Talk:M21 Sniper Weapon System

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

Blackhawk Down[edit]

Is the discussion on Blackhawk Down necessary? It's interesting but really has very little to do with the subject of the article. Perhaps it should be moved to the article on Blackhawk Down instead?

I think the weapon's influence on popular culture is fair game. Twinxor 22:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the book Blackhawk Down, Randy Shughart was described as carrying an M14. There was a brief discussion of balistics as well. Anyhow, here's the author sort of confirming this, if you need confirmation: http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/ask/ask19.asp I've removed the reference, perhaps you should put it under the M14 entry. It feels very out of place in my opinion. You bounced from "weapon description" to "hollywood" to "dead guy", just like that.

M-25 / XM-25[edit]

About the M-25 variant, see www.snipercentral.com/m25.htm. The M-25 has a McMillan M1A stock (and not M2A as written in the page), and a BPT (Brookfield Precision Tool) Advanced Scope Mounting System ; scope used are Bausch & Lomb 62-1040 10x40 Tactical, or various Leupolds MK4 / VariX-III ; sometimes there is also OPS silencers.

This weapon was used in 1991 Gulf War by S.O.F. (and as a consequence I suppose that it was build before 1991, perhaps in the end of 1990). I read some suggests about the fact that the Randy Shugart's rifle could be a M-25 too (unconfirmed). Rob1bureau

Designation change from XM21 to M21[edit]

The page precise 2 differents years when the designation XM21 became M21 : 1971 (in the text) and 1975 (below photo) ; what is true ? (1975 according globalsecurity.org) Rob1bureau 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • FWIW: Peter Senich's "The Long Range War" gives the transition date for the designation as 1972. But in the same paragraph, he notes that it was classified as 'Standard B' in December 1971. Blake Steven's "U.S. Rifle M14" also gives the date as 1972. D.E. Watters 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield M21 ?[edit]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springfield M21;

Can anyone tell me how this gun relates to the Springfield M21? Is it the same gun, or only very similar? Is "Springfield M21" a common misnomer for this M21 or is it something distinct? - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield Inc. makes M21 and M25 rifles which are loosely based upon their military counterparts of the same designation. Much like the way that their name implies a relationship the former US military armory, the commercial firm Springfield Armory capitalizes on the implication that their products are the same as those used by the military. FWIW: The article should probably redirect here. --D.E. Watters 19:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That flies with me, it'll fly better with others if there is some way to mention this in this article. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 23:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article discuss the differences between the Springfield Armory/Rock Island M21 and the Springfield Inc. M21? Thatcher131 19:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that US military are using M14 with scope in Afghanistan and Iraq, but these are NOT "true" M-21 ; they are od M-14 or Springfield Armory M21 with new scopes. Rob1bureau

"True" or "false" M-21[edit]

