Talk:SVD (rifle)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Photo

Since this article is about the SVD, shouldn't it include a photo of an actual Dragunov rather than a PSL? Musha 10:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the picture. Could someone identify the soldier's country and change the caption accordingly?--Gяaphic 12:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a russian trooper. Most probably, from "internal forces" of MVD. --jno 15:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Defining "Dragunov"

One of the biggest current debates that exist on the "Dragunov" Rifles is whether only NDM/SVD based rifles are the only rifles capable of holding the title "Dragunov". Though some of the components and mechanics of similiuar rifles differ from the SVD/NDM rifles, (ex. Zastava M76, Romanian RomAK-3/PSL marksman/sniper rifles), their appearanace and action are remarkably similuiar, effective range, ammunition, and several exterior parts are compatible with the SVD/NDM and vice versa... In many cases, modern AKM-based marksman rifles (ex. Romak-3) have been known and found to more accurate at longer ranges with a wide variety of ammunition than a Izhmash or Norinco "Dragunov" SVD/NDM, and far more reliable due to true AKM-based mechanics.

One could arguably note that since the SVD is the only true "dragunov" designed rifle, the chinese NDM should also not be reffered to as a "Dragunov" rifle. While many say the NDM is the closest in design to the SVD russian Dragunov, just as the RomAK-3 (aka SSG-97, PSL) or Zastava M76, it is not of russian design by Evgeniy Fedorovich Dragunov, and therefore, is not an authentic rifle that would be classified as "Dragunov".

Like the AK-47, there are many variants that differe considerably, and if one was to thin Dragunov variant, the Romak-3 and M76 fall well within the range of influenced by and romanian variation of a "Dragunov" rifle, classyfying it as a "Dragunov" variant, like the NDM.

It could be categorized as SVD/NDM-based "Dragunov" variant, and AKM-based "Dragunov" variant rifle(s). beavermatic

Title

Although the title is the proper name SVD, shouldn't the common words be translated to English, per WP:UE: "Dragunov Sniper Rifle" or "Dragunov sniper rifle"? —Michael Z. 2006-01-11 20:16 Z

I agree, the translation is straightforward. GregorB 16:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Since there was no objection, I moved it and adjusted the intro. —Michael Z. 2006-01-14 16:40 Z


I would query the use of "sniper rifle" as a noun for this weapon. reasons for this are, 1 its fitted with a bayonet lug. 2 its fitted with iron sights. both of these charecteristics indicate it is to be used by a marksman in a normal rifle team/section rather than specifically for sniping use by dedicated sniper team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.252.37 (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture

Why is there a picture of a rifle (Romanian PSL) that has little to do with a Russian Dragunov SVD? I have several pictures of SVD's and there are many floating around the Web. How do we add a picture of a real Dragunov?

I agree. The article is about the Dragunov, so therefore should display a picture of a Dragunov. Musha 08:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I agree, an actual dragonov rifle should be pictured. This could be either a schematic or profile photograph, preferably both.

Dragunov photos

I can provide photos of 2 Dragunovs (US Tigers) if I am instructed how to do it.

login to Commons, click on Upload link, fill-in the form (pay attantion to the License choise!) -- voila! --jno 10:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fiction / Popular Culture

I have moved the "Fiction" section out to a separate page (Dragunov in popular culture) in keeping with en effort to move such sections where they become too long. It also aids in the inclusion of pages such as List of firearms in films and List of firearms in video games without even going into the pro's and con's of having such references as part of a firearm's page (few pro's, but some con's include):

  • they clutter the page
  • the list will grow forever with every new video game release
  • it does not really contribute much to information regarding the firearm in question unless it's really central like the PPK and James Bond.

See any number of other pages (and their discussion pages) where this split has been made:FN P90, Heckler & Koch PSG1, Heckler & Koch MP5, 1911 etc. etc. etc.)

? SVD isn't in there.

.338 Lapua?

I've seen at least once source say the rifle is available in .338 Lapua. Anyone confirm or deny?

It would seem unlikely given the different between the 7.62x54R and .338 Lapua cartridge. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible with the right amount of engineering. 198.236.216.252
There is a version made for a new Russian 9mm cartridge (9.3 by 64 mm), which is a lot like the .338, but they are not the same thing. There is a page on it on Izhmash's website: [1] Moonshiner 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting. Thanks for the link.

unsure

is this female sniper using a SVD in the 2003 film .50 Woman ? Thanks for any help. Buenaparte Social Club 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rifle in picture is not an SVD nad the SVD is not a .50 cal weapon either. --Deon Steyn 07:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
hey thank you! ok i'll search what it could be then (.50 woman is the name of the movie). Buenaparte Social Club 17:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok people found the model. It is an US sniper rifle "RAI 500" (Research Armament Industries Model 500). Specs are available here if interested. Buenaparte Social Club 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, your mission – should you choose to accept it – is to create a page for this rifle :-) --Deon Steyn 08:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I accept! Here: RAI 300 It still needs a lot of work.... It's a start, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CeeWhy2 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Under Battlefield use

"As seen in the picture, guerilla forces may adopt considerably more informal tactics than used by professional armies: this insurgent may make up to some degree for a lack of a spotter by adopting positions on the fly." What picture? Carnivorous caveman 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove the pornographic picture

How do one remove the picture which is not of an Russian rifle? I can't find a link to the picture in the text...

- Turbogooner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turbogooner (talk • contribs) 10:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Medved Rifle?

Isn't the Medved hunting rifle a variant of this arm? Might be an interesting addition. 66.191.17.168 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes it is, already added. Koalorka 06:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Price

The general pricing for the weapon is not mentioned; given that the AK47 only costs around 100$ (see the wikipedia's article references), this rifle too should be cheap (I suppose). This as it too was mass produced and is used all around the world and in the developing world. Perhaps a general price can be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.181.73 (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it would vary a lot by location. I don't think you'll be able to easily find an AK for $100 in the US. I generally see them for several times that. I know they cost that much in some poorer countries. --Kalmia 05:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There arnt to many actual SVD's in the US. There all basicly Kalashnikovs built to look like SVD's ForeverDEAD 19:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I read an article (sorry, don't remember the source) that put the price of an AK-47, wholesale, is around $40--especially in the suburbs of civilization.
Given that it is estimated that the Soviet Union produced 40,000,000 AKs, it's not surprising that the wholesale price is quite low; especially since the Soviet Army (the term "Red Army" was dropped by Stalin, before) couldn't possibly have used more than a fraction of the number manufactured.
As for the American price, I've seen them in a couple of gun stores for $500-$600; though that was yrs ago when the ridiculous "Assault" Rifle ban was still in force. I would imagine the price has dropped (?) since that constitutionally heinous law's expiry.
PainMan (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Effective range

I do not intend to start a dispute with anyone on maximal effective range of riflesystems, effective range for me in this case being the maximum range at which a high probability exists to deliberately hit a standing, man-sized target and not a (manufacturer provided) maximum sighting range with optical sight.

The snipershide website defines effective range as: The range in which a competent and trained individual using the firearm has the ability to hit a target sixty to eighty percent of the time. This ability to hit the target is effected by the length of the barrel of the firearm, the actual cartridge fired, and quality of construction. In reality, most firearms have a true range much greater than this but the likely-hood of hitting a target is poor at greater than effective range. There seems to be no good formula for the effective ranges of the various firearms.

Using a sight that is capable of aiming at a distance X does not automatically mean or guarantee the rifle system to which it is paired can be practically employed at point targets at that distance. In daily life not only the sights of the rifle system but also lots of other components like the employed ammunition and external and terminal ballistics govern its maximum effective range. Most .308-caliber sniper rifles using 7.62 x 51 NATO (this is the closest western equivalent to the cartridge the SVD uses) or more powerful .300 Winchester Magnum cartridges including have maximum effective ranges stated in the 800 - 1200 m range in Wikipedia. This list is for high end sniper rifles.

If anyone can provide Doppler radar data of the SVD projectiles external ballistic behaviour (speed-range pairs and dispersion data) out to 1300 m, I and a probably lots of marksmen, engineers and scientists will be most interested in those figures. According to one of the best long range external ballistics simulation tools available for the general public (Prof. Pejsa’s external ballistics mathematical model) the 7N1 projectile fired at 830 m/s V0 has a supersonic reach of ≈ 940 m under standard atmospheric sea level conditions. Going subsonic is problematic, since around Mach 1 rifle projectiles normally exhibit dispersion problems, but maybe someone designed and produces .308-caliber projectiles for the SVD and proved in front of a Doppler radar that no transonic transition dispersion occurred. The design and mass production of such projectiles is a complex engineering task. There is a patent on such projectiles (see note), but these are mono metal projectiles designed for production on CNC precision lathes. These lathes cut the projectiles out of metal rods.

In the design details section of the SVD article it reads that; “The SVD has a practical rate of fire of 30 rounds/min, an absolute range of 350 m to a target at a height of 300 mm, and 500 mm – 430 m, and its projectile remains lethal out to 3800 m”. This is contradictive to the 1300 m effective range stated in the infobox. The 300 mm at 350 m and 500 mm at 430 m dispersion rates indicate ≈ 3.5 MOA target circle potential, but with other ammunition the SVD could probably perform better. Snipercentral.com states the SVD can be expected to shoot 2 MOA with quality ammo. This would place it in the designated marksman rifle category for the snipers of the Soviet Union en other snipers operating according to the soviet snipers doctrine. According to Wikipedia such snipers were estimated to have a 50% probability of hitting a standing, man-sized target at 800 m (1/2 mile), and an 80% probability of hitting a standing, man-sized target at 500 m. For distances not exceeding 200 m the probability was estimated to be well above 90%. To attain this level of accuracy the sniper could not engage more than two such targets per minute.

A brief analysis of the PSO-1 telescopic sight manual learns that it sports a 1000 m range finding reticle and a bullet drop compensation (BDC) feature that compensates for bullet drop at different ranges in 50 m increments. When the BDC has reached its maximum range setting (850 m according to the manual, but that is ammunition and environmental and meteorological circumstances dependent) it offers additional chevron marks for extra long range usage in 100 m increments. Logic dictates that if the chevrons where intended for engaging point targets more chevrons would be needed because bullet drop between 1000 and 1300 m is significant (in the order of 14 m or 8 1.7 cm tall persons for 7N1 cartridges according to Pejsa’s external ballistics mathematical model).

All this does not mean that a SVD or similar riflesystem is not dangerous or useless at 1300 m. I and probably the Wikipedians who wrote the designated marksman and snipers of the Soviet Union article think that it is questionable if a capable marksman can consistently engage a standing, man-sized targets at 1300 m with the SVD riflesystem. Shooting at area targets (harassment fire, etc.) up to 1300 m with such a riflesystem seems realistic for a capable marksman.

Note: The G1 ballistic coefficient (BC) used in the 7N1 projectile simulation was 0.498 found at 7.62x54r.net and the deceleration constant was set at its default value 0.5 due to my lack of actual test firing data. If this BC is correct this still makes a < 4 % deviation of the model simulation possible (BC’s are somewhat debatable).

Note: Lost River Ballistic Technologies (statement of Mr. Warren Jensen) stated that the .408 Chey Tac is the first bullet/rifle system that utilizes what they call a balanced flight projectile. To achieve balanced flight the linear drag has to be balanced with the rotational drag to keep the very fine nose (meplat) of the bullet pointed direct into the oncoming air. It should result in very little precession and yaw at extreme range and allows accurate flight back through the transonic region. This is hard to achieve for small arms projectiles. Mathematically you are at a great disadvantage trying to achieve balanced flight with a lead core non mono metal bullet. The rotational mass/surface area ratio is too high.

The balanced flight projectile patent can be found at the US Patent Office, Controlled spin projectile, US PAT No. 6,629,669. According to the patent a projectile engraved and launched according to the teachings of the patented invention should decelerate from supersonic flight through transonic to subsonic in a stable and predictable manner effective to a range beyond 3000 yards (2,743 m). It implies that amongst several other preconditions the rifle barrel has to have specific rifling dimensions to achieve balanced flight. More about balanced flight can also be found in the Chey Tac Information Papers.

The Balanced Flight/Controlled Spin Projectile bullet theory has been questioned/disputed by the German physicist Lutz Möller.Lutz Möller's .408 Cheyenne Tactical Bullets Page

Francis Flinch 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Who Keeps Changing 'Snajperskaja' to 'Snaiperskaya?'

According to the GOST 7.79 (an adoption of the ISO 9:1995, which itself is the international standard), which is what the Russians officially use when changing Cyrillic into Latin text, the former, "Snajperskaja," is more "correct" than "Snaiperskaya" as the letters "й" and "я" in "Снайперская" formally transliterate to "j" and "ja" respectively. If this article is being aimed towards Anglophones, then the letter "й" would change to the letter "y." - Identification01 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "anglophone" is not generally used in the Anglo-Saxon world outside of Canada (which has it's Quebec headache; I'll bet Wolfe, as he laying dying on the Plains of Abraham, never imagined what a can of worms he was bequeathing to future English Canadians by his astounding victory).
"English-speakers" is the more common term. (Anglophone is, in fact, a French and not an English word.)
Whenever one is dealing with transliteration, i.e. not just translating from one language to another when both languages share alphabetical systems (e.g. English & French), but translating from one alphabetical system to another. Also, there is always going to be variations among translators.
In point of fact, both "i" and "y" are perfectly acceptable for use in English transliterations since both letters can be used to express the same sound. It's really a hyper-technical linguistic argument; to put it another way, it's distinction without a difference.
My opinion is that the traditional transliteration should be used, no matter how inconsistent this maybe. This inconsistency is often seen in personal names. For instance: the term Czar is the French form of the Russian word for Caesar; the UK form is generally Tsar. Wilhelm II is sometimes translated as "William II" though in my opinion this is confusing since the world has known him by his German name since his reign (1888-1918--ok that was showing off). Conversely, the Kaiser's ancestor, the King of Prussia Friedrich Wilhelm I is usually spelled Frederick William I in US/UK historiography.
PainMan (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Anglophone is indeed in common usage in english outside of Canada especially in britain, it is listed in the OED on-line for anyone to check, while of french origin it is a widely used term in english as it offers a one-word compound that is crisper than the phrase "english-speaking" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.252.39 (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more precise. "Anglophone" is rarely used in the United States. As for the relative "crispness" of the terms that's a matter of opinion. But your other point is well taken.
It should also be kept in mind that 90% of English vocabulary is of foreign origin. Roughly 40% French and 40% Latin (though there's overlap there since many Latinate words came to us via Norman-French or standard (i.e. Ile de France or Langue d'oc) French.
PainMan (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes made

1. Far too technical for "lay" reader

I added the

tag because the article is filled with recondite firearms terms that the average wikipedia user is unlikely to be familiar with. This necessitates repeatedly following wiki-links (if that's the term?) in order to understand much of the article. I found myself having to do just that.

The article needs a rewrite by someone familiar with firearms terminology to translate as many of the technical terms as is reasonably possible so that users don't have to click twenty links in order to understand the article. Especially a casual perusers of the article. I looked up this weapon because it's used in a mod of Half-Life 2 and I wanted to know some of the basics about it. I don't think one should have to spend a half an hour reading many other articles in order to gain a basic understanding of the subject.

2. Added US Standard measurements

I added the US standard equivalents to the metric measurements in the summary info box. I don't feel that the text itself needs to have an equivalent for every metric term, but the info box provides a handy reference for those either innocent of the "SI" (i.e. the metric system's official name or Systéme Internationale) or, like myself, learned it in school but it is not my natural "language" of measurements.

(I did learn metric starting in 4th grade--my Old Man threw a screaming sh*t fit when he found out they were even teaching it; like many Americans he cheered when Reynaldus Magnus cancelled the official conversion that his predecessor had begun. It should also be noted that the UK didn't officially adopt metric until the Blair Ministry; many Brits opposed this and the government actually fines merchants for not posting weights/measurements in metric [if this info is out of date, pls let me know].)

Nay-the-less, I did become familiar with it--a must of course in high school science classes. But I'm not comfortable with it. I have to do the conversions in my head except for smaller measurements. Therefore, I feel that it makes wikipedia more useable to the average American (and UK) user.

I hope these additions aren't controversial, it's hard to imagine they would be as I made no fundamental changes to the article; I freely admit I'm not qualified to do so.

PainMan (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted US Standard measurements in Infobox

Reverted the removal of US Standard measurements in the Infobox.

US users (and some UK users) will have to do manual conversions of the metric measurements. That's an unnecessary hardship for the metrically-challenged.

There is absolutely NO reason to remove them. They in no way harm or diminish the article. So everytime they are removed I will replace them. (Of course, I will conform to the 3-revert rule.)

PainMan (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical box

I reverted this tag:


The article is still too technical for the average user. Since I see no edits to make the article accessible to the "lay" reader, the tag goes back. PainMan (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what your issue here is? Technical? How so? It contains information on how the firearm operates in plain English. I don't think it can be any more clear. Take a look at the remaining articles, they're identical. We're not going to lower the accuracy of the description. Please advise on what it is that is unclear and I will try to help you to the best of my knowledge. Koalorka (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


As I have already explained my reasoning (for the tag), repetition is pointless. I have a cousin who is a fire arms expert. He could easily explain these terms to me but that is not the point.
If one is already fluent in the lexicon of firearms, then one should have no problems with the terminology. If, however, one is not so well-informed as my cousin, a wikipedia MUST be comprehensible to the average reader.
There is no way that this article is accessible to a "lay" reader?
I have an IQ of 200 (if IQ scores meant anything, which they don't) and the terminology used presents a problem for me, imagine the problems it presents for someone of average intelligence.
The tag goes back until the above-mentioned "de-expertification" (there's a neologism for ya). I'm not qualified to do it. I mean, I could certainly do all the research and do it but I shouldn't have to: it be the editor(s) job to assume his reader has little or no in depth knowledge of such highly technical subject as firearms specs, etc.
I've explained it again. I will not do so again.
PainMan (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered the question. There is no specialized phraseology used here. The article is written in plain English. There are no advanced concepts here that require any sort of comprehension, it's just a technical description. No different then the one you would find in any manual. Unless you can provide a specific example, I might try clarifying, I am removing the tag. It has no basis, and you're the only one to ever complain in all the other technical pages. Koalorka (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is so mysterious to you about "too technical"? I suggest a sesh with a dictionary.
And of what relevance is your claim that I'm the only one to "complain"? I didn't complain about anything; I only made a factual observation.
And many of the "technical" pages are definitely full of the specialized argot of the particular subject/field. Try reading some of the articles on pharmaceuticals. Without at least a BSPharm or a chem degree, you're clicking "interwiki" (an awful neologism) links till your fingers bleed.
The target audience of Wikipedia, if you will, is the general reader and not specialists.
Tag reversion is reverted.
PainMan (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, we don't cater to the intellectually challenged. It's a technical description. You might as well argue that the page lacks wheelchair accessibility. Koalorka (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's the entire point of Wikipedia. People come here to read about things they don't know much about, not about things they already happen to be experts on.

With that said, there isn't too much that is terribly overworded although I could try to break up some of the larger textblocks into smaller ones for easier reading. The main barrier for most would be understanding the parts of a gun and concepts like bullet drop or that there are many versions of any given firearm or rifle.

Should I try to add more information about the SVD's effective range?

-Taospark (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I truly do not see the need. Unless you'll be introducing new material. Koalorka (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


There's no reason to be a jerk, Koalarka. Tag goes back up.
PainMan (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One quick question, could you actually point to something and say that it is too technical and needs explaining, or are you just going to keep making general statements claiming it is too technical?--LWF (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair request.
In no particular order I'll list some phrases/terms that I would have to do further reading to fully understand (or undersstand at all--even if the component words are common by themselves:
  • slotted flash suppressor (why does a flash suppressor need to be slotted? what does it gain the shooter in combat?)
  • a semi-automatic gas-operated rifle with a short-stroke gas-piston system (Obviously I know what a piston is, but exactly how does a fire arm's piston system work? what's the difference between other types of firing systems? Advantages/disadvantages? I would need to look a lot of this up.)
  • The rifle's receiver (?)
  • The rifle's receiver is machined to provide additional...torsional strength. (exactly what does this mean in firearms jargon?)
  • A capable marksman should be able to expect ≤ 2 MOA consistent accuracy with appropriate ammunition (uh, hunh?)
I could add many more examples but I think these five suffice to illustrate that this article was written not for the general reader but for firearms enthusiasts or those trained in their use.
Many of the pharmacological articles are far worse than this one with the jargon--and I'm a trained pharmacy tech! But this one suffices. Just as I shouldn't have to have a Taber's in my hand when looking up, say, diazepam, I shouldn't have to click forty-eleven inter-wiki links in order to understand this article.
After all I read it mainly because I "use" the SVD in a mod (the justly famous "Smod"; HIGHLY recommended if you a HL2 fan and haven't played it, it's up to v. 40) of the game Half-Life 2 and was curious about the real item. That shouldn't require a degree in mechanical engineering.
PainMan (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
While I'm waiting to get some discussion on the article naming, let me elucidate as to why the above are perfectly reasonable to include in a generalist encyclopedia.
  • slotted flash suppressor - the flash suppressor has slots in it - seems pretty straightforward. Moving right along...
  • a semi-automatic gas-operated rifle with a short-stroke gas-piston system - I'll meet you halfway on the short-stroke piston part. Maybe if there was a corresponding link to the gas-operation page that explained what that does, exactly...
  • The rifle's receiver - Yes?
  • The rifle's receiver is machined to provide additional...torsional strength. - no firearms jargon here. the receiver is machined, as in put through the process of machining (there is an article on this, linked accordingly) in construction. Torsion implies twisting action - a receiver made of a solid block of steel is stronger than one made of stamped and riveted sheet metal. This should be a no-brainer for anyone with a slight amount of mechanical knowhow.
So, there ya go. MalikCarr (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If those points you have listed are why you chose to tag this page, EVERY single other firearms article should also be flagged as too technical. Koalorka (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You just made my point. Thanks. PainMan (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I still fail to see how the article is too technical, a few points notwithstanding (see the stroke system comment above). I'd really rather not reduce this article to the equivalent of what you'd find on, say, a Battlefield 2 fanpage with no useful information (saying that it holds 10 rounds and is semiautomatic [hopefully this isn't too technical] and designed to shoot someone far away is pretty simple, but it doesn't tell us anything important).
Anyway, as long as you're here, could I get some more input on the article name issue below? As an outsider from the firearms project I'm sure you'd be able to provide an honest opinion. MalikCarr (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dragunov in Mongolia?

The Mongolian military page states that the 'SVD' is used by Mongolia, and its place as a supporter of the Soviet Union would support this, but there is very little evidence- a picture of a Mongolian sniper on SVD.net is all I can find. Is there any other proof?Nototter (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the malfunction here?

There's no reason to be a wise-ass, "Malik". Your handle may mean King in Arabic, but you're not ruling wikipedia. I'm pointing out (and using this article to do so) that far too many articles on wikipedia are too technical to be of much USE (and isn't the point of the entire exercise making comprehensible information easily available) to the generalist reader?

If YOU and this Kolarka dude want to start your own wiki stuffed the gills with arcane firearms industry jargon, go for it. The rest of us should not have to click fourteen thousand links in order to understand what should be a simple subject: a Soviet sniper rifle!!!

Is that REALLY so hard to understand? Really?!

As I've said before, there are many article in scientific fields--especially pharmacy--that literally require at least a bachelors (a BSPharm or a BS Chem) in order to understand them without spending six hours reading other articles to understand the dense argot used by the experts of a particular field. After all, it's WIKIPEDIA and not EXPERTOPEDIA.

How many different ways do I need to write it before it penetrates the Iron Curtain of smug condescension used by those who've criticized me for daring to point at that this article does NOT effectively reach a general audience and assumes said audience is a fire-arms enthusiast or an ex-Green Beret.

If I really want an in-depth explanation of the exact workings of nearly any firearm you can name, I can always call a cousin of mine in Texas who is an expert in guns--and owns many--and have him explain it to me. But I don't want to, and more importantly, should NOT have to do so everytime I read an article about a gun on wikipedia!!

Wikipedia's mission--as I understand it--is present short, concise encyclopedic articles that quickly explain the basics of the subject at hand and refer those interested--if available--to other sites (or even books) which will go into exhaustive, if not exhausting, detail.

Check out Britannica's on-line edition since many "wikipedians" don't seem to have any idea and how encyclopedia articles should be written.

I've spoken to a friend of mine who served for many years in this country's special forces (and retired recently) and he agrees that many, if not most, of the military firearms articles are clearly written way over the head of the average reader. While I'm a member of the NRA and fervent supporter of the Second Amendment, I haven't fired a gun in nearly thirty years and that was a dinky little .22 (while my Old Man and his buddies were skeet shooting with the 12 gauges).

Why should I be penalized because I've spent my time becoming learned in subjects other than the arcana of fire-arms? And no, I do NOT understand WHY a slotted flash supressor is or isn't superior to a non-slotted one. And I shouldn't be sniped at because I don't and say that I don't. And there's no way I'm the only one who feels this way.

Some individuals seem to think that this article/subject--and this is NOT limited to firearms or even Soviet-made ones--is their own, personal bailiwick and that no one else better have the temerity to even try to suggest change, let alone make it.

This is flat-out ridiculous.

The tag goes back. And...

...it's just that simple.

PainMan (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you've pretty much proven that your simply here to troll this page, numerous editors have queried you about your motivation and you have failed to respond with any sort of reasoned argument except for a childish "becuz". Continue to vandalize this page and your irrational actions will be reported. Koalorka (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

SVD rifle?

Oh come on, this is "ATM machine" levels of redundancy. Just call it "Dragunov Sniper Rifle" again and let's be through with it. That's the most accurate translation, and SVD is too short (and ubiquitous of an acronym...) for a proper article name. MalikCarr (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"SVD" alone did not work because there's a mathematical term that uses that name is is known primarily through that acronym. Hence the "rifle" suffix. The rifle's name is the SVD, "Dragunov sniper rifle" is just a translation of the of the full, non-abbreviated name. Koalorka (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's still redundant. Put rifle in parentheses if you must, ergo the mathematical term can still have first dibs on the unadulterated title listing. At any rate, it would appear previous editors have already debated this topic before just up the page a bit - WP:UE would seem to suggest spelling the name out in English would be the proper recourse.
Either way, this redundancy is offensive to the senses. Let's agree on some kind of article title that doesn't involve repeating ourselves aimlessly. MalikCarr (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: After we sort this business out, the article should probably be updated to mention the recent SVDK variant. Giant 9.3mm soft-points in a semiautomatic package, ouch. MalikCarr (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
We've already had the rifle in parenthesis, and that is incorrect according to our naming scheme. Dragunov sniper rifle is also incorrect according to these same guidelines for the same reason the AK-47 article is not called "Kalashnikov automatic rifle model 1949" or the PK the "Kalashnikov machine gun". Koalorka (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
...AK-47 is just called AK-47 (as is RPK, AK-74, DShK, etc...). Which I find somewhat silly considering the vast majority of Kalashnikov-pattern rifles are AKMs, but whatever. Anyway, I'm not going to let the excuse of bureaucracy with the wikiproject get in the way. Just because it makes sense to use it on other articles doesn't mean we should not make exceptions in places where it is obviously incorrect from a grammatical perspective. It's -still- redundant, and we should not abide that. It makes our firearms articles look like they were written by people whose experience consists of seeing it in a video game or movie and thinking it looks cool, which is insulting to the editors who have worked long and hard on producing quality articles for them. MalikCarr (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: I should also make note that even this is highly inconsistent - aside from the PK and TT-33, practically every other Combloc weapon article either gives us a translated name or a full acronym with nothing else attached. I would again like to point a finger at WP:UE, but if we're going for consistency at the least, this ought to get rifle tacked back on in parentheses. MalikCarr (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reopening this

The assertion that SVD (rifle) is "incorrect according to our naming scheme" is false. No source refers to the weapon as the "SVD rifle". It is generally referred to as the "SVD". As SVD is unavailable, the qualifier is correctly placed in parentheses. I'm going to move the article back over to the parenthesised title unless a better one is chosen - I don't see anything wrong with "Dragunov sniper rifle" as a transliterated version of the official title either, but it's less commonly used than SVD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, the "V" in SVD already specifies that we're dealing with a rifle, so the parenthesis would likely work best. Dragunov sniper rifle is a direct translation and that's a slippery slope with nomenclature. Koalorka (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Whether it's a "slippery slope" or not isn't covered by WP:ENGLISH: out only concern is whether there is another name by which it is already generally better-known in English. But either one will do. I'll make the move. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on what I have learned of Russian firearms nomenclature, and given the fact that Soviet weapons engineers Simonov and Tokarev had successfully developed self-loading rifles for the 7.62x54R cartridge prior to the subject of this Article, I believe the alternative long form