:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deon Steyn (talk • contribs)
  • Agree - Separately the articles are lacking. Koalorka (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the official materials state that it is a variant then I will go ahead with the merge, since this clearly falls under WP:GUNS#Variants.--LWF (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PSG-1 vs. AW/PSG-90[edit]

Which would be more accurate? According to this article, the PSG-1 is much more expensive, and in my my world, more expensive, more better. Thecutnut (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


forsakenex - Sept 24, 2008 6:21 PM In this case, the more expensive is not the best. The Arctic Warfare Magnum is the better gun. It is built to perform in some of the most extreme conditions on Earth due to it's slightly modified bolt which will never freeze if oil on the bolt greases up. It has a nicer stock, (I think) which is very comfortable. It can even be bought by the public without any sort of liscense, from tacproshootingcenter.com. You can buy it in 4 calibers, .243; .308; 300 Win. Mag; and the standard .338 Lapua Magnum. I would recommend something besides the .308 since the military is thinking of dropping it. The .243 could perform and group twice as better as the .308 at 800 yards. And you cannot buy a PSG-1 for civilian use. And the PSG-1 was originally a counter-terrorism weapon, made for medium range accurate shots in a urban enviorment. The AW just stands up better in the long range shooting, especially with the .338 LM, where as the PSG-1 is stuck with the 7.62 (.308).


as the PSG-90 is a bolt action rifle and the PSG1 is semi automatic the AW wins in the accuracy department

the PSG1 has other obvious advantages tho

to say the PSG-90 is better simply based on accuracy is biased --Kehool (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Casing[edit]

How can everybody here be calling cartridge casings bullet casings? I believe in the first sentence of the bullet article tht a bullet is not a catridge. Add to that the fact that the article on bullets was linked in the PSG1 article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.79.53 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Probably, it's sad how little people know about firearms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.189.245 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine PSG-1[edit]

The Philippines does operate PSG-1s if u want heres a Photo to prove it[1]. Notice that 1 of the soldiers has a PSG-1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.130.249 (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the PSG1 does not include a mounted bipod like that and the pistol grip is different. That's an MSG-90. I'll note it as such. Ominae (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try telling that to Wikipedia user Edward Sandsting. You can contact him on the Philippine Army discussion page or the Philippine Air Force Discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.81 (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


LOL Smart one. That's an MSG-90. And the wood stock gun is an M14. And the guy behind the M14 guy is using an Uzi SMG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.189.245 (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging MSG-90 into this article[edit]

Just found today that there is another article about the Heckler & Koch MSG-90 that escaped our notice when we merged it into this article. This one is just titled MSG-90, and once again I propose that it be merged into this article, per WP:GUNS#Variants.--LWF (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Koalorka (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What price...?[edit]

Removed following (at best, needs sourcing - are prices encyclopedic?):

($9,000 USD per rifle)

--Technopat (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 dollars USD (1996) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HK_Magazine-_The_Sentinel_(1996).jpg Tomketchum (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect translation of "Präzisionsschützengewehr"[edit]

The article offers "precision protection rifle" as the translation for "the compound word Präzisionsschützengewehr". In this context "schützen" is the plural form of the noun "Schütze" (rifleman or marksman) not as the verb Schützen (To protect). I would suggest changing the translation to "precision marksman rifle" or similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.90.28 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GSG 9[edit]

The article states that the German elite counter terrorist unit GSG 9 would not use the PSG1. I have a book about the GSG9 and there are pictures of GSG 9 snipers using the PSG1... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.233.5 (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course the GSG 9 uses PSG-1 A1 and DSR-50 -- best sniper rifles of the world! --91.65.19.241 (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AMSAA technical report[edit]

when using lines like this: "In tests conducted by the United States Army Infantry Board in 1982, the PSG1, referred to as a "semi-automatic, delayed-blowback operated weapon used by a foreign Special Forces organization""

please make sure the sources given actually support it.

i found no mention of the PSG1 in said report so unless there's a source that states the rifle mentioned is in fact the PSG1 this statement is not vindicable Kehool (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MSG-90SDN.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:MSG-90SDN.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goverment Import Ban[edit]

As a result of the goverment import ban, no more PSG-1 rifles are being imported into the US for civilian sales. I've wondered: If the rifle cannot be imported, why didn't Heckler & Koch produce rifles in the US for civilian sales? 175.141.203.145 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Heckler & Koch PSG1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heckler & Koch PSG1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolite?[edit]

Under Denmark why would the MSG90 be considered obsolite? "Danish special forces have in a few public events in the 1990s been photographed with MSG90 versions but they are now obsolete." 24.119.213.102 (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC) 24.119.213.102 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


please add sri lanka to users[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka_Army#Infantry_weapons — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPedanticReally (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Users[edit]

No mention of West Germany/Germany? Germans did not use it? Chwyatt (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heckler_%26_Koch_PSG1&oldid=1207605620"