Talk:Future Weapons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biological Weapons vs. Geneva Convention[edit]

One version of this article included a asterisk noting that Biological Weapons are not permitted by the Geneva Convention. Given that this is a list of weapons featured on the show, how is this relevant to the discussion? If someone wants to know about the legality of these weapons, that information detailed in the appropriate article and needs not be repeated here.

Naming Concerns[edit]

Another article was created before this one about the same TV show. The creator of this article created it unknowingly of the other article. But this article has indeed supassed the other in content giving the other article a reason for its own deletion. One may argue that the other article has the correct name (without a space in between the Future and the Weapons); this, however, is a misconception. The Discovery Channel has identified the show with a space and without one. The "Name Card", in this case, may not be used then, as neither article has the advantage. So, in conclusion this article should remain in existance while the other should not, as this article contains more content. Porsche997SBS 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB calls it FutureWeapons.--KrossTalk 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my Sky EPG calls it "Future Weapons". Which version has the better content is a completely separate issue from what the name should be, though: and if necessary, the histories of the two can be merged. Mind you, perhaps it should really be called "Western Arms Sales Brochure"... Alai 07:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10 months later...
I change my position of this issue.--Porsche997SBS 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

Can I suggest to add short descriptions to the often unclear (code) topic headers. I have added then to Dragon and Boomerang. DoomProofWiki (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I think that it would be easy enough to fix the neutrality of this article by simply separating the introductory paragraph and the rest of the article with a header of "Criticism." I will change that, feel free to change it back if unnecessary. If possible, I will also change the name to the version used by IMDB. Jetra2 13:59 August 30 2006 (EST)

Barrett XM107 segment[edit]

I just have to laugh and point out that in the 'List of Errors' section, it is metioned that the XM107 is actually not a sniper rifle, and yet that weapon is pictured at the top of this article with the subtitle "XM107 Sniper Rifle". If it is indeed not a sniper rifle, could someone change that (I am not qualified to do so). JimElNino 00:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Quality[edit]

I have to say, out of all the wiki entries, this one leads the pack when it comes to crap. The page is taken up mostly by huge No Screenshot block, followed by:

"Title X" Episode which "Title X" is discussed.

And this is repeated 5 more times.

cg 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed[edit]

Is there a problem with the round chambering and the .308 errors?

Why were they removed? I just replaced them.

Thanks much.

12/16/1836

SnowySC 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, the statement on the show is almost correct. .308 Winchester is almost the same as 7.62mm NATO rounds. While it's true that 7.62 mm is not exactly .308 inches, the caliber designations of ammunition are not always their exact diameter- for another example, the popular .38 Special round is actually .357 inches in diameter. I clarified this on the page. 132.170.32.225 07:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you're wrong about the 7.62x39 and .308 round being "almost the same", they're both .30 caliber but the similarities end there; the two rounds are quite different, balistically speaking. Second of all, you're missing the point on why he was wrong. Yes, the 7.62x39 and .308 are both ".308"* in the sense that they both fire bullets of .308 caliber. But come on, this is splitting hairs and you know it. When someone says "three oh eight", 99.9999% of the time they're talking about the .308 Winchester (or 7.62x51). And the exact diameter of a bullet is something only handloaders talk about. So yes, Machowitz was correct if by "correct" you mean "in the terms that only handloaders use". But he is incorrect if we're dealing with the terms that 99.999% of everyone uses.
  • Actually the 7.62x39 can be loaded with .311 or .308, I'm not sure. 75.75.110.235 01:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The show was most definitely incorrect. .308 winchester has demensions of 7.62X51. 7.62 Russian Short has demensions of 7.62X39. 7.62 Nato, which is almost the same thing as .308 Winchester and can be used from the same rifle in almost all cases, is very, very different from 7.62X39. Diameter of the bullets, however, is equal. Cartridge capacity is far and away different.

  • The Soviet 7.62mm rounds are exactly .300. I suspect the confusion here is coming from the fact that there are numerous rounds of roughly the same calibre that are commonly used today. The .308 Winchester is in fact 7.82mm however. The true Western 7.62mm round is the standard NATO caliber (for snipers and medium machine guns). The way to tell the difference is to be specific when naming them. The Soviets use the 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mm rounds. NATO use the 7.62x51mm round and Winchester sell a similar round which is in fact 7.82x51mm. On top of this there are a number of other calibers used in Britain, the USA, France, Italy and Germany prior to the foundation of NATO which are all within 1mm of each other but mentioning them would get a bit time consuming. - Senor Freebie

Removed Geneva information[edit]

I removed the often misquoted Geneva convention rules about 50. caliber use on "human targets." This is often associated with 50. caliber round which is untrue as the M2 Browning machine gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_M2

has been and will continue to be used on "human targets."

The argument against the "sniper rifle" term was also incorrect as the engagement of human sized targets beyond 1200 meters is physically impossible with the XM107 due to the panning accuracy of 3 to 4MOA with military ammunition. The 2000 meter sniper rifle claims are largely from popular entertainment. The Barrett company nor any armed services branch has ever made this claim. There have been large target hits at this distance but they were not against human targets. The "anti-material weapon" by small technical default make it not a "sniper rifle" as defined by the U.S. military.

Hope this all makes sense.

68.40.56.141 09:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I wrote this when I was not signed in. SnowySC 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots[edit]

There are numerous shots on the official website, but I cannot cut and paste them or even copy them, due to perhaps my illiteracy in computers. Aang-kai 04:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will see about rectifying that. It may take several days, though. Bigfootti 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing Errors[edit]

I will continue to repost the "list of errors" unless someone has a reasonable counter to them as errors. I have a feeling someone associated with the show is removing them.

I will grant that there may be some degree of lay person semantics but, the "bolt action round cambering in 15 seconds" error is simply gross negligence. There is no argument against it.

SnowySC 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These need to be verifiable. Please cite some reliable source about it. Copysan 23:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the statement "it doesn't take 15 seconds to chamber a round" needs a CITE, then you don't know anything about firearms and should thus stay out of the argument. It's COMMON SENSE for anyone who knows anything about firearms that chambering a round takes like half a second. Do I need to provide a cite for the statement, "it doesn't take four hours to open a car's door"? As for the 7.62/.308 business, that's a simple fact that you can check on the AK-47 article. Also the classification of the Barret, that's a simple fact check and doesn't require citation. 75.75.110.235 01:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

criticism[edit]

maybe this article needs a section on how the show is mostly bullshit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.108.136 (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha. You mean all the cool stuff you expect to see on a show called Future Weapons is just fluff for the opening credits and just shows a new version of the same old crap? I really wanted to see that lightning gun that blows a hole through the steel plate and the sonic cannon blow apart the cinderblock wall.


I agree, this show is simply a mouth piece for the 'invincible' army ... it's amazing how not once have I seen a gun jammed or a new future weapon not work. There's no critical analysis of any weapons, it simply exudes the glory of the military machine(S). And anyway, isn't there a moral issue involved here. Maybe it's not just pacifists that would argue this show fetishes weapons and killing, and invites the viewer to take pleasure in ever more elaborate and disgusting ways of killing another person.

Cancellation?[edit]

Did Future Weapons get canceled? Discovery is tight lipped but they're schedule doesn't show any upcoming episodes of future weapons. Does anyone know? 71.206.38.71 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not :-( -ANK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.134.78 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Future_Weapons&oldid=1212268313"