Talk:Barrett M82: Difference between revisions
Talk:Barrett M82: Difference between revisions - Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Talk:Barrett M82: Difference between revisions
[[File:M107CQ.jpg|thumb|none|450px|Barrett M107CQ without scope - .50 BMG]]
Also appears in "Superman returns", about 52 mins in the movie in a shoot out scene on a roof top of a building. A police officer (credited as "Police Sharp Shooter": Phillip Henry) operates a Barrett .50 BMG, can't say if it's a M107 or M82A1.
[[File:Thesniper82a1.jpg|thumb|none|450px|The Barrett M107 used in ''[[The Sniper]]'', courtesy of Props Limited.]]
[[File:Terminal List Barrett M82A1.jpg|thumb|none|450px|Screen-used Barrett M107 used by [[Taylor Kitsch]] in the show ''[[The Terminal List]]'' - .50 BMG (Image with courtesy to '''''Xtreme Props'''''.)]]
[[File:Rambo08BarrettM82CQ-5special.jpg|thumb|none|450px|The Barrett M107CQ used by [[Matthew Marsden]] in ''[[Rambo (2008)|Rambo]]''.]]
--[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 20:14, 11 December 2011 (CST)
--[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 20:14, 11 December 2011 (CST)
:From what I can tell from a quick look around, what you have there is called an M82A1M, though the Marines call it M82A3. There isn't a great deal of visual difference between it and the M107, mind you. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 20:25, 11 December 2011 (CST)
:From what I can tell from a quick look around, what you have there is called an M82A1M, though the Marines call it M82A3. There isn't a great deal of visual difference between it and the M107, mind you; from what I can tell, the main difference is the M107 doesn't have a quick-detachable muzzle brake. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 20:25, 11 December 2011 (CST)
::It isn't the M82A3. If I am right, the [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/USMC_Barrett_M82A3.jpg M82A3] is quite easy to tell from other variants, as the rail on top is raised by about an inch, and doesn't go all the way to the front of the handguard, stopping about 2 inches short to allow for folding iron sights. The design of the M82A3 muzzle brake still appears to be the 4 hole arrowhead shaped one. Only guns I can find with this cylindrical 6 hole muzzle brake are .416 (look on the [[Mythbusters]] for a different angle of the muzzle brake). --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 04:22, 12 December 2011 (CST)
:::I think at this point we might want to consider emailing Barrett and asking them. I find images of ''both'' the one with the raised rail and the one without labelled as M82A3. About the best I've found so far regarding an actual answer is one page for an airsoft manufacturer ID'ing by version (in Japanese) which says the flat-top one is the M82A1M (with M107 in brackets) and the raised-rail was the M82A3. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 05:00, 12 December 2011 (CST)
::::Am not 100% but I believe the M82A1M (below) had a rail that was the same length as the M82A3 (stopped a couple of inches short of the front of the forend to allow for a folding front sight) but it was not raised. The M82A3 also doesn't have the rear grip and monopod socket of the M82A1M. I have never seen an M82A3 without the raised rail, but according to wikipedia (pinch of salt) it can occasionally be found with the standard height rail found on the M82A1M.
::::Back to the more pertinent question though, what should the M107 be called now, as Barrett currently sells it as the M82A1 (am assuming because it is a more recognised name). --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 05:48, 12 December 2011 (CST)
:::::But the US M107 seems to have that shorter rail too in some images, though Wikipedia has what they say is a Bundeswehr M107 with a full-length rail (and one picture they claim is an M107 which is actually an M82A1). Going off rail length would imply this new model is ''not'' an M107 and the M82A1M is, confusingly enough. Also, if that's from that pete's guns place or whatever it was called, doesn't that have pictures of several variants on that same page? Could be that 'M' is actually an M107? [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 06:02, 12 December 2011 (CST)
::::::Rather annoyingly, the M107 isn't listed on the US Army website fact files, so can't tell for sure what rail length the official version has. However, all current pictures I can find of actual US Army soldiers with a Barrett feature the full length rail without the folding iron sights on the receiver, an exact match for what Barrett currently lists as the M82A1 on their website. It may be the case that the original M107s were just M82A1Ms. If you google image search M82A1M all the results (with the exception of mislabelled original M82A1s) appear to have this shorter rail with folding iron sights attached to the receiver, so I think the picture above is an M82A1M. Below is my best guess at what the different variants are:
::::::*M82: first version with the solid stock
::::::*Original M82A1: classic rifle with the short raised rail
::::::*M82A1M: low long rail that stops a couple of inches short of the front of the forend with visible folding front sight, also has rear grip
::::::*M82A3: raised long rail that stops a couple of inches short of the front of the forend with visible folding front sight, lacks the rear grip
::::::*M107/Current M82A1: full length rail with rear grip. It actually has a folding front sight, but it is inside the rail so isn't visible from the side
::::::Back to the original question (if what I have above is correct, are there any Americans who know more about Barretts who want the weigh in on this?) do we start calling the M107 the M82A1 or what? If not, should a note be put on this page that even though we ID the gun as an M107 (kind of like how we call what is now the SIG-Sauer P226 the P226R) it is now sold as the M82A1?--[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 08:33, 12 December 2011 (CST)
:::::::Precident is to stick with the original name of articles, as a rule (eg we still say GE M61 Vulcan even though GE hasn't made them for years) so I'd say M107 makes more sense, with a note perhaps that Barrett calls the variant the M82A1 in modern press materials if it turns out that's what they're actually doing. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 09:03, 12 December 2011 (CST)
::::::::Is there a reason the M82A3 (full-length tall rail with visible front sight) isn't listed on the page? Because it appears in [[Stella Women's Academy, High School Division Class C³|Stella C<sup>3</sup>-Bu]], but there's no picture to add for it. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 23:14, 19 September 2013 (EDT)
:::::::::It isn't listed as it hasn't appeared in anything up to this point. Are you sure that the one that appears is an M82A3 (I can't tell as there is no screenshot), as that is a really odd variant to use as it is a non-commercial version specific only to the USMC and there is very little in the way of reference material to draw it from. For this reason it is very hard to find a pic of it, this is the best I could find that wasn't a drawing or something made in PMG:[[File:Barrett M82A3.jpg|thumb|500px|none|Barrett M82A3 - .50 BMG]]--[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 04:53, 20 September 2013 (EDT)
:::::::::: Here is the image of the M82 from the Stella anime, it looks like the M82A3 from the raised accessory rail on top and lack of rear sight. [[File:C3 12 M82 (14).jpg|thumb|500px|none|Note raised accessory rail and lack of rear sight. Also is using a comrade as a bipod for a Barrett a good idea?! Gosh]] [[User:Inceptor57|Inceptor57]] ([[User talk:Inceptor57|talk]]) 18:23, 21 September 2013 (EDT)
:::::::::::That was the same reference picture I found, and it's likely the one the animators used (the only airsoft M82-series replicas are M107s), as it's the same angle (from the other side) with the same scope. Also note the rail doesn't go to the front, leaving room for the folding front sight, just like the M82A1M, that's what tipped me off that it wasn't an M107. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 17:35, 22 September 2013 (EDT)
::::::::::::You can get airsoft replicas of the older M81A1 as well, I know VFC make a gas powered 8mm one. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 17:44, 22 September 2013 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Oh, I just looked it up, it was a limited run of 100 rifles, that's likely why I didn't find anything about it. Still nothing about an airsoft M82A3 though. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 18:26, 22 September 2013 (EDT)
== Classification? ==
Why are we calling this a sniper rifle? It was neither meant to be used nor actually used as a sniper rifle, and it isn't even really that accurate (average ~3 MOA, ~1.5 with good ammo). It should really be called an anti-materiel rifle, along with a lot of other .50 BMG (and similarly chambered) rifles. Thoughts? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 17:20, 12 August 2016 (EDT)
:Did you just watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEDFn3UtVIc this] by any chance?--[[User:AnActualAK47|AnActualAK47]] ([[User talk:AnActualAK47|talk]]) 19:20, 12 August 2016 (EDT)
::To dispute your first point, it has been and is used as a sniper rifle, so by that definition you could label it as such. As for when something is a sniper or anti material rifle, this can be a very fuzzy line so it is dangerous territory for us to be definitively labelling rifles as on thing or another. There are some .50 calibre rifles that are marketed as sniper rifles and some as anti material when there is no substantive difference between the two. Some countries acquired the M82A1 to use it as a sniper rifle, not as an anti-material rifle. Would you call an AW50F a sniper or anti-material rifle? That was originally a sniper rifle but now it is used pretty much exclusively in the anti material or EOD role. Lastly, the M107 was adopted by the US Army as the "Long Range '''Sniper''' Rifle, Caliber .50, M107". The long and the short of it is that people need to be able to find weapons and the vast majority of people would think of this as a sniper rifle, so to me it makes sense to put it in that category. The most I would do is create a separate "Anti-Material Rifle" category, but the problem with this is that we would end up having a debate for every big-bore rifle whether it is Anti-Material or not. Would stuff like the M14 end up in this category, as versions of that have been adopted as anti-material rifles in the EOD role? --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 19:46, 12 August 2016 (EDT)
:::True, the lines are rather blurry with these. Given this, I'd say we should just stick with what we had in the first place, given the alternative. However, the idea of an Anti-Materiel Rifle category seems enticing, despite the possible debates... Well, for now, I'd say that we should just leave it as is. Also, AAAK, as a matter of fact, I did. Thanks for the help. [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 23:46, 12 August 2016 (EDT)
::::I know that this is a dead discussion, but an Anti-Materiel Rifle category actually sounds like a good idea. I know that it's sort of difficult to tell, but then again, the same thing happens here, in the Sniper Rifles category. I mean, a lot of these entries (one that comes to mind is the Thompson Contender Rifle) are pretty damned debatable, so I think that we could probably manage an AMR category, especially since we can (to an extent) largely go off of caliber. Also, I really don't think that the Colt 1855 rifle belongs here. Thoughts? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 16:06, 11 December 2016 (EST)
- Would it be silly to request a change of the name of the page from simply 'Barrett M82' to 'Barrett M82 series'? Mainly because there are several guns within the 82 model name (M82/M82A1/A2/CQ/etc), much like the Mossberg 500 Series and other such pages. Just a thought. StanTheMan 14:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. Ramell 20:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
M107 is now also called the M82A1
If you go to the Barrett website it would seem that what used to be called the M107 (and what is listed as the M107 on this site) is now sold by Barrett as the M82A1. Even though M82A1 is the correct name, should this rifle still be identified as the M107 so avoid confusion and put a note in the M107 section about the name change or what? Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Also, I didn't realise but it seems that the M82A1/M107 is also available in .416 Barrett, and seems to be able to be distinguished by a different flash hider:
From what I can tell from a quick look around, what you have there is called an M82A1M, though the Marines call it M82A3. There isn't a great deal of visual difference between it and the M107, mind you; from what I can tell, the main difference is the M107 doesn't have a quick-detachable muzzle brake. Evil Tim 20:25, 11 December 2011 (CST)
It isn't the M82A3. If I am right, the M82A3 is quite easy to tell from other variants, as the rail on top is raised by about an inch, and doesn't go all the way to the front of the handguard, stopping about 2 inches short to allow for folding iron sights. The design of the M82A3 muzzle brake still appears to be the 4 hole arrowhead shaped one. Only guns I can find with this cylindrical 6 hole muzzle brake are .416 (look on the Mythbusters for a different angle of the muzzle brake). --commando552 04:22, 12 December 2011 (CST)
I think at this point we might want to consider emailing Barrett and asking them. I find images of both the one with the raised rail and the one without labelled as M82A3. About the best I've found so far regarding an actual answer is one page for an airsoft manufacturer ID'ing by version (in Japanese) which says the flat-top one is the M82A1M (with M107 in brackets) and the raised-rail was the M82A3. Evil Tim 05:00, 12 December 2011 (CST)
Am not 100% but I believe the M82A1M (below) had a rail that was the same length as the M82A3 (stopped a couple of inches short of the front of the forend to allow for a folding front sight) but it was not raised. The M82A3 also doesn't have the rear grip and monopod socket of the M82A1M. I have never seen an M82A3 without the raised rail, but according to wikipedia (pinch of salt) it can occasionally be found with the standard height rail found on the M82A1M.
Back to the more pertinent question though, what should the M107 be called now, as Barrett currently sells it as the M82A1 (am assuming because it is a more recognised name). --commando552 05:48, 12 December 2011 (CST)
But the US M107 seems to have that shorter rail too in some images, though Wikipedia has what they say is a Bundeswehr M107 with a full-length rail (and one picture they claim is an M107 which is actually an M82A1). Going off rail length would imply this new model is not an M107 and the M82A1M is, confusingly enough. Also, if that's from that pete's guns place or whatever it was called, doesn't that have pictures of several variants on that same page? Could be that 'M' is actually an M107? Evil Tim 06:02, 12 December 2011 (CST)
Rather annoyingly, the M107 isn't listed on the US Army website fact files, so can't tell for sure what rail length the official version has. However, all current pictures I can find of actual US Army soldiers with a Barrett feature the full length rail without the folding iron sights on the receiver, an exact match for what Barrett currently lists as the M82A1 on their website. It may be the case that the original M107s were just M82A1Ms. If you google image search M82A1M all the results (with the exception of mislabelled original M82A1s) appear to have this shorter rail with folding iron sights attached to the receiver, so I think the picture above is an M82A1M. Below is my best guess at what the different variants are:
M82: first version with the solid stock
Original M82A1: classic rifle with the short raised rail
M82A1M: low long rail that stops a couple of inches short of the front of the forend with visible folding front sight, also has rear grip
M82A3: raised long rail that stops a couple of inches short of the front of the forend with visible folding front sight, lacks the rear grip
M107/Current M82A1: full length rail with rear grip. It actually has a folding front sight, but it is inside the rail so isn't visible from the side
Back to the original question (if what I have above is correct, are there any Americans who know more about Barretts who want the weigh in on this?) do we start calling the M107 the M82A1 or what? If not, should a note be put on this page that even though we ID the gun as an M107 (kind of like how we call what is now the SIG-Sauer P226 the P226R) it is now sold as the M82A1?--commando552 08:33, 12 December 2011 (CST)
Precident is to stick with the original name of articles, as a rule (eg we still say GE M61 Vulcan even though GE hasn't made them for years) so I'd say M107 makes more sense, with a note perhaps that Barrett calls the variant the M82A1 in modern press materials if it turns out that's what they're actually doing. Evil Tim 09:03, 12 December 2011 (CST)
Is there a reason the M82A3 (full-length tall rail with visible front sight) isn't listed on the page? Because it appears in Stella C3-Bu, but there's no picture to add for it. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2013 (EDT)
It isn't listed as it hasn't appeared in anything up to this point. Are you sure that the one that appears is an M82A3 (I can't tell as there is no screenshot), as that is a really odd variant to use as it is a non-commercial version specific only to the USMC and there is very little in the way of reference material to draw it from. For this reason it is very hard to find a pic of it, this is the best I could find that wasn't a drawing or something made in PMG:Error creating thumbnail: File missingBarrett M82A3 - .50 BMG--commando552 (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2013 (EDT)
Here is the image of the M82 from the Stella anime, it looks like the M82A3 from the raised accessory rail on top and lack of rear sight. Error creating thumbnail: File missingNote raised accessory rail and lack of rear sight. Also is using a comrade as a bipod for a Barrett a good idea?! GoshInceptor57 (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2013 (EDT)
That was the same reference picture I found, and it's likely the one the animators used (the only airsoft M82-series replicas are M107s), as it's the same angle (from the other side) with the same scope. Also note the rail doesn't go to the front, leaving room for the folding front sight, just like the M82A1M, that's what tipped me off that it wasn't an M107. Alex T Snow (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2013 (EDT)
You can get airsoft replicas of the older M81A1 as well, I know VFC make a gas powered 8mm one. --commando552 (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2013 (EDT)
Oh, I just looked it up, it was a limited run of 100 rifles, that's likely why I didn't find anything about it. Still nothing about an airsoft M82A3 though. Alex T Snow (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2013 (EDT)
Classification?
Why are we calling this a sniper rifle? It was neither meant to be used nor actually used as a sniper rifle, and it isn't even really that accurate (average ~3 MOA, ~1.5 with good ammo). It should really be called an anti-materiel rifle, along with a lot of other .50 BMG (and similarly chambered) rifles. Thoughts? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2016 (EDT)
Did you just watch this by any chance?--AnActualAK47 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2016 (EDT)
To dispute your first point, it has been and is used as a sniper rifle, so by that definition you could label it as such. As for when something is a sniper or anti material rifle, this can be a very fuzzy line so it is dangerous territory for us to be definitively labelling rifles as on thing or another. There are some .50 calibre rifles that are marketed as sniper rifles and some as anti material when there is no substantive difference between the two. Some countries acquired the M82A1 to use it as a sniper rifle, not as an anti-material rifle. Would you call an AW50F a sniper or anti-material rifle? That was originally a sniper rifle but now it is used pretty much exclusively in the anti material or EOD role. Lastly, the M107 was adopted by the US Army as the "Long Range Sniper Rifle, Caliber .50, M107". The long and the short of it is that people need to be able to find weapons and the vast majority of people would think of this as a sniper rifle, so to me it makes sense to put it in that category. The most I would do is create a separate "Anti-Material Rifle" category, but the problem with this is that we would end up having a debate for every big-bore rifle whether it is Anti-Material or not. Would stuff like the M14 end up in this category, as versions of that have been adopted as anti-material rifles in the EOD role? --commando552 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2016 (EDT)
True, the lines are rather blurry with these. Given this, I'd say we should just stick with what we had in the first place, given the alternative. However, the idea of an Anti-Materiel Rifle category seems enticing, despite the possible debates... Well, for now, I'd say that we should just leave it as is. Also, AAAK, as a matter of fact, I did. Thanks for the help. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2016 (EDT)
I know that this is a dead discussion, but an Anti-Materiel Rifle category actually sounds like a good idea. I know that it's sort of difficult to tell, but then again, the same thing happens here, in the Sniper Rifles category. I mean, a lot of these entries (one that comes to mind is the Thompson Contender Rifle) are pretty damned debatable, so I think that we could probably manage an AMR category, especially since we can (to an extent) largely go off of caliber. Also, I really don't think that the Colt 1855 rifle belongs here. Thoughts? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2016 (EST)
.jpg){kind=link}