For Signaleer and others : please don't rely on what is written on the web pages to say if it is an M21 or not. The contested photo depicts evidently not a standard M-21 of the US Army, because the M21 has not a Leupold LR/T scope but Redfield ART or Leatherwood ART II, it has not plastic stock with camo, no bipod. Mistakes are frequently seen about Army's scoped M14 in Afghanistan and Iraq in various Internet sites, but until here I have never seen one true M21 in these conflicts, only upgraded M14s. Rob1bureau 13:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob1bureau, do not change or edit the photograph I have posted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:0NOT8ab2005-01-26.jpg if you have a problem with what is on the caption please contact the Public Affairs Office for the United States Army and have them change it. This is taken directly from the U.S. Army website and is not just, as you put it, "various Internet sites." My regards --Signaleer 03:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't realise that it was an official Army website. So I agree to say that it is not a "out of control" piece of information. On my own I suspect that the Army soldier who set the photo online with the comment about a "M21" doesn't know much about M21s and M14s. I still say that it is not a "true" standard M21 configuration as depicted in all sources of the page, including Army's field manual. My regards too ;-) Rob1bureau 13:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to the "standard M21" configuration. The M21 "...was the primary Army sniper rifle of the Vietnam war and remained standard until replaced by the bolt-action M24 Sniper Weapon System beginning in 1988." http://tri.army.mil/LC/cs/csi/sahist.htm#M21 So, having understood that piece of information, there is no "standard" since the technology that was used was from the 1960s - 1980s. The M21 is still not a standard sniper weapon system for the U.S. Army. The current M21 being used in Iraq/Afghanistan does not have a "standard" nor does it have a specific set up and may vary from unit to unit. Signaleer 14:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to say that the M21 was nowadays the Army standard sniper rifle, but that Army's M21 does match a number of features (M14 NM basis, ART I or ART II scopes, wooden stock, made at the Rock Island Arsenal, etc.) specified as NSN 1005-00-179-0300 and in Army manuals. These features are not matched by M14s (or M21s if you want to call they like that) seen on some of the pictures of the page. You can call it M21 if you want, but they are not M21s according to US Army specifications (even if these specifications were not kept in more modern manuals), are they ?
Because this is the page dealing with the US Army's M21, I think it lacks of signification to detail the features of the US Army's M21, and to say that a photograph of an scoped M14 matching not these specifications depicts a "M21".
We can add a sentence informing the readers that scoped M14s seen on photos are frequently called M21 in popular culture - and even on official US Army websites - but that they are not matching US Army specifications defining the M21. I sought it was clear after what was already written, but if others don't not agree, we can try to make it better and clearer, which is the wikipedists' job. Best and sincere regards. Rob1bureau 16:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your perception that anyone who sees an M14 with a scope is considered to be an M21 is all on you. Yes, there is a difference between an M14 and M21--this is why the Department of Defense has two separate designations for each weapon system (note, this not just an Army thing).
Again, with the issue of the "mislabel" of the M21 on the army.mil website--if you feel so strongly about this, please be free to contact the Public Affairs of the United States Army and have them correct this "error" that you have supposedly found out.
http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/
U.S. Army Public Affairs
Media Relations Division
Office of the Chief of Public Affairs
1500 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-1500
Phone: 703.692.2000
FYI, the only major difference between the M14 and the M21 is the fact that one has an accurized and heavier barrel and only fires in semi-automatic. M21 is an M14 variant. And all M21s began life as an M14. The cosmetics (flashhider, stock, bipod, scope, etc.) is not the major indication that it is a modded M14 or an M21. This photograph is a great example of misconception. This photograph does not state whether the weapon in the foreground is an M14 or an M21. However, many publications have stated that the weapon is an M14.
http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=4569
Can you tell the difference by just looking at this image? I think not. There is a reference on an Army publication that the weapon is in fact an M21 and not an M14.
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gebhardt_LRRP.pdf
"While the text of this article repeatedly uses the descriptor M14 for the sniper rifle, the accompanying photograph shows an M21 sniper rifle minus scope being fired from bipod at Fort Drum, New York training range. The M21 sniper system, based on the M14 semi-automatic rifle, was used by the US Army from 1969 to 1988, when it was replaced by the bolt-action M24 sniper system." on page 155 of the document.
In conclusion, it is highly unlikely that an individual can see a photograph of an M14 or M21 and declare it one or the other unless documented by officials or physically breaking down the weapon and looking at the components of the weapon to verify it is indeed an M21. In which case most photographs of Dept. of Defense personnel showing a scoped M14 or M21 do not have the weapon attached to the photograph for the viewer of a website or in a printed document to inspect to ensure the weapon is indeed an M14 or M21.
Bottom line, if you want to add that comment about mislabeling of M14s or M21s on photograph captions--by all means go for it, realize that the mistake goes both ways for M14s and M21s.
--Signaleer 21:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to stand against what seems obvious to you, but I don't think that the rifles on the photo are "Army's M21" because they have a Picatinny rail, they are looking very new (too much to me for weapons build before 1988 ; and probably in 1975 or before in fact), the stock is in plastic, the bipod is nearly the same as on the commercial Springfield Armory, Inc.'s M21. I believe that these are commercial-build "M14" rifles bought by the Army. I agree that they may be "true" ugraded M21s and that I have not proof that they aren't.
To base on reliable information, I have never heard from a reliable source that M21s have realy been used for duty (only OPFOR forces and Army National Guards as I had written). On the contrary, I have read various reports about old M14s taken from the storages to be put into action (various examples in this [ http://www.imageseek.com/m1a/M14_RHAD_Online_Edition_061010.pdf Lee Emerson's document] (p.52, "The M14 after 2000"), and about new M14 clones bought from commercial companies like the Springfield Armory, Inc. The M21 has been built in limited series (1400 XM21s and I have not heard form another production), it is not the case of the M14. Some M21s are always with their old "cosmetics" and are easily recongnisable (such the ANG photo on Leatherwood page). So it seems that very few M21s remains to be used in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least most of the "M14s" seen on such pictures aren't M21s. Maybe all of them, maybe not, there's not evidence such a rifle with M21's markings.
I know that some people like you don't confuse any scoped M14 with the M21, but many do really it according to many websites, blogs and forums I have seen. The M21 appears to be famous for people which are interested in videogames rather than in weapons. So in order to avoid to make Wikipedia contribute to the big confusion provoked by the arrival of a lot of photos of scoped M14s, I wanted to make clear that there are many mistakes about the famous - but now rarely seen in fact - M21.
I'll try to contact "officials" about it, I'll keep you in the know of their answers. Rob1bureau 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, if you plan to use any "reliable" sources--please use official military websites or the weapons manufacturer(s). I can also assume "your experience" (since you're French) with the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan is none or very limited at best, so your comment about using yourself as a reliable source is moot.
This is a pretty dead issue and you've worn out my attention or effort to further argue this point so please refer to the previous posts I have made in reference to this topic and again, by all means, contact the United States Department of Defense or United States Army Public Affairs Office (PAO) and I'm sure they would enjoy your input. Good luck!
--Signaleer 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on M21 Sniper Weapon System. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M21 Sniper Weapon System. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste material[edit]

The bulk of this article is copied and pasted from referenced sources and simply written as a quote. While it seems as though this material is public domain as it's the work of the U.S. military, it needs to be re-written in Wikipedia's voice. Also: is the rifle still in use? WP Ludicer (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, Fair Use rules do not apply when abused such as simply quoting entire paragraphs (such as the first paragraph in the main body) so it really should be rewritten. 142.120.125.127 (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming fair use would be unnecessary—as I said, the material comes from works of the United States federal government, which are, with few exceptions, in the public domain (at least in the United States). The quoted sections are from obsolete field manuals and training circulars produced by the U.S. military and made available for public distribution. It's not a copyvio; it's just sloppy writing. WP Ludicer (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M21_Sniper_Weapon_System&oldid=1203812773"