Talk:Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight

Link to Advanced Combat Rifle page

How does this program relate to the ACOG? Had the ACOG even been fielded during this program's life? Spartan198 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The AAI ACR used an ACOG. --D.E. Watters (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What controversy over the ACOG?

I am confused about how an alleged controversy is worth mention in an encyclopedia when there is only one poorly written article to back it up?

In reference to the referenced article 12 entitled “Michigan weapons company Trijicon takes flak over soldiers' rifle scopes branded with Bible verses:

First I have to ask is it a “weapons company” or a “sighting manufacturer”? According to Wikipedia it is indeed the latter. It seems the writer of the article may have believed there was a controversy worth note behind a company selling a product which had model numbers that referenced the bible that they inscribed onto a product because US soldiers and marines use them on their weapons (huh?). I can understand that completely, everyone is entitled to their opinion and to publish whatever they like, but it is only opinion and not worth mention in an encyclopedia.

Proselytizing is roughly described as trying to get someone else to convert to your viewpoint or religion. I hardly see how a model number on a weapon that you have to be up close to read, and familiar with the bible to understand is trying to covert someone. Aren’t there chaplains on battlefields? Would they not be a more obvious source of potential proselytizing and maybe influencing soldiers and marines to proselytize?

What proof does she have of the company “taking flak” in the first place? And what proof of a controversy as the Wikipedia page states? She references one, yes one “Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation” who in turn said that he's received “several” complaints from soldiers and Marines. I’ve heard more than several complaints from soldiers, marines, and religious types, I hardly think any are worth noting in an encyclopedia as a controversial subject simply because of that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rendalario (talk • contribs) 12:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Came across more info since writing that and I was mistaken in my estimation of the relative size of the controversey, may be worth note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rendalario (talk • contribs) 18:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, a few concepts are involved here. First, a sight IS a sight. For a WEAPON. I know that all too well, as I've looked down many sights over the decades and killed someone with a round. That is courtesy of over 27 years of military service. So, in *MY* mind, it *IS* a component of a weapon and necessary to operate said weapon at anything beyond knife fighting distance. Hence, I DO object to ANY religious text, of ANY religion, upon a weapon component. I've YET to meet a religion that worships death and killing another human, in general. So, on THAT philosophical perspective, this knuckle dragger disagrees. I'd be more than happy to discuss this via e-mail, to resolve the confused.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wzrd1's thoughts. Not only do no major religions worship death or killing, there are people in the armed services that are not christian or catholic and probably would not want bible verses on their weapon. Not to mention having bible verses on weapons is rediculous. P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081001234423/http://www.army.mod.uk/linkedfiles/ceso/trained_soldiers/kit_magazine/kit62_hi_res.pdf to http://www.army.mod.uk/linkedfiles/ceso/trained_soldiers/kit_magazine/kit62_hi_res.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401234102/http://www.pica.army.mil/PicatinnyPublic/news/archive/2008/12-19-08.asp to http://www.pica.army.mil/picatinnypublic/news/archive/2008/12-19-08.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Objective lens linking.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I am of the opinion that the link should lead to the telescopic sights page as it provides an elaboration in relation to rifle optics, whereas Objective (optics) provides no explanation as to the meaning of an objective lens for rifle optics. As well as that, the teloscopic sights article still provides a hyperlink to the objective (optics) page for further reading if needed. For this reason I argue that your edit should be reverted, as it does not give the applicable contextual information that it should. Drassow (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, the objective lens on a telescopic sight is the same as the objective lens on any telescope. Also please read WP:EGG - a link to "objective lens" should take a reader to that topic, not some topic they were not expecting. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that the telescopic sight article elaborates what the size of an objective lens means in relations to a rifle optic, "In general terms, larger objective lens diameters, due to their ability to gather a higher luminous flux, provide a larger exit pupil and hence provide a brighter image at the eyepiece," whereas the objective lens article makes no such distinction or any explanation of what said lens size means for a rifle optic. The objective lens article does not give the pertinent information as to what said size actually means. Going by WP:PLA, we should be using the page which gives the best explanation, where I'd argue that the telescopic sights page gives a better and more comprehensive answer contextually. How could it be "some topic they were not expecting?" Drassow (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You are going beyond what linking is intended to do here. The word should link to the word/meaning per the Wikipedia consensus guideline. There is only one thing called an "objective" in this context. Taking a reader to some further concept is done by some kind of "See also" links. Objective (optics) does say "The larger the objective, dimmer the object it can view". Exit pupil is not a matter of objective diameter, its a relationship to magnification. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's "per the Wikipedia consensus guideline" there's clearly no consensus here. As per WP:NOCON the action should be reverted unless there becomes a consensus in your favor. Drassow (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"consensus guideline" means there is consensus, it was reached along time ago when they wrote and approved that guideline. If you think MOS:EGG is wrong or want to come up with a new way of doing things you can always bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)