Which would be more accurate? According to this article, the PSG-1 is much more expensive, and in my my world, more expensive, more better. [[User:Thecutnut|Thecutnut]] ([[User talk:Thecutnut|talk]]) 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Which would be more accurate? According to this article, the PSG-1 is much more expensive, and in my my world, more expensive, more better. [[User:Thecutnut|Thecutnut]] ([[User talk:Thecutnut|talk]]) 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
== Bullet Casing ==
How can everybody here be calling cartridge casings bullet casings? I believe in the first sentence of the bullet article tht a bullet is not a catridge. Add to that the fact that the article on bullets was linked in the PSG1 article.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
"[...] the bullet casing is ejected with substantial force, reportedly enough to throw it several meters sideways. While this is generally not an issue law enforcement snipers, it greatly compromises the military use of the rifle."
If I understand correctly, the "empty bullet", or the bottom part of the unshot bullet flies out fast. Why does that compromise the military use? Several meters doesn't sound like much either. Is the article trying to say that the sideways recyle is too substantial for multiple shots at the same target or target area? Please elaborate. —kooo July 2, 2005 21:38 (UTC)
Is it possible that the metallic glint of the casing could give away the position of a military sniper? I've heard that's a reason why the military favors bolt action rifles--the casing can be ejected when the sniper feels it is most safe to do so.--Daveswagon 3 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)
Perhaps. The bullet casing is also extremely hot, which could have an effect in a dry forest or so. I still wonder what the original author means. —kooo July 3, 2005 10:31 (UTC)
Thats a good point, and (as Kooo was good enough to guess/contact me) I did write this. What I was talking about was the empty bullet casing (or empty shell), being ejected (after firing) with force enough to throw it a good distance, at least substantially longer then regular semi-auto precision rifles. Herein lies the problem with the statment (that you have rightly questioned) - Although I remember quite positively reading that one (of a few) reason(s) the psg-1 was unsuitable for use by military snipers was the ejecting brass could give away the soldiers position. From memory, the article stated the brass was thrown 20 yards after firing, although because I can't find the reference, I couldn't go so far as to write something so specific on memory. Unfortunatly I can't confirm this (as I have never fired a psg-1, again unfortunatly) so I it's open to revision if you don't think this is substantial enough. Essjay-R 3 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
I must also add, aside from simply hurling bullet casings around I also can only guess why this would be a particular problem. Noise or movement I assumed, however why this is a problem when you've just fired a large rifle is anyones guess. Essjay-R 3 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)
One thing that comes to my mind is also that when you push something with a force, it pushes back with a counter-force; therefore in this case the PSG1 would propably jump significantly outwards from the ejecting brass, or more significantly than with assault rifles or other guns. Military snipers might need to shoot more than once, police snipers probably count to "one shot, one downing" (I guess they would prefer not killing the target, but neutralizing it). If there are many targets, there would also be many police snipers, all counting to shoot at the same time. Ah oops, off-topic. Forgive me ;-) —kooo July 4, 2005 18:17 (UTC)
Who knows, even if it throws shell casings 20 yards sideways - I think price is the main limiting factor on military use of the psg-1. That's what will (or has) killed the lockheed F-22, so even with a superior product the economics of such devices rules their use. Post me a message if you happen to read anything to support the shell throwing idea though. Essjay-R 5 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
NEWSFLASH! (I can't believe we didn't check this sooner) This article on Mel's Sniper central (on of the external links on this page) confirms that a psg-1 will throw ejected brass a distance of 10 metres after each shot. It also cites the possibility of giving away a snipers location as the primary reason this would be a problem. Although not definate proof, it's at least a reference. I'll update the wiki page now. Essjay-R 5 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
Great, case solved :-) —kooo July 5, 2005 18:43 (UTC)
Video Game References
I believe that besides Metal Gear Solid, the "sniper" light gun featured in the Silent Scope series are at least based on the PSG-1.
Why is the PSG/90 under "See also"? Aside from the small similarities in the abbreviations and names, does these rifles even have anything to do with eachother? 213.64.18.23616:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. The PSG/90 is a bolt-action rifle made by Accuracy International for the Sweden military. The PSG-1 is semi-automatic. The only thing that they have in common is that they are both "sniper" rifles that fire the 7.62mm cartridge.--Davidwiz18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough history!?!?! I started the original article on the MSG-90. I do not know where to begin.
Stick to talking and wrting about the civilian or 'sport' version of these weapons.
These weapons were developed for professional military usage. One of the reasons why I no longer edit the page, is this constant changing of the page on a regular basis by the 'sports'.
I am not a 'sport', nor is what I do a 'sport'.
The G3 should be the main article.
Both PSG1 and MSG-90 are derived from the G3, they should be merged under this heading.
The PSG1 is an expensive, percisely machined (tolerance .001) and sensitive device (because of the tolerance), supposedly developed for the snipers role, it was too prone to malfunctions in harsh environments and too expensive for marketing.
The MSG-90 is the 'insensitive' (still at .001 tolerance) military version of the G3 (or G3A4ZF), sharing a common father with the PSG1, one having nothing to do with the other.
Somehow I doubt you started the original article, seeing as how that was Joffeloff, who is still active on Wikipedia. Add to that the fact that no history or design information would be lost in a merge, and I don't see why not to merge, unless it can be shown that the MSG-90 was not based off of the PSG-1.--LWF (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree — Merge. Even the official company information states that it is a variant of the original PSG-1. --09:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deon Steyn (talk • contribs)
Which would be more accurate? According to this article, the PSG-1 is much more expensive, and in my my world, more expensive, more better. Thecutnut (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bullet Casing
How can everybody here be calling cartridge casings bullet casings? I believe in the first sentence of the bullet article tht a bullet is not a catridge. Add to that the fact that the article on bullets was linked in the PSG1 article.
