Talk:CheyTac Intervention

Critics

This article has generated mild critics to being tagged as written like an advertisement. The claims on the long-range capabilities this rifle system by the manufacturer and a 3 shot demonstration of a sniper in a television show of great accuracy almost invite critical minds to review these claims and put them in perspective. Mathematically the most accurate shot group is a 1 shot group, so adding more consecutive shots will make a shot group statically grow bigger and bigger. The chance of shooting a “flyer” that spoils an impressive group grows when the samplesize increases. How statistics effect the real world can be observed in the sport of benchrest shooting (for benchresters achieving the smallest possible groups is a goal in itself). Breaking 10 or more shot benchrest “world records” is hard and people who break those records are highly regarded, since active benchresters know that it is much harder to do well consistently then have a string of tries and remember and show the best 3 or 5 shot group results. Critical remarks are meant to encourage the reader to make up his own mind about the scientific value and validity regarding (accuracy) claims on rifle systems and are by no means intended to raise doubts. Francis Flinch 11:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The article would be neutral, but you are trying to include negatively biased text with sneaky wording designed to make readers doubt the effectiveness of the rifle. The technical data provided by the manufacturer isn't grossly exaggerated and readers can decide for themselves whether it is hot air or accurate indication. Some guy 05:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that there are still a lot of POV statements in FAVOR of CheyTac in the article that need to be cleaned up. I assume good faith on the part of Francis who is trying to make the article better, and I don't think based on his other work he has any desire to use "sneaky wording". I think that comments about accuracy need to be not challenged but sourced and put into context so people understand how to make the comparisons. Arthurrh 06:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Arthurrh. I indeed never intended to use "sneaky wording" or make anything or anyone look good or bad. I just try to explain that a X MOA at range Y result is not a very well chosen measure for the capabilities of inherently accurate systems. This approach leaves to many capability related questions open like; how was the air density during the test? Look at the end of http://www.lima-wiederladetechnik.de/Englisch/LM-105-long-range-bullet.htm#G-06 for a 69 mm (2.7 in) at 1005 m (1093.6 yd) 3 shot group made by an Italian made .408 Chey Tac rifle. Just like the mentioned internet text I just try to point out that accuracy and indications on capabilities have to be thoughtfully reviewed. Francis Flinch 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that to get this article to where it needs to be we need to look at all the POV words both pro and con and remove them. Then on the test results, we need to add reliable third-party sources per WP:VER. Finally, we should put those results in context so that readers can make an accurate assessment for themselves, knowing that they have a chance of comparing an apple to another apple rather than an orange. With that in mind, anyone have good sources already in hand for third-party assessments of this? Arthurrh 17:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bunch and cleanup and removed the tone tag. -- Arthur (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo?

Someone must have a photo of this rifle. With all the interest generated by the rifle's inclusion in the popular video game "Modern Warfare 2" there should really be one. Johnny 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.6.145 (talk)

Users: Turkish special forces

I couldn't find any reliable source about turkish army using the rifle. as its used by maroon berets which is strictly classifed. but i got a photo of maroon berets one holding a m200, can it be regarded as a "citation"

here is the photo: http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6118/krmzbereli1pg7.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.13.60 (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Photographic evidence is fine. Just provide the link to the image as a reference. It is a problem for Wikipedia that the CheyTac Intervention and alike sniper weapon systems are used by groups/units that have policies to get as little (media) coverage as possible. --Francis Flinch (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

i am bad at citing sources, and the image is rejected due to its not being reliable, yet again i found a footage about turkish maroon berets, a short documentary broadcasted by a national tv channel. the video is contained in youtube, here is the link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C4G5Wkbuw4&feature=related. at 3:35 of it you can see the sniper in ghillie suit holds a m200 intervention.

if its an acceptable and reliable source, can you add it? as i cited i am bad at citing resources (swh) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.101.27 (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if YouTube videos are acceptable as references in Wikipedia. I did recognize a CheyTac Intervention rifle around 3:40 into the video being handled by Turkish Bordo Bereliler. I entered Turkey as a user with the YouTube video as reference. Lets wait and see what happens.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your efforts francis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.101.27 (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested M200 use in Syrian conflict.

Hello, upon reading the page for the Cheytac Intervention I came upon the claim it is used in the Syrian conflict. Without proper citations I find this highly unlikely,the overall small production numbers of the gun, expensive and rare ammunition and the need for complex training mean that the odds of a system like the M200 in Syria are small. Indeed, the argument that it could also be used by 'Western Interference' is moot; we cannot speculate on these things until they become known or disproved. At this current time we must just consider the likelihood of the Syrian state possessing hardware such as the Cheytac Intervention, which I believe to be very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.192.3 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

External images

The External images box has 3 links and all are dead. A contributing editor needs to correct this, or delete the box. I will check back to see if there are any improvements. We do not need to mark them as dead links because it just makes an article look bad so if there is no current links please remove the box. Otr500 (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User: United States Military

I have never heard or seen any rumors or suggestions, let alone facts, that the U.S. Military has ever used the Intervention. While not impossible, I find it unlikely that such a thing has happened. Since the indicted section already has "citation needed" by it, I will remove the reference. Please feel free to refute my edit, but ensure that you have a credible source, and not some PMC/false flag using his favorite gun.Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I personally used it with the us military sf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blainecampbell (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

This article is severely deficient in good quality sources. There's only one marginal secondary source in the footnotes,[1] and even that seems like it's based on reviewing the literature. The Wheeler website is down, but it's archived.[2] But it and the Dean Michaelis personal comment don't say anything about the rifle itself. The MOA claims are unsourced. I know this is a significant firearm, but it's hard to tell based on the lack of references. This'd be a very short article if stripped down to what's verifiable.

Separately, there are sections on accessories that seem out of place. "Meteorological and environmental sensor package" - What's the connection between the Kestrel deluxe wind gauge and this rifle - is it attached? Likewise with the laser rangefinder that's pictured. They seem like shooting accessories which could be used with any sniper rifle. Rezin (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Google books lists some books that include the CheyTac.[3] Rezin (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

EDM Arms Windrunner

Is this the same rifle as the EDM Arms Windrunner? Aside from the accessories, my impression is that they're the same. Rezin (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It is based on the EDM Arms Windrunner as is stated in the article. The THOR XM408 is also a .408 Chey Tac chambered rifle based on the EDM Arms Windrunner and CheyTac Intervention. --Francis Flinch (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The EDM website makes it sound like they either make it for CheyTac or designed it for them. How are they different? "Based on" could mean almost anything. Let's see if we can find a source that describes how they're related. You're probably the most expert active editor on sniper rifles, but I don't want to put all of this on you. Google Books lists some sources for this rifle. I'll see if any of them cover this issue. Rezin (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

CheyTac article

CheyTac redirects to the CheyTac Intervention page. Is that there because there is no article for CheyTac? If so, should it be removed and a separate article for CheyTac created? Thanks!