69.141.140.192

M24 SWS

Where are you getting the "M24 + M118 accuracy is worse (about 2-3 MOA)" from? That is no where in your reference[1], and you are now replacing referenced material with unreferenced prose. Also, I will kindly ask you not to call me "stupid" again per WP:NPA. And also see WP:3RR — DP⁵ 01:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Very funny stupid wikipedia. There is no any direct data about accuracy of M-24 in internet. Only bullshit subMOA from morons.

Or may be i am wrong? So give me any link or scan of manufacturer or military data (with range, number of shots in group, number of groups, etc).

Morons dont know basics. For example, spread of 10 shot groups is about 10% bigger than spread of 9 shot groups. You know this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.140.192 (talk)

You seem to have some kind of a POV pushing agenda against the use of MOA, an industry standard for measuring accuracy. Wikipedia is definitely not the place for this. But I have already gave a reference[2] (a US Army fact file) for the previous text. You are still replacing this with unreferenced and mostly irrelevent material[3], against Wikipedia policy. Also, one more revert and your violating WP:3RR. — DP⁵ 14:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

MOA industry standard? hahaha Give me at least one reference to manufacturer technical(not marketing) data about MOA? Please show me this noob MOA in m16 datasheets or any russian firearms specification! Everything is in inches or cm!

"You are still replacing this with unreferenced and mostly irrelevent material". I gave link to military field manual not some marketing lies. Kid listen, you must respect other people. You should not have to delete my original edit (when i didnt delete any others text and placed reference).

Here http://www.lveplant.ru/boevpat_eng.htm noobs can see what "industry standard" uses manufacturer of cartridges. Do you have any clue what R50cp mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.140.192 (talk)

Wow, your sure not helping your position with your incivility. But thinking about it, I don't think "industry standard" was the best wording, maybe something more like "an almost universally accepted way of measuring accuracy used very, very often by the shooting industry" would have been better.

I repeat. There is no any industry or any else technical term or way or else, like MOA. Do you know what is ballistics? Do you read any basics? If you are noob, you can try to read. In internet you can find those basics, at least in russian. MOA only exists for marketing.

You are inserting unreferenced material, your reference says nothing about the M24s accuracy, just the M118 special ball round fired from an accuracy barrel, which is not really relevant in the M24 article. And the previous text from a US Army fact file gives an exact measurement of the M24s accuracy potential, your version just says it's more than 1.9 MOA (without reference). Your logic behind this completely fails me.

I told you, RTFM. All weapon (at least rifles) exists as set weapon+ammunition. All accuracy data is for weapon+cartridge.

Since I cannot revert your edit without breaking 3RR, I'm going to edit it so its within Wikipedia standards for the time being. And do not call me a "Kid" again, you really should follow your own advice and respect other people. — DP⁵ 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

English is not my native lang, so i cant make good edits. Coz of this i use simple and 'not good' words. If someone is acting as moron or noob, i will call him moron or noob.

Listen 'not kid'. Please read basics. Read manufacturer technical datasheets. Dont beleave in marketing urban legends. Respect others.

If you want believe in submoa accuracy just add this, but dont delete facts.

Wikipedia is very funny source of urban legends. For example, noobs think that m24+M118 has <1MOA, while SVD+7N1 <2MOA. But if we look in technical datasheets, accuracy is very close and even SVD is more accurate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.140.192 (talk)

I just do not have either the time or patience to debate this further, I am just going to let it go for right now. However I'm going to remove some of the redundancy and the unnecessary conversions from your last edit. — DP5 02:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Change your manners

This is not the way we deal with each other on Wikipedia, change your manners and words here and in the comments when you edit a page. --Zaher1988 · ^Talk|_{Contributions} 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

SVD and 7N1, 7N14 and standard ammunition

Thanks for your comments. I know about statistics and as many other people in shooting do not like to work with sub 24-shot sample groups, since they are statistically not very reliable. My edit (~0.9 MOA with quality ammunition and ~2 MOA with standard ammunition) made the SVD about as accurate as your text. This indicates the SVD and the sniper ammunition designed and produced for it perform fine, making this quite an accurate rifle for military use. Of course it is not a very accurate rifle compared to a benchrest or other high grade competition rifle, but such rifles are not used by armies. Since we basically agree, I feel your tone could be more courteous. Remind the SVD comes with 320 and 240 mm twist rates. The 240 mm twist rate will be slightly less accurate, since a faster spinning projectile has more trouble to dampen out effects like mass imbalance, aerodynamic jump, etc downrange. The LVE ammunition factory is very open regarding the expected accuracy performance for their products, but we can never be totally sure how an ammunition lot reacts as part of an indiviual rifle system before a 24-shot (or more shots) testfire session with the actual rifle system was performed.--Francis Flinch (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First, learn basics. Second, respect others, dont delete if you dont know for shure. Where you take this "~0.9 MOA with quality ammunition"? What is this "MOA"? Extreme spread? For what number of shots?69.141.140.192 (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, i understand. You took R100=8cm and translate to MOA. :) Will be better if you learn that R100 is _radius_ of circle which contains all shots and with center in "center of impact". And of couse you dont know that extreme spread is _not_ equal to 2*R100.

LVE ammunition factory data show maximum dispersion of cartrige from ballistic barrel, this is not "expected accuracy performance".

MOA or mrad are common units (of angle) to express to accuracy potential of arms.I am not very familiar with how Russians express things but guessed LVE meant with 8 cm at 300 m and R100 that all projectiles are expected to group into an 8 cm diameter circle at 300 m range during factory tests, which is a fine result for military use.

I told you, learn basics. "Common units to express to accuracy" for USA are extreme spread, AMR, standart deviation and so on. For Russia - R100, R50, P100 (plus variants), heart stripe and midline deviation. There is _NO_ any MOA. MOA is only for marketing.

If 8 cm is the radius of the circle this would make the accuracy much less fine for sniper grade ammunition.

Aha. Meanwhile 7N1 has better accuracy than usa counterpart like M118M or M118SB.

Since I can not find any conclusive information regarding the LVE test setup we can only speculate regarding these figures, though I doubt if LVE would opt to use substandard test-barrels since this would make their products look bad.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

LVE uses standart setup. Unlike to usa, in russia all is more standardize.

I still recommend you learn ballictic basics. At least you can read documents (use google) which i cite in my blog.

For me this text would be much clearer and more encyclopiadia like:
During firing tests the SVD rifle with 7N1 sniper cartridges produced 1.24 MOA vertical spread with 240 mm twist rate barrels and 1.04 MOA verticla spread with 320 mm twist rate barrels. When using standard grade 57-N-323S cartridges the accuracy of the SVD is reduced to 2.16 MOA vertical spread. The extreme vertical spreads for the SVD were esthablished by shooting 5-shot groups at 300 m range. The accuracy of the SVD with sniper grade ammunition corresponds to the American M24 Sniper Weapon System with M118SB cartridges (1.18 MOA vertical spread) and the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System with M118LR ammunition (1.27 MOA vertical spread)<Your source in Russian>

Wow, so friendly... Ok. Your edit is mostly good. But, better use "SVD rifle has"..."no more than 1.24 MOA ...". This is military (or factory) limits. More precisely, this numbers are calculated from military limits for easy comparison.

"The extreme vertical spreads for the SVD were esthablished" - no. I recalculated accuracy in this "standart" https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=7c3671c8b65d782bbbfe7da8228f827e&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck= metric.

As I am from Western Europe I can assure you MOA and mrad are very common units in lots of European countries to expres arms accuracy potential.

No. Give me any link to any technical (not marketing) datasheet with MOA. I can give you bunch of links. Just look in any MIL doc. Wonder if you give me any link except for usa MILs. No one manufacturer posts accuracy technical data.

I can say you, that most people are noobs/morons. They dont know that 1MOA extreme spread about 30% bigger than 1MOA extreme vertical spread. That 1MOA extreme spread for 20 shot groups is about 45% bigger than 1MOA extreme spread for 5 shot groups. That 1MOA extreme spread on 100m gives several percent(depend on every case) worse spread on 300m. So if sbdy say "MOA", which "MOA" he mean? In wikipedia i only see marketing bullshit about accuracy.

The US government uses MOA too. See this https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=7c3671c8b65d782bbbfe7da8228f827e&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck= where the United States started procedures to obtain a new rifle system that should provide 1 MOA extreme vertical spread up to 1,500 m.

They use "extreme vertical spread for 5 shots ...up to 1500m" expressed in minutes of arc.

I know Russia is a C.I.P. memberstate and LVE must use C.I.P. conform test barrels. Since this is Wikipedia English and not Wikipedia Russian you have to write in a for English speaking people understandble manner. They normally will not see R100 etc. in their literature. Our readers from the United States sometimes even have problems to grasp basic metric units.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats why i build table in my blog. This table has source, original data colums and column with common metric.

Whether you say 29 cm at 1,000 m, 1 MOA at 1,000 m, etc. does not make any fundamental difference.

Thats true. But there is fundamental difference between 1 MOA extream spread for 20 shot groups on 600m and 1 MOA extreme vertical spread for 5 shot groups on 100m.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a military manual or (military) university library. As such we try to keep things as understandable as possible for common readers. If readers have to be specialists in the articles field to understand it, the article is a bad one. This means scientists and specialists have to adjust their writing style in Wikipedia. Referring to external blogs as reliable sources of knowledge is not regarded as a very good practice in Wikipedia English articles. Instead try to write the information in the text itself as much as possible and use an external link.

I saw a "good practice" of wikipedia. Bullshit everywhere (at least about accuracy). For example, in m24 article was 0.5MOA, while according to MILs M24+M118SB has 1.94 MOA extreme spread for 10 shots groups on 300 yards.

You want "reliable sources"? Every number in my blog is from reliable source and/or you can check it. And this numbers are much reliable than bullshit from some SniperCentral site. Not to mention "as understandable as possible for common readers".

Normal people in English speaking countries will encounter texts like an X MOA arm in daily life, without the necessary additional information what is exactly meant. I saw US shooters brag about their 3 or 5 shot groups (preferably at high altitude), not realizing they did not achieve what they thought. The general public (sadly) sees more marketing than scientific information. They will also not read what the US government writes for their arms procurement programs.

In Western Europe the technical details of weapons procurement is kept confidential to the general public and non-confidential military manuals are not really specific regarding accuracy potential. Most European voters probably would not like to be informed about the exact killing and maiming capabilities of their countries arms. I was actually surprised to see how openly the US communicated their 1 MOA extreme vertical spread for 5-shot groups in several range increments up to 1,500 m requirement. Fulfilling this requirement with a “soldier proof” rifle system is no easy task, assuming calm atmospheric sea level conditions.

If you got the impression I thought Russia can not produce good technical products you got a wrong idea. I think fine products can be designed and made just about any ware in the world.

I hope you can approve this text: Firing tests showed the SVD rifle with 7N1 sniper cartridges produced no more than 1.24 MOA vertical spread with 240 mm twist rate barrels and no more than 1.04 MOA vertical spread with 320 mm twist rate barrels. When using standard grade 57-N-323S cartridges the accuracy of the SVD is reduced to 2.16 MOA vertical spread. The extreme vertical spreads for the SVD were established by shooting 5-shot groups at 300 m range. The accuracy of the SVD with sniper grade ammunition corresponds to the American M24 Sniper Weapon System with M118SB cartridges (1.18 MOA vertical spread) and the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System with M118LR ammunition (1.27 MOA vertical spread)<Your source in Russian> --Francis Flinch (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Firing tests showed" - not firing tests. Its military/factory limits. Its big difference.

"The extreme vertical spreads for the SVD were established by" - not for SVD. Extreme vertical spread is only usa standart. ExVer is used "to keep things as understandable as possible for common readers".

Better leave mine text (or slightly edit). It is more encyclopaedic. Even words about urban legend.

I expressed in the article in a less technical way what I think you tried to tell me. I tried to read your Russian blog text with the help of Google translate. This automatic translation does however garble texts, but it is better than understanding virtually nothing.

You must have no problems to read usa MILs.

At http://www.biggerhammer.net/sigamt/550/550techinspection/ you can read under 1.2 how SIG tests new SIG 550 assault rifles regarding accuracy. These rifles are quite accurate for assault rifles, but the Swiss seem to have a historical obsession regarding accurate service rifles.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that link before. I think its not a real document. Some part was taken from real document.

You can notice that on this link they use "heart dispersion" ("50 % windage and elevation dispersion"). But morons placed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG550 extreme spread.

Thanks for your corrections. I think the text in the SVD article is know understandable for readers without any engineering or arms background. For your information. “Mil” can mean several things depending on the readers cultural origin/point of view. Read Angular mil to see why. This is why I prefer to use “mrad” instead of “mil”.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to M24 Sniper Weapon System, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for perpetuating an edit war at M24 Sniper Weapon System. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Koalorka (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Violation of the No Personal Attacks policy by calling other editors names in edit summaries. Also, while personally attacking other editors, you are also continuing to edit war at AKM. Since you had been blocked for this before, you should have known better. When this block expires, please do NOT attack or harrass other editors. And if any of your edits are contested by others, use the talk page to discuss INSTEAD of repeatedly reverting. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please don't just dump information you find into articles like this[4], and to a lesser extent, like this[5]. At least try to integrate the information into the previous text so it doesn't directly contradict itself. Also try to find a link to the material you are citing, most US military manuals, reports etc. are available online. And remember, this is an actual encyclopedia, not a blog; please try to add information in a professional manner (no extremely obvious grammatical errors, badly translated words etc.), because I am quite frankly tired of going around cleaning up your edits. — DanMP5 18:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that small edits in good article must be well constructed in order to be accepted by "editors". What i dont understand, why reliably sourced edits with important information rise displeasure. If it is important to you that PSG1 article is good, you must be happy. Instead of "50 rounds of match-grade inside of an 80 mm circle at 300 meters" (as i understand this bullshit is suitable and "professional" for "encyclopedia") now article contains at least some fact about accuracy. To note, probably all match-grade ammunition for 7.62x51 (like M118 match, M852 match) have guaranteed extreme spread about 2 MOA at 300 meters for 50 shots.69.141.140.192 (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: your edits to Sniper...

It seems you have a long history of edits like this, so I will keep my comment short. You are changing referenced material, and adding unreferenced material. If you can not provide a reliable source for these changes, it will continue to be reverted. Also, please consider using the talk page, as you are very close to breaking (if not already broken) WP:3RR... Also, your comments regarding other editors is verging on personal attacks... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I even found figure exactly for article case which illustrates bullet drop with numbers and is very easy to understand. But i am tired from expert editors. I will present this link if (after checking numbers on figure) you will name yourself "stupid noob" and you will stop editing articles in which you are noob.

Just to prove that wikieditors does not care about wikipedia quality. Thats why wikipedia is so full of shit. 69.141.140.192 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, that's enough of your hostile behavior. Reported to WP:ANI.

It is clear that you cannot contribute to Wikipedia in a civil manner. — DanMP5 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule, as well as for repeated attacks against editors. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Fences&Windows 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Sniper rifle

Please do not be angry that I reverted some of your edits because the sentences do not make much sense in English. From what I read you must be very knowledgeable regarding shot groups, accuracy potential and statistics, but always remind the reading public for which EN Wikipedia is intended. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for the general public and not an internet library for engineers, scholars and other professionals. A non technician like a musician, lawyer or accountant must be able to grasp the sniper rifle Wikipedia article and not be overwhelmed with technical and statistical information.

As i understand this is about "1 MOA ...". So "non technician like a musician, lawyer or accountant" "must be able" to understand that bullet dispersion is Normal distribution. 1 MOA extreme spread for 5 shot group mean that this Normal distribution has Standard deviation x/y 0.33 MOA, for 10 shot group - 0.26 MOA, and so on. Normal distribution with Standard deviation x/y 0.33 MOA mean that bullet impact will be -+0.33 MOA in 68%, -+0.66 MOA in 95% (68-95-99.7 rule).

So "non technician like a musician, lawyer or accountant must be able" to understand that "1 MOA (0.3 mrad) extreme spread ... translates into a variance in the bullet's point of impact of 25 cm at 800 m" is bullshit, as well as picture "Comparison of 0.5, 1, and 3 MOA extreme spread levels against a human torso at 800 m (left) and a human head at 100 m (right)".69.141.140.192 (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a proper reference regarding the accuracy potential of the M24 in a .300 Win. Mag. chambering please provide that web link. As far as I could read there is a solicitation underway for rechambering M24 rifles and I could not read anything about accuracy requirements, though one might suspect these rifles will not be exceptionally accurate since the M24 SWS is in essence an accurized or if you want to view things more critical a glorified Remington 700 hunting rifle.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you go on provided link https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=0d5c4ebc69fbb9bd9f37b47f8b0e1cef&tab=core&_cview=1 and download "Amendment 1" (going through "Download Solicitation" page, no direct link) then you will get document "PURCHASE DESCRIPTION (15 January 2010 Revision) RIFLE, .300 WINCHESTER MAGNUM, SNIPER W/AY OPTICAL SIGHT AND CARRYING CASES, M24 RECONFIGURED" where you can find "Targeting and accuracy. The rifle shall achieve the dispersion set forth below when fired from a machine rest. The average mean diameter of shot groups fired with and without the sound suppressor attached shall be less than or equal to 1.15 inches at 100 meters (1 MOA) (T), 0.92 inches at 100 meters (0.8 MOA) (O). The minimum rate of fire for conducting this test shall be three rounds per minute." This is really complicated "work". 69.141.140.192 (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

---