 | Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Firearms Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Relevant? PoV? Original Research?
Just got to the bottom of the Overview section and saw the following line.
- As with all Barrett Rifles, the M82 is hated by Gun Control ralliers, because of it's "Armor Piercing" capabilities. The critical oversight, however, is that most bottle-necked rounds are of the same type.
Not that I disagree with it, but I don't think this line has any place in this article, or at least not as it is currently written. Thoughts? 64.218.89.101 19:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Some of it might be good to include (ie - in a Controversy section) but it would definitely need re-wording and expansion. The idea doesn't really flow. The last sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (not being very familiar with amunition). Privong 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Misc
OMG, they said that M81A1 appeared in Fallout 2 as Bozar. Bozar was an automatic sniper rifle, 30 .223 rounds in clip, only burst mode. But yeah - it has almost the same design... xPP
Is it appropriate to have the nazairian link on the page ??? free speech et al in the GNU spirit but still
Role in Battlefield 2
The gun from BF2 is actually a m95.
Effectiveness of .50 BMG air-to-air
The following unsourced statement has serious problems.
"With the advent of the autocannon, the .50 BMG is no longer used for fighter plane combat since it was shown to be ineffective for that purpose since World War II."
No question, .50 BMG is far less destructive than common types of 20mm to 30mm autocannon in use since WW2. However, US and some allied air forces destroyed tens of thousands of aircraft in WW2, Korea, and other conflicts using .50 BMG, so "ineffective" is a bit of a stretch. Also, .50 BMG was in use post-WW2 into the 1960s, most notably on variants of the F-86 Sabre and F-51. So autocannon and .50 calibers overlapped in service for over 20 years.RandallC 09:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- A better question is what does the use of .50 BMG in aircraft have to do in any way with the M82 rifle? If anything this factoid would belong in the .50 BMG entry, NOT the M82 (rifle) entry. I think it should be removed. --Falcon48x 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that the comment was included to counter the fevered fantasies of some groups that the Barrett M82A1 (also chambered in .50 BMG) could be used by a terrorist group to shoot down a commercial airliner. D.E. Watters 23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
IS "M82" a US designation, a commercial designation, or a foriegn military designation for article naming purposes?
IF it's a US (or similar), in order to conform, this page must be retitled "M82 rifle" or such. Deathbunny 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- The designation originated as a commercial one. When the US Armed Services began to adopt it, the original commercial designation was carried over. To prevent confusion with the completely different Valmet M82 rifle, Barrett's name should be included somewhere in the title. D.E. Watters 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- "M82 Barrett rifle" then? Deathbunny 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, "Barrett M82 Rifle" would likely be the proper title. NorskSoldat 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Controversey...
I think this would be better served in an article about high-power rifles which, by their nature, are "armor peircing" against most or all soft armors. I mean, honestly, every .30-'06, Surplus 7.62 Russian, .308 Winchester, .303 British, or any full power rifle round can tear through most soft armors.
That's with FMJ and ball.
Then again, I'm likely preaching to the choir.
Deathbunny 03:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Privong 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
25mm version?
An article found here mentions a 25mm version of the M82. This is hardly a reputable source, but I think it's something to look into. Walther Atkinson 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Scratch that. I missed it earlier. Walther Atkinson 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
suggested merge
I know nothing about weaponry, but someone noted that L82A1 looked like the same thing. I'll leave that to you folks to figure out - either to merge or to take off the tag. --Alynna 08:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm certainly no experts on Barretts but it is my undertanding that the L82A1 is the commercial designation for the XM107 which is currently in service as a Cat. I weapon in the US Army. The M82 (specifically the M82A1) still remains in service as a Cat. II weapon. I suppose one could call the M82A1 the XM107's predecessor in more ways than one but they are, at least as far as I know, not the same firearm. Hence, I'm leaning towards oppose for now but I'd appreciate it if someone with more knowledge on the subject could chime in here. --Seed 2.0 14:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)