Problem's fixed, assuming you were referring to the bolt action problem. As for why someone would use it, it is a lot smaller and easier to carry around.
i agree with ajax 013 this is silly. why would an army have 2 sniper rifles... thats stupid Barb Spider 21:07, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Either that, or you're just trolling.
Barb Spider, if I'm reading your comment correctly, your belief that an army wouldn't use more than one type of sniper rifle is wrong. The United States military uses atleast six different sniper rifle models and there are actually two sniper rifle series used by the UNSC: the SRS99 and the M99. There's nothing "stupid" about an armed force using more than one kind of sniper rifle.--[Talk][Contribs][Pages] 21:30, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the SRS has also been confirmed to not be a sniper "rifle," as the nature of its ammunition would actually cause a severe reduction in accuracy if it actually had a rifled barrel. Weird as it may sound, it's not an actual rifle, and odds are it has a smoothbore barrel.
If we're being technical, the US armed forces only use four different sinper rifles, of which, there are several variants of (A few of the M82, M110/SR-25, R700 variants (M24, M40, XM2010) and the Mk. 15.). What I'm complaining about is having two anti-material rifles for essentially the same purpose, other than to put in a reference to Starcraft.
Okay. But wouldn't having a considerably smaller size and mass give it a reason to be used?
IDK Sig|text=I don't think so. Considering that if the projectile moves at the same velocity as a bigger anti-materiel rifle, there would be a lot more recoil. (Someone please correct me on that if I'm wrong)
By god, A Hyper Zergling article has been NCF'd? What such heresy is this?!
You obviously haven't been around in 2009...no offence, HZ. Sonasaurus|Talk•Contribs 18:40, May 8, 2012 (EST)
Yes, those were the days of embarrassment. I have been waiting for the tag on this article to be taken off though. I'm sure it's "realistic" now. ~HyperZergling 14:45, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
The only issue remaining that I can see is the ammunition listed, 12.7x99mm NATO, being unsuitable for use in a railgun. The 99mm refers to the length of the casing containing the chemical propellant, which would be unnecessary due to its railgun nature. A round diameter of 12.7mm is also probably overly large, considering the velocity the round will be travelling at largely negating the need for a large calibre.
Apologies for the massively late comment, but doesn't a railgun accelerate the projectile significantly less than a coilgun does? ~HyperZergling 04:51, September 24, 2012 (UTC)
An even later comment from me now. Yes that's true, so you wouldn't need a round as tiny as that used in the Stanchion coilgun, for example, but it would still need to be significantly smaller than a conventional heavy machine gun round. You also need to make it clear that the round is not the same as the 12.7x99mm NATO cartridge, which isn't a railgun round. You still need to change these, but the issue is minor enough in my opinion to warrant removal of the NCF tag.
Don't apologise; if 343 creates nonsensical canon precedents that users can then exploit, the user isn't at fault at all.
For example, I learned yesterday that 343 used the CCS-class battlecruiser's design for a ship they called a cruiser, even though it's only 300 metres long. Now, any user can call something that pathetically small a cruiser, and despite how plainly ridiculous that is, 343 did it, so it has a basis in canon, and a defence from unrealism.
As a note Matt, Bungie era Covenant warships were always all over the place in terms of size and classification. This is nothing new. Also, the railgun round benefits from size and length like any other conventional firearm. The increased size allows for increased payloads and damage, while the increased length serves to stabilise it (Regardless of velocity, stabilisation is still required) and additional mass/payload.
[Talk] [Contribs] [Pages] 21:30, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
Sonasaurus | Talk • Contribs 18:05, February 5, 2012 (EST)
