Talk:Sniper rifle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 [1])
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. [2]
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)