Jump to content

Talk:Barrett REC7

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

Stopping Power

[edit]

It mentions that stopping power is 50% greater than 5.56, and then also mentions that Kinetic energy is 1.5 times greater. I am no expert, but isn't that the same fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.149.62 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No there are all kind of things that influence how effectively a bullet stops the target. In this case the primary difference they were trying for was to get a bullet that would tumble or break reliably inside the target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.81.80 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett web page

[edit]

I added the current price and a link to the Barrett web page which lists same, I don't feel inclined to remove the link to Military.com and the competing price because it may represent what Barrett would charge them.

This gun is now being called the REC7 on Barrett's website, I will try my best to change the article to reflect this. --Semper Fidelis (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Can someone get a picture for this page?

is this good? www.barrettrifles.com/images/rifles/468.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.137.110 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

[edit]

WHy does this have it's own dedicated page? It's another civilian AR-15 clone with a SIR rail. How is it different from any other civilian AR-15 clone? Wikipedia is not an advertising brochure for manufacturers. And why did someone label this a service rifle? Was it created in response to a government solicitation for a replacement for current issue weapons? How many armies have it in service? This is an amateurish article that reads like an ad in a gun rag and I will seek to delete it unless it meets the notability requirements. Koalorka (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a government solicitation, no - but the US special warfare community, which rather famously avoid bureaucratical entanglements by purchasing direct when they decide they need something. The M468 was the first series-produced weapon for a round that was designed on demand for the special warfare guys, and the website rather prominently noted that availability to civilians would be extremely limited at first due to military procurement having priority. Draw your own conclusions. As to notability, Googling "Barrett M468" gives 7,200 hits, so it's not exactly unheard of, even if the spec-war folks themselves are keeping rather quiet about it. --213.114.139.140 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Show me documented use of the weapon within the SOF community. Otherwise it's just marketing. Hell, even Vulcan Arms makes "The machine guns of the special forces" and their AR-15 clones are considered some of the worst on the market. This is no more than an AR-15 in 6.5 mm with a SIR rail, does not meet any condition to have it's own page. Koalorka (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's 6.8 mm, get your facts right. What's this latest craze of you going around tagging articles for deletion? Apparently no article is right unless you have edited it. Why don't you just start your own Wiki called 'Koalorka's 100% correct firearm Wiki' where you can choose your perfect selection of firearms? I find it ironic that you posted this comment, "And of course we're continuously expanding our scope with coverage of lesser known and obscure designs! Keep up the good work. This next year should see emphasis placed on maintaining and enforcing uniformity." Hayden120 (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appeared on the show Future Weapons, on the Discovery Channel. The article is notable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zMpN_-pcas 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off this entry reads like an advertising brochure for Barrett. Then an anonymous user claims it's in use by the special forces. Another guy comes in and tells us it was on Futureweapons where the host, a former Super Megaforce ranger Delta SEAL mind you calls magazines clips and SMG's machine guns. We ARE NOT going to suddenly start creating pages for every one of the billions of commercial AR-15 clones out there. And this Hayden, is where the "keeping and enforcing uniformity" kicks in. You're gonna see a lot of useless advertising removed I promise you that. Koalorka (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well apart from some petty personal attacks, no one has yet proven why this should exist. It's an AR-15 in 6.8 mm SPC with a SIR rail and a folding front sight. I have a friend who has an AR-15 setup in an almost identical fashion. He's got a 20" barrel and a PRI inc. folding front sight gas block. Should we have it listed here as the Kowalski custom? Because the rifle is so elite and secretive, only one is known to exist and may even possibly be in use with the Ranger Nintendo Spec-Ops Sphincter Cell Unit Bravo team. Even the clueless knob from Futureweapons has touched it once, therefore = Notable! Right? BTW, what makes this a "Service rifle"? Shouldn't it be in service with anyone to be called that? This article is worthless with no offense to any editors involved. Koalorka (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry if they were taken as personal attacks, I'm just getting a little concerned about this stubbornness and a bit of arrogance to the rest of the community. Even if everyone agrees to something, you still say it's not right. Yet, when a PROD tag is added to one of the articles you edit, you quickly remove it and say that will improve it soon. I don't think that's very fair. Hayden120 (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think this article needs to be deleted, but it certainly does need to be reworked. Especially in regards to sourcing, and making it less advert like.--LWF (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed some material that seemed particularly unimportant/inaccurate/uncited. The article could still use some work, but hopefully this helps.--LWF (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just drop it Koalorka. The article is notable, whether you admit it or not. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us why it is notable. Koalorka (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I recall correctly, it was the first mass-produced commercial firearm chambered for the 6.8 cartridge. I'll check into it.--LWF (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any validation for that claim LWF? If any of you are truly familiar with any AR platform you will see that this is just an upper drop-in replacement with an after-market rail and sights attached. I suspect that Barrett doesn't even manufacture the barrel or forge the receiver.... This article is really a thorn in my eye and a contradiction to our notability standards. Koalorka (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked around and have not found any proof for that claim, although I can almost swear I've seen the claim, unfortunately I can't find where, so it could be one of those false memories. And I am in fact familiar with the AR, most anyone interested in firearms is, but I will point out that lots of manufacturers don't make their firearms with only their own components. That alone doesn't make it not notable.--LWF (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, very few manufacturers make components in-house. Even Colt sub-contracts most of its production to smaller firms. But the point I'm trying to make is that this drop-in upgrade is simply another in a market of hundreds and there seems to be some kind of misguided "aura" about it due in part to the manufacturer (known for some innovative precision rifles) and the fact it was featured on Futureweapons. I don't see how this differs from a custom DPMS, Rock River Arms or even Olympic Arms upper? Koalorka (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say that you are correct, perhaps we should merge this into somewhere else as a mention that the first rifles in 6.8 were redone in the field by armed forces armorers, and that some companies (e.g. Barrett) have manufactured a version specifically designed for 6.8.--LWF (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I think of the 6.8mm SPC, I immediately think of the M468. I can see no reason why Wikipedia SHOULDN'T have a page on it. Here is a link from Gunblast.com ( http://www.gunblast.com/Barrett-M468.htm ) stating the following;

QUOTE: The future of the 6.8 SPC as a military cartridge has not been finalized. However, at this time there are some specialized units of the US Army putting the M468 through some serious testing. Barrett Manufacturing is working closely with the military in developing this weapon. Barrett has for many years supplied the excellent Model 82A1 to the US military and our allies, and has the ability to supply the M468 as needed. END QUOTE

This, and the fact that it now has a military designation, should end the controversy of whether or not the M468 can be considered a military rifle. If there is any 6.8mm rifle currently in production that has a shot at being the replacement for the current M4/M16 battle rifle, it is the M468.Tominator93 (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't hold my breath. This upper hasn't been officially considered by any major outfit. Koalorka (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found where I had seen the statement that the M468 is the first production rifle in 6.8 Remington SPC, it turns out I had seen it in 6.8 SPC's article. Not exactly a citable source for our purposes.--LWF (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the upper hasn't been considered by any outfit officially, but neither has any other rifle since the XM8 project was canceled, besides a "future needs assessment" involving the XM8, the M4, the HK 416, and the SCAR. Tominator93 (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd Throw in this little train of thought: The REC7 utilizes a short-stroke gas system. This would address the issue of reliability often attributed to the M4/M16 family of rifles. The 6.8mm round offers 50% more kinetic energy delivered than a standard 5.56, addressing the issue of the M4/M16 family of rifles reputation of having very little stopping power. The REC7 is offered in the form of an upper receiver replacement, which would make replacing existing AR-15 rifles (such as the U.S. Armed Forces' M16/M4 Rifles) much cheaper. Then Barrett got their rifle a military designation. Do you see where I'm going with this? All signs seem to point to Barrett preparing to go after a U.S. military contract with the REC7. Tominator93 (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the REC7/M468 being selected for an "invitation only" audience with the people who will decide the requirements for the replacement for the US Military's primary rifle stock, I think we can abandon any notion that this article should be deleted. - Gwopy 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Caliber

[edit]

http://www.barrett.net/firearms/rec7 the firearm is also in 5.56x45 Nato —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleonmarvin (talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


i changed the percantage of how much more power the bullet packs from 50% to 44% as barrett says in their promotion video on youtube and on barrett.com i think this should be noticed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.82.250 (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect magazine info

[edit]

The article states that the magazines for the 6.8 and the 5.56 are interchangeable. This is simply not true and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pira114 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ar-10.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Ar-10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barrett REC7. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail; uncited; unneeded self-citations". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Barrett REC7

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Barrett REC7's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

Reference named "WG":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barrett_REC7&oldid=1199551844"