Talk:Barrett M82/Archive 1

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)

Role in Battlefield 2
The gun from BF2 is actually a m95. A bolt action bullpup rifle based on the m82


 * Go ahead and make the correction on the BF2 page then. Koalorka (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2008 (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)

M82 is not the universal term, it is known by our army (Germany) as G82, (Gewehr 82) Gewehr means rifle. I'm not trying to disagree with anyone I'm just saying completely renaming the article to M82 would only apply to America and other conforming countries. - Helmut von Reiker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.89.75 (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * M82 is the commercial designation and the designation of the original military adopter.--Conor Fallon (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy...
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)


 * I believe that at the very least, the section "detailing" sale of Barretts to Al-Queda should be removed. It has no citation, and I can bet quite a bit on what side of the gun-control debate the person who submitted the "information" is on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.45.247 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, and I bet you're just so "impartial" in the debate, aren't you now?


 * I actually thought I tried to give leverage to both sides, but the quote simply establishes that gun control advocates have claimed Barrett rifles have been acquired by Al-Qaeda. Whether the claims have been refuted or not doesn't change the fact that I'm illustrating their perspective.  At the very least, the quote does not need to be removed ENTIRELY because the other part of it is most certainly valid.  The Provisional IRA's use of Barrett rifles is VERY well-documented and is, I think, proof that gun control advocates' claims do have some legitimacy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.132.101 (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom Dias in Voting From the Rooftops (Violence Policy Center) alleged that Ronnie Barrett made some of his first money selling .50 rifles to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. If you bother to check the facts, Barrett sold his rifles to the US DoD, who transferred some of the rifles to the CIA, who gave some of the rifles to the Afghans fighting the Russians. When the Russians were driven out of Afghanistan, the CIA made little or no effort to repatriate the .50 rifles. In the meantime, the Taliban rose in power in Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden was kicked first out of Saudi Arabia then out of Africa, ending up in exile in Afghanistan where he allied with the Taliban and started the first Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps, inheriting a hodge podge of weapons left behind by the Americans and the Russians, which may have included .50 rifles, 12.7mm machineguns and Stinger missiles. The Barrett--Al-Qaeda allegation by Dias and VCP is noteworthy as an example of the myths used to promote gun control.Naaman Brown (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I take exception to the wording of "Recent reports suggest that there have been unconfirmed issues where black market Barrett .50 rifles" some people inserted in the sentence about the Barrett rifle being used to kill Mexican policemen. This is an attempt to hide the seriousness of the problem behind weasel wording. The reference is a CNN article, and is anything but "unconfirmed". The article referenced does not "suggest unconfirmed issues", but it reports on deadly facts as observed by the Mexican authorities. Their policemen are being outgunned by criminals using Barrett .50 rifles and consequently fearing for their lives. The term "issue" is far too euphemistic. It's a serious problem, not an "unconfirmed issue". In addition, the term "black market" is uninformative unless one is prepared to assume that drugs gangs habitually order their weapons straight from the factory. Every weapon used by criminal organizations is sourced by the black market because professional criminals have a marked reluctance to leave their ID behind when buying the tools of their trade. For better or worse, this is absolutely no impediment to the availability of deadly weapons.Unsigned comment left by: User:86.147.207.180
 * The vpc.org "reference" has 30 incidents listed. Of those incidents, there is exactly one(1) reference to the murder of a Mexican policeman with a .50 caliber weapon, though it does not state that it was a Barret rifle. There are possibly three other isolated incidents in the past 15 or so years listed, but the rest of the incidents quoted by vpc.org are largely confiscations by police in relation to another crime(illegal possession), and the wording in the article should reflect that in some way SJSA 11:15, 23 January 2009 (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)


 * Weak support - They are the same rifle. The military just likes to give it's own designation for things.  The L82A1 article has little content and could easily go into the M82 article.  Heck, even just a redir to the M82 article might be enough as it would infer that they're the same.  But... with some expansion the L82A1 atricle could stand on it's own.  As a side note, it should be renamed in any regard.  —Thernlund (Talk 17:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - L82A1 is just the British Army designation for the Barret M82 rifle. I should just take the time to put in a quick table for international designations so as to properly address this and prevent a "G82" article from cropping up too -- Thatguy96 20:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

