Talk:Sniper rifle

message: 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)
replies: text: Better now, six years later? And what is 'MOA' anyway? -- AstroU (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Minute of arc, this is a size that measure the rifle's accuracy. The lower MOA - the more accurate the rifle is. MathKnight  20:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: MOA

message: 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)
thread_title: Military Pun

message: It isn't necessary to go on at such length about the general concept of ballistics and firearms here. We're in danger of losing focus. The section is constantly fluctuating at the moment, but I'd appreciate it if the general list of things which can affect range were left out of the final cut. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section in question. This article does not need to fully discuss the concept of long-range shooting in order to describe the subject adequately. Chris Cunningham 11:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I had trimmed it substantially, but I see it was restored without edit comment by Francis Flinch. The details listed here are either blatantly obvious or absurd (variations in gravity, coriolis effect etc.), they do not belong to this article which already far exceeds the guidelines on size (Wikipedia:Article size). --Deon Steyn 11:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I wanted to wait until editing had calmed down a bit. A considerable amount of general information on ballistics, marksmanship and weaponry has crept into what used to be a pretty tight article, but the information is at least solid and well-written. Editing this down should be manageable. Chris Cunningham 13:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already had moved the external ballistic parts to the External ballistics article, since they have not particularly much to do with sniper rifles. The “absurd” parts are however factious. The (supersonic-transonic-subsonic) behaviour of projectiles like bullets and the factors that affect their flight are often counterintuitive. It is not unusual that people prefer to cling to their intuitive beliefs instead of believing, for them hard to understand, scientific facts. When shooting long range (1600+ m / 1+ mile) or beyond the 90 % supersonic range of a projectile with the accompanying long flight times, normally insignificant parameters and effects come into play. If an accurate high powered rifle is used within 533 m / 0.333 mile these small effects are camouflaged by the unavoidable imperfections of the rifle system. Francis Flinch 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true, but we also have a separate article for sniper which would be a better place to discuss these considerations. All this article should do is explain how specialist sniper rifles compensate for these problems. Chris Cunningham 08:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary expansion of "Maximum range" section 

message: We have a lot of maximum effective ranges listed, but don't describe the criteria for such an assessment. What IS the criteria being used? Is it ft/lbs at given range? Supersonic at given range? Accurate at given range? All of the above? Something else? Arthurrh 18:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by to be corrected here but I think it was accuracy.  Geoff B 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think most of these figures are simply in concert with the claims made by military organizations and materiel manufacturers. In my Accuracy International (AI) brochure I could for instance not find anything conflicting with the mentioned figures. AI did point out that maximum range depends on rifle system, ammunition, environmental and operational conditions. The AI brochure is military orientated, so I guess they indicate maximum ranges with typical contemporary military sniper loads and military clientele expectations in mind. The problem with a pure ballistic approach is that modern military long range precision bullets are often designed to behave as well as possible during the transonic transition and tested for that in front of Doppler radars. Francis Flinch 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If we would choose an approach for getting an idea on the range potential of cartridges I would probably vote for V projectile = Mach 1 (340.3 m/s) under international standard atmosphere conditions (rho = 1.225 kg/m³) with the help of the Pesja method as “less bad for normal people accessible/verifiable assessment method”. Only if someone came along with actual Doppler radar data I would be inclined to thrust that information more (the results of those test are generally not made public). Even then I would rename the table to something like “approximate supersonic range for the given cartridge”, since it is V0 and drag behaviour dependant. Radar data also only applies exactly for the specific components tested (rifle system model A serial number X will produce slightly different results compared with rifle system model A serial number X+1). A rather elaborate but also complex calculator that could be helpful for this purpose that uses the Pesja ballistic model can be downloaded as a 30 days trail at http://www.precisionworkbench.com/. A manual with some nice information can also be downloaded there. A nasty problem will remain that the BC's we get from projectile manufacturers are not always 100% accurate/comparable (differing air densities and measuring/calculating procedures will make that you run the risk of comparing oranges with apples). Francis Flinch 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Velocity is to my mind the less bad criterion if you want to choose a criterion. You might win an award if you could find one or a combination of more external ballistic factors that would adequately predict and or describe terminal ballistic effects. Most people do not realize enough it is only the projectile that will ever interact with a target. This implies that the properties and velocity of the projectile (parts) and properties of the target (can also be a materiel target for a sniper bullet) are the only relevant factors. The projectiles total energy alone is only part of that equation. The first important factor when shooting game animals is shot placement, the second relevant factor is how the projectile (or its parts) interacts with the tissues it encounters before reaching V0 or (parts of it) exiting the animal. If you want to start to read more about the rather sinister science of the effects of rifle bullets on animals/humans I advise to start looking at the Martin Fackler article and here http://www.lima-wiederladetechnik.de/Zielwirkung/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html. Another intresting article is Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories: The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics. You will find out that this is a complex subject and a lot of theories around are based on urban legends. Also some types of bullets are not allowed by international treaties for anti personnel military use, though they are know to be very effective bullet types for hunting purposes. Francis Flinch 14:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Something like this?; The listed maximum ranges are mainly in concert with the claims made by military organizations and materiel manufacturers but not based on consistent or strictly scientific criteria. The problem is only the bullet interacts with the target (can also be a materiel target for a sniper bullet). This implies that the properties of the target, properties and velocity of the employed bullet (parts) and desired effect are the most relevant factors. Terminal ballistics and stopping power are complex subjects and a lot of theories around are based on urban legends. Francis Flinch 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum effective range criteria 

message: According to a military-inclined (read: going to fail in school) friend, 'Sniper' is actually an acronym — the last letter of which stands for 'rifle'. Can anybody confirm or reject this? And if so, add a section explaining this? Azrael# 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronym? 

message: How about a comparison chart of all the modern sniper rifles used by militaries today? To start (NATO)Accuracy International Arctic Warfare, Alex, M40,Barret Series, Accuracy International AS50,CheyTac Intervention etc... tons of info hereDreammaker182 (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparison chart? 

message: Could anyone provide an image and a short description please?--84.152.87.42 (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anti-Reflective Device]]? 

message: Article today on new sniper rifle being issued to US troops for Afghanistan XM2010.--Billymac00 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  XM2010 

message: I was hoping we had a source for the claim that 1 MOA corresponds to 69% in a 23.3cm circle at 800m. 23.3cm seems too precise, and the conversion was wrong since it's closer to 9 inches than to 8, and 800 m is not the same as 800 yards. I've changed it to my best guess as to what was intended, based on the "Comparison" graphic. Does anyone know what the numbers should really be?
Another possibility is that 23.3 cm at 800m is about the same angle as 8 in at 800 yd. Still, giving three significant figures then converting it to "about" one figure is sloppy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: From the edit log: "1 MOA at 800 m = 23.264 cm. MoA is an angular measurement, so the autoconversion works fine." (edit by ) Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy at 1 MOA 

message: A .308 or .300 mag with a scope, bolt action, heavy barrel and specialized cheekpiece? That could be any bone stock hunting rifle. Was this written by a firearms writer or a Call of Duty geek?
A sniper rifle is simply whatever rifle is in the hands of a trained sniper.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.87.110 (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A number of the "Distinguishing characteristics aren't remarkable 

message: Does a scope turn a standard rifle into a sniper rifle or does it not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjones0316 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is contradictory 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sniper rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110710205834/http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-PRF/MIL-PRF+(030000+-+79999)/MIL-PRF-32316_AMENDMENT-1_25025/ to http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-PRF/MIL-PRF+%28030000+-+79999%29/MIL-PRF-32316_AMENDMENT-1_25025/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added "also" to the second sentence where ranges are compared, so it is less likely to misread the 3:1 ratio (in accuracy) as applicable to the following comparison of effective ranges. Perhaps it wasn't a necessary edit, but I felt a sudden surge of boldness. ("...Whitworth's design outperformed the Enfield at a rate of about three to one. Also, the Whitworth rifle was able to hit the target at a range of 2,000 yards, whereas the Enfield could only manage it at a distance of 1,400 yards.") 80.98.114.70 (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  accuracy comparison 3:1, ALSO range ratio roughly 3:2 

message: *Lead: A sniper rifle is a man-portable, high precision, shoulder-fired rifle, for military or law enforcement use,...
*"Classification": Modern sniper rifles can be divided into two basic classes: military and law enforcement.
1) Are these rifles never used by civilians? If not, we should add them too. 2) Who has decided on this classifcation scheme? For example, one of the listed rifles, the Heckler & Koch PSG1, is described as being marketed to both military and LE, though the military model is "strengthened and lightened". Maybe we're overdoing the difference. 3) Neither statement is sourced.  Felsic2 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification: Military, law enforcement, civilian 

message: The entry needs more balanced encyclopedic POV. Especially the first clause that's shown in google search. I made this bold edit of the first two sentences to read:
:A sniper rifle is a high-precision, long range rifle. Requirements include accuracy, reliability, mobility, concealment and optics for anti-personnel, anti-materiel and surveillance uses of the military sniper.
Instead of this intro which uses the word mission and not use...
:A sniper rifle is a high-precision rifle designed for sniper missions. It serves to fulfill the tactical need for long range surveillance, effective anti-personnel and anti-materiel operations with a high hit probability, and can be used by military, law enforcement and civilian militias.
Anyway essential definition was given above in talk, "A sniper rifle is a rifle in the hands of a sniper."-Yohananw (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Paragraph - needs NPOV 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion