Talk:Savage 10FP

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

No AccuTrigger on early versions[edit]

FYI - Earlier versions of the 10FP didn't come with AccuTrigger Loraksus 11:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical vs. Sniper[edit]

The terms tactical and sniper are usually pretty interchangable. FrankWilliams 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are interchangeable in some circumstances, not in others, for example where I live tactical rifles are legal, while sniper rifles are not. The manufacturer describes the rifles as tactical, so in absence of a verifiable source per WP:VER we should use that description. Arthurrh 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to hear what others have to say on this issue. This is a rifle described by Savage as "tactical" and I feel it should be covered that way in the article. Others feel that the terms are interchangeable. Comments from anyone else? Arthurrh 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another point in this matter is that Savage sells this gun with a Choate "Ultimate Sniper" stock. So the word Sniper is used in in the context of this rifle. Why sell a rifle with a "sniper" stock if it's not a sniper rifle? FrankWilliams 22:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki article Sniper Rifle defines a sniper as: The rifle itself could be a standard rifle (at first, a bolt-action rifle); however, when fitted with a telescopic sight, it would become a sniper rifle. The 10FP is certainly a bolt action rifle and it does come with a telescopic sight in models: Model 10FPXP HS Precision and Model 10FP HS Precision. Therefore by wiki's on defintion this is a sniper rifle. In the interest of cooperation I did change the article to reflect "Sniper/Tactical" as Savage does utilize the word tactical in the advertisement of this rifle. FrankWilliams 23:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know where you stand on this, and I know where I stand on it. I'd like to hear from others as well to see what they think. Under your definition, what is the difference between a varmint rifle and a sniper rifle? Arthurrh 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases, it is preferable to use the same designation that the manufacturer uses, namely tactical, as that is their description of the rifle, whereas the sniper in the context of the stock is referring to the stock and not the rifle. In addition, different people define things different ways, so manufacturer designation is preferable.--LWF 01:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page changes[edit]

I have made several changes to the page:

updated infobox to match all other firearms articles per consensus of the firearms project
fixed improper capitalization
updated available models per the manufacturers website
corrected out-of-date or incorrect features per the manufacturers website
added references

Please do not simply revert these changes. If you have a good reason why some particular aspect of this should be different, fix it and give the reason. We all want the same thing, the best article possible about the Savage 10FP. Arthurrh 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

If you feel the infobox is missing items, there are a couple of good options. One is to go to the template talkpage and suggest they be added. This is probably best since it will help everyone. I have found that someone there usually does such work fairly quickly. Another option is to make a separate table in the article that contains the extra data. Arthurrh 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is I shouldn't have to do that. There was a perfectly good infobox prior to your changes. Editors should improve articles not make them worse by removing information. Therefore before your changes you should have had the pertinent fields incorporated into the new infobx rather then just making the off hand claim that this is what a committe decided to use. FrankWilliams 22:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the military project and firearms project use that infobox. It's a matter of consensus in making the box in the first place. In addition to that, I went to the firearms project and asked for general comment about replacing non-standard infoboxes. A few people replied, ALL said to replace the infobox. That IS consensus. You can read it for yourself on the talk pages there. It seems like from most of this disagreements that you might benefit from becoming more familiar with wikipedia policies and thus avoid potential conflicts. I know you're just trying to make this article better, that's what I'm trying to do also. I think you have a valid point on the missing items on the infobox, and I would/will support you on this. Let me know what items you think are important and I'll make the suggestion myself. That's how improvements get made, and potentially all other firearms articles will benefit from it, that's the advantage of a common infobox, not to mention consistent information for comparison and nice consistent look. Arthurrh 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matched bolt[edit]

I'm sorry but once again I had to remove:

The tolerances for this rifle are such that the receiver and bolt are specifically manufactured for each other. Both have the same serial numbers etched on them in order to match each other correctly . The bolt is NOT interchangeable with other rifles even within the same model.

Because I have this rifle and know for a fact that there are no serial numbers on the bolt. I couldn't find any source that says such a feature exists. I removed it as unsourced per WP:VER. If you can find a reliable source, then you can put it back in. Arthurrh 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know what I have it the rifle too and it does have the serial number. Furthermore I called Savage and they confirmed the bolts are NOT interchangeable. I think you have a very early version of this rifle that quite frankly sounds like it is inferior to the current versions. So the statment stays until proven otherwise. I have also cited the statement by going back and getting the plastic label that came with the rifle and citing it "verbatim". FrankWilliams 22:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, without a verifiable source per WP:VER the statement can and should be removed. My rifle is 2 years old and has no such number. Perhaps it is only on certain models. We need a verifiable source, which means reading it off the rifle doesn't count per wiki guidelines. Can you get Savage to send a users manual with it in or something like that? Arthurrh 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was not made from the information on the rifle rather from the one page warning paper that came with the rifle. I can xerox it if will help. I have cited this as a source since it came from Savage is therefore legitimate. FrankWilliams 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the source, having the link to the user manual is probably better than the label, so maybe you can remove the original one and just leave the link to the user manual. Arthurrh 16:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I actually think leaving the source would be better as you can almost never have too many refrences. Also, the label is how I first learned about this issue in the first place. (Who reads the manual :) )

Trademarks[edit]

FYI, maybe some are unaware of the wiki guidelines for trademarks - "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context" Arthurrh 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So who decides if they are "unavoidably necessary"????? FrankWilliams 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the policy, it fully explains it.

Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).

In this case, it certainly isn't necessary. Arthurrh 23:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

Frank, I'm assuming the picture here is your rifle. Do you have the adjustable buttplate or cheekpiece on your stock? Would it be possible to take a picture showing close-up in use and maybe put in on wiki commons so we can have an illustration here? Plus a higher resolution picture would be great if possible. I have the crummy basic stock. Accurate, but not attractive or adjustable. Arthurrh 16:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my gun was odered with the Choate "Ultimate Sniper" stock which comes with two buttplates and two cheekpieces. It's adjustable in the sense that you can use one or the other. When I get some time I can take a better/higher resolution shot. I kept it small because using a white background is a pain and clean up with photohop show every mistake at high resolutions. FrankWilliams 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sight Paragraph[edit]

The last paragraph in the "sight" section is trying to convey that the gun does not come with any sites because it is expected that a shooter will add his own. I think you agree with this. The other point I'm trying to make is that customization of guns particularly Sniper and Tactical guns is very important. I'm trying to convey to the non-shooter that shooters preferences are highly subjective and personal. If I haven't said this or if it isn't clear please change; but please don't delete because of it's importance. FrankWilliams 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've rv'd it and we can try to find a way to make it say both. The reason I revereted was that the paragraph as it was said that the reason there are no sights is people like to buy there own scopes. It should say there reason there are no sights is people are expected to use scopes, not sights. The reasons there are no scopes is a) they're expensive, and b) they're a very personal selection. I'll give it a try. Arthurrh 17:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, check it out and fix it up or let me know what you think if it needs anything. Arthurrh 17:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It reads better now. I added: shooters particular taste, comfort, and opinion which are all subjective. Which expands the factors which you added. I wanted to add that these variables are not only personal but very subjective. Thanks. FrankWilliams 15:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail; uncited; unneeded self-citations". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]