XM500
Has anyone found anthing on the XM500 besides the World of Guns website? I've looked and all Barret will say about the Rifle is that it is a Prototype. As such what information there is becomes questionable. Paulwharton 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a single slide in a 2006 NDIA briefing titled "Anti-Materiel Sniper Rifle Congressional Briefing." It gives the length as 46 inches, the weight as 26 pounds, and notes that it is gas operated. D.E. Watters 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The briefing can be found online here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/lee.pdf -- Thatguy96 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The XM-500 now has it's own page.I am going to re-direct some of this pages information to there.Paulwharton 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge XM107/M107 article with this one

 * Support - In my opinion, the M107 rifle does not deserve its own article as it is 99% equivalent to the M82A1M/M82A3 rifles. It is a subvariant of the Barrett M82 series (as indicated on their website), and not a seperate system in any regard.  The information it presents is redundant and should be included in this one for purposes of clarity in any case, further making the case for integration. -- Thatguy96 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - They're variations of the same rifle. No need for second articles. Also, note the Patton tank article: there are 4 major variants (and several subvariants) with different model numbers. And there's a lot more changes between the different models than you'll find between the M82 and M107. Yet we don't have separate articles for the M46, M47, M48 and M60 tanks, and nor do we need to. The same applies to these two rifles. Redxiv 04:29, 24 April 2007 :


 * Support - Truly, there isn't much difference, so i think that it would make sense to merge them...again, if you look some other product or weaponry, there are bound to be some variations in designs that were incorperarted in the article. However, make sure to be very clear where it separates, for they do have very different histories and features...


 * Support - The fact is that the CIVILIAN rifle came first... and wasn't really developed for the military until after it's popularity with civilian shooters got it noticed. Target shooters looking for a bigger boom and longer range pretty much made the whole .50 BMG rifle happen. Ted C Hall 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - XM107 is just a redesignation by the US military for a specific model of the M82. Nathanm mn 17:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support -the M-107 is a M-82A3 given a military designation. Paulwharton 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think we might want to hold off on this one. Is there not enough information on the M107 and the procurement competition aloneto validate a seperate article?  Furthermore, I think this is more then just a simple change in designation.  If it were just that, and if the weapon is so truly similar to the M82, why would it not just be designated the M82A4 instead of adding another designation.  I also think it is significant that the weapon was orignally supposed to be the M95 (which is a bolt-action weapon), and was changed to an automatic design.  The Army is also going to continue to operate the M82A1A rifles under the M82 designation, so does it not seem a bit superfluous to designate an allegedly identical rifle (atleast to the M82A3)under a different designation.  I have also heard that there are some differences, espiecially in terms of long-range accuracy, in favor of the M107.  This was also hinted at during the Discovery Channel's Futureweapons program when they covered the then XM107.  Can anyone also explain to me how the weapon magically lost 10.5lds.  The M82A1A weighs in at 32.5 pounds, while the M107 weighs in at 22 even.  Also, the M107 is going to be unique to the Army, as the Marine Corps already operates the M82A3 as the Special Application Scoped Rifle.  I may be wrong, but I think we might need a little more time before making this desicion.  I will have to finish this later.  Between then and now, I will do further research adn so if I am truly wrong.SAWGunner89 19:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Response:There is no information currently on the XM107 that is dramatically different from that on this page. The change in designation is noted in almost every official and semi-official source as a product of the fact that money had been allotted to purchasing "XM107" rifles and not anything else, and the US Army found it easier to simply procure the weapon under a new designation than to otherwise lose the funds.  The US Army is not exactly immune to such things.  The M73A1 was redesignated the M219 because they decided seven years after its introduction that it was actually different enough to designate as a seperate system, and the M2 and M3 Bradley are basically identical except for intended operation role and the typical internal stowage (hardly a reason for them to have seperate designations).  Even more specific to this example is that the M82A3 was unique to the USMC, but is basically identical to the US Army's M82A1A (as you can note from the variant table).  There are more examples.  I cannot think of anything that has changed between the M82 and M107 that would give it additional accuracy, and to cite the Discovery Channel which has been outright wrong (as the History Channel) on many occasions when it comes to such issues, can easily be problematic.  Just things to consider.  If you find information seriously to the contrary from official sources, I will happily concede the merger proposal. -- Thatguy96 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: FWIW: The M82A1A was used by the USMC, not the US Army. The M82A1A's scope rail was modified to allow mounting of the USMC's then standard Unertl 10x optic.  Prior to the adoption of the M107, the Army's Barrett rifles were straight M82A1.  D.E. Watters 21:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Barrett's own official site lists the M82 and M107 as the same rifle. 71.203.209.0 09:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - My 2c worth... Maybe a decision on merging can be delayed until more info on the M107 is available? Looks that the M107 is a development of the M82, and if that's the case then a separate article (removing any unnecessary duplication) would make sense. -- By the way, the statement about the "Patton" tank series is wrong: M47/48/60 are different tanks, evolved as a family (as cited in most bibliograpy), and as such there is a wiki-article for each one. (have just checked that) --  Regards, DPdH 05:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - I would still vote for merging now and splitting later when that turned out to be the case. As it stands now the M107 page contains of a lot of duplicate information as the weapon described here and there is virtually identical. -- Thatguy96 12:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger (From M82A3)
I support the merge there is no need for a artical on the same gun with little differences. If it was completly different the designation would be different and not just A3 ForeverDEAD 16:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the merge since it is the exact same gun and there is no need for a article for something as little as a variant. Spitfire8520 04:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally support the merge, a variant of a firearm should not have a separate article but a section on the main version article. Is there any relevant guidance in the Wikipedia guidelines? Just to be sure on styles, etc. DPdH 03:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge of the Barrett M107 with the Barrett M82
This merge is not a wise decision.

The M107 will be the new sniper rifle of the future making the M82 obsolete. Not to ention that the M82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.152.8 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge of the M107 with the M82
This is not a wise decision.

This is where the small differences and changes do matter.

The M107 will prove itself in battle to outmatch is predecessor, the M82. The M107 has, I believe, better cooling systems than the M82. The M107 also has an effective and accurate range of 1.5 miles (over 2000 meters.) The M107 has no recoil force after being shot unlike the M82 that has a small recoil force. I believe that the M107 will become more widely used in the war in Iraq which will make the M82 obsolete.

Look forward. Look ahead. Face the future.

Phantom Regime —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatom Regime (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

25mm XM-109
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m109-ampr.htm

this is wrong i got rid of. A recent episode of a TV program called FutureWeapons has proven that the rifle is capable of, when equipped with the 416 Round, maintaining fatal velocity and accuracy from up to 2414 meters (1.5 miles).

the episode was showing use of an m99 with the .416 round and it was over a mile and half '2500 meters plus '


 * Why would they discuss one rifle, then exhibit the performance of another rifle? It makes no sense. It is my assumption that the M107 sniper rifle was in fact the weapon being used during the demonstration. DOwnsYou 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Move?
Given that the rifle is no longer a prototype, shouldn't the now-defunct XM107 designation be dropped from this article's name? Redxiv 07:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why this article deserves to be seperated from the M82 article. -- Thatguy96 02:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's another topic entirely. If you request a merge, I'd be inclined to support it, though. Redxiv 05:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right that its a separate topic. Merge request already done. -- Thatguy96 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged because the M82 article is already too big as it is. X360 02:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Two things 1) Much of the information in this article would be redundant and unnecessary after a merge anyhow, and 2) if you think the M82 article is too long I'd hate to see what you think of the M16 one. -- Thatguy96 02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the C8, the Canadian M4 has its own article. I suppose it could be merged... Anyway the M16 is a very famous weapon, it deserves a big article. Plus it's just on one weapon, the M4 and all the other hundreds of variants are seperate. X360 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The C8 does not have its own article. It is contained with the C7 article, which actually covers all of the variants produced by Colt Canada (formerly Diemaco).  No subvariant of the M16 rifle in American service has its own article (not even the Mk 4 Mod 0).  The M107 is not even a seperate subvariant, but a redesignation of an existing system (this is stated in this article and on Barrett's website), in this case the M82A1M/M82A3 rifle.  This would be akin to giving M16A4 is own article.  -- Thatguy96 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm sorry... Jeese you don't have to get your nose out of joint about the subject. If your really desperate about merging the articles like its a life and death situation, fine just do it. I do understand what your trying to say, I just thought the article was quite good and it would be a waste to delete most of it. X360 04:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to come across that way (sort of the problem about having a discussion in text where inflection and the rest of it is impossible to hear), I just meant to defend my point against good challanges. -- Thatguy96 14:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

L82A1
This appears to describe the same weapon known as the M82 Barrett rifle Rich257 13:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no expertise in this field, but I've suggested a merge; someone who knows about these things can see if they're the same --Alynna 08:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
To follow the proper article title format with manufacturer, then the weapon name. Also keeps similarity to Barrett M95 and Barrett M468, or any other firearm article such as Heckler & Koch G36 or Steyr AUG. M82 Barrett rifle is not a U.S. Military designation, so that is not a reason to object the move. Hayden120 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone want to discuss? Hayden120 07:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I entreat you to look at "what links here" and see the number of page names that we've gone through for this article. Each time I feel like its been part of some consensus heh, so I'll wait here until someone comes along who can tell me what the most relevant consensus for this article is. -- Thatguy96 15:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅. Neil   ☎  10:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Appearance in Popular Culture & Media
Added a section, since I just saw this gun in one of my favorite TV shows. I've marveled at how impressive a piece of technology and engineering it is since I first saw it in some History Channel or Discovery Channel sniper show. If the manufacturers aren't pushing to have the gun featured in the remake of Red Dawn, they should really think about it. They make this gun near my hometown, and I was sad to see the Chey Tac featured in Shooter instead of the Barrett.(Gwopy (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

So...
I guess someone's got something against TV. Ok, fine. Maybe James Bond doesn't carry one, but that's a good show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to point out that the m82a1 was featured twice in shooter, once at the start and second time it is used for the assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.81.46 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't list every single movie/television show that this rifle has been in. The list would be longer than the rest of the article. Why is it even important? Are we going to list EVERY SINGLE PROP that appears in the particular film throughout Wikipedia? Hayden120 (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's every simple, if you feel that you need to list the type of firearm used in a film or TV show, find the article of the page you're interested in and mention it there, I don't see how including a list of trivia on the firearm page itself has any practical use. Koalorka (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Or if you really want, you could go to the Internet Movie Firearms Database and add it there. In fact, IMFDB is dedicated to the kind of stuff people put in firearm pop culture sections: video games, movies, TV shows, all of that stuff.--LWF (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Video
This site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hioPReoo10A&feature=related has this rifle shooting and being reloaded.Agre22 (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)agre22

¿US Coast Guard?
Being a Coastie myself, I am somewhat surprised to have heard that the Guard uses the M-1Ø7; It’s absolute news to me. ¿Could someone review this far more thoroughly to ensure this is, in fact, correct? (Yes, they’ve been talking about it for years, but that doesn’t mean it actually has happened.174.25.7.35 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)AREDDSON

POV issues
I have serious concerns about this quote:

"Due to these capabilities, the M82 is used as an example of big bore rifles whose public sale is opposed by gun control proponents; the Violence Policy Center lists more than thirty incidents (five involving Barrett-made weapons) in which criminals were found to have .50 caliber rifles in their possession.[6] "

the cited document shows no cases of anyone being "murdered" with a 50 BMG except for this poor guy:

"In March 2008 a police officer in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico was killed with a 50 caliber sniper rifle. The gun's origin was linked to Phoenix, Arizona according to law enforcement officials. ("Top prosecutors in Ariz., Mexico target smuggling," Arizona Republic, March 14, 2008)."

Which is a strength to say the least. there is also no such thing as a "Sniper" rifle but thats a different issue.

saying the VPC lists .... is the equivaltion of saying the "NRA says no .50 BMG has been used in a violent crime" which while correct does not belong here.

If no one objects i'm just going to remove the VPC quote next week. Unless you want to counterbalance it with the NRA's report on BMG's its POV issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch590 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Done

removed the whole section this is better adressed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG#Legal_issues

and i didn't think there is a need to copy the whole section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch590 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong map
The map that shows the countries that use the rifle is incomplete or wrong, since it doesn't show Spain for example. I don't have time to check the rest, sorry, just letting people know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.161.143 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

ok...so i don't really know what a BMG is, however i do know a good deal about firearms, and the likelyhood for a terrorist to shoot down a commercial airliner with a M82 or an M107 is highly unlikely, unless of course the plane is coming in for a landing, because at the range of M107, you cant really reach much else!


 * No military commander would suggest using a Barrett Light Fifty rifle (semi-auto, ten round capacity) for defense against incoming single engine aircraft. The minimum for anti-aircaft use of the .50 caliber cartridge was the twin or quad fifty: two or four M2 machineguns each with a hopper of ~250 rounds of .50 BMG caliber and that is for defense against attacking aircraft. The idea that an airliner could be shot down with a .50 BMG rifle is absurd.Naaman Brown (talk)


 * "BMG" stands for "Browning Machine Gun". The .50 caliber Browning M2 was the first weapon to use the 12.7x99mm round, so it became known as the ".50 BMG" round. -Zachcoggin (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitman 2
The gun also appears in hitman 2 - silent assassin in the afghanistan missions, infact as the weapon that you find as an objective in one of the missions. Also it stops a jeep if you shoot at the engine, and then you make the target kill (one of the ways to complete the mission). It can be mentioned here, right? 115.240.8.212 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. But you can add that to the Hitman 2 article where it belongs. —  Dan MP5  20:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel
If theres a picture of an IDF M-82, howcome Israel is not on the users list??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.55.85 (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a personal photograph, that picture is not a verifiable reliable source. ROG5728 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the Hebrew Wikipedia considered a verifiable, reliable source? BTW, it is used not only by the IDF, but also the Israeli border guard's bomb squads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.182.129 (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No (Wikipedia citing Wikipedia would be...silly), but its references probably are. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like the Hebrew wiki has no sources.Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Would http://www.armedforces-int.com/projects/m82_barrett_sniper_rifle.html be considered a good source? --134.191.232.68 (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the text seems to have been taken from an older version of the Barrett M82 article. The infobox in that article is almost identical to the infobox here. ROG5728 (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Australia
should Australia be included in the section regarding users? i have a link to a picture released by the Australian ministry of defence showing an australian special forces operative with a Barret m82.would this be enough evidence to include Australia as a user? http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/gallery/2010/20101105/20101018adf8262658_008.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikcelled (talk • contribs)
 * I added Australia to the users list with a different version of the same image, and cited it as a source. The caption in the source I used describes the pictured soldier as Australian SOTG (Special Operations Task Group). ROG5728 (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Used by the IRA, what nonsense
Unless youn cite please remove, no wonder serious academics and schools don't allow the use of Wikipedia as a research tool [shakes head]. 82.31.236.245 (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Try Harnden, Boyne, or pretty much any decent article about the IRA in South Armagh in the late 80s/90s. Ed Moloney good enough for you Twobells (please remember to log in)? The reason serious academics and schools don't allow the use of Wikipedia as a research tool is because editors add all sorts of rubbish that isn't in the sources. How about "This comes as a further blow to the Metropolitan police's reputation. as well as raising further questions over the UK's ability to create and manage large infrastructure projects" (added by you), or "While the UK never publicly discusses or acknowledges special forces operations reports emerged later from Japanese sources that the UK on request from the Japanese government had sent a six-man team from 22 squadron of the Special Air Service to advise and support local security forces on preparing for the embassy assault due to their expertise in embassy rescue and counter-terrorism" (also added by you). I could carry on for hours documenting the Jackanory information you've added to Wikipedia, but I've already made my point. 2 lines of K  303  10:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Images
I have gotten permission from Barrett to use some of their images. Would it be useful if I uploaded some new images of the M107A1 and M82A1? --Zackmann08 (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Image
Just an FYI, the image in the infobox previously held the caption of M82 Barrett. Since it was the same image located later in the article that was marked as M107 and the file was marked as the M107, I removed the duplicated image in the infobox and replaced it with another M82 image that was already in the article. Aneah&#124;talk tome 22:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference for South Korea
The reference provided by [125.187.165.163] (| revision differences) links to a page which is not in English. I'm aware that this is not a problem based on the relevant guidelines, however, the link may suffer from link rot at some point, as it appears to be a news page. That said, I personally don't know how to provide an accurate |translation in English, nor how to link it to a archive page of the link given.

m8e39 08:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

production discrepancy
- the infobox lists in production while the lead paragraph says it is not. Can someone who knows which is the case please fix? Thank you! Buddy23Lee (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should clairify before someone gets upset with me - the, at least apparent discrepancy, between the text and the infobox listing is confusing to me and likely other readers. Even if both are technically correct for some reason, can someone please add a wee bit of clairity? Thank you! Buddy23Lee (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Barrett M82. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080313101144/http://www.barrettrifles.com:80/rifle_82.aspx to http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_82.aspx

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Recoil ?
So what prevents the operator's shoulder being broken ? I.e how does this monster cartridge become usable in a rifle when 30-06 already had a heavy recoil ? Article needs to address this. Muzzle brake can't be the whole story. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 one external links on Barrett M82. 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/20071014045606/http://www.policeone.com:80/police-products/firearms/precision-rifles/press-releases/116526/ to http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/precision-rifles/press-releases/116526/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080313101144/http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_82.aspx to http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_82.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110123041433/http://barrett.net/pdfs/M107A1-Sales-Sheet.pdf to http://www.barrett.net/pdfs/M107A1-Sales-Sheet.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081031014716/http://www.zeiss.de/C12571300034F59C/0/96FBE06777506FF3C125739500449BA1/$file/53-0690e.pdf to http://www.zeiss.de/C12571300034F59C/0/96FBE06777506FF3C125739500449BA1/$file/53-0690e.pdf
 * Added tag to http://disarmament.un.org/UN_REGISTER.nsf/5cb8afbbb6536a298525647d00612b14/437bc746a4891bbb8525749d0058bdcc?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309192408/http://geo-army.ge/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=9&lang=en to http://geo-army.ge/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=9&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100217023211/http://www.deutschesheer.de:80/portal/a/heer/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLNzSLN3Y1NQVJgjkWBs76kQjhoJRUfV-P_NxUfW_9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQAq7bPb/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfMTZfM0U1TQ!!?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256F870054206E%2FW26LMHZ5362INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp to http://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/a/heer/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLNzSLN3Y1NQVJgjkWBs76kQjhoJRUfV-P_NxUfW_9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQAq7bPb/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfMTZfM0U1TQ!!?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256F870054206E%2FW26LMHZ5362INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128011323/http://dover.idf.il:80/IDF/English/News/today/2011/01/2502.htm to http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/2011/01/2502.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012004559/http://www.defence.pk/pakistan-army/ to http://www.defence.pk/pakistan-army/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910232629/http://www.barrett.net:80/pdfs/Manual-82A1.pdf to http://www.barrett.net/pdfs/Manual-82A1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129094747/http://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SW_CSW_M107.pdf to http://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SW_CSW_M107.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110123041433/http://barrett.net/pdfs/M107A1-Sales-Sheet.pdf to http://www.barrett.net/pdfs/M107A1-Sales-Sheet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Anti-materiel, sniper or both?
When the article was edited to remove "anti-materiel" it left the description making no sense. Can someone with superior knowledge correct this, please? ExpatSalopian (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Done - thank you, Alexpatch ExpatSalopian (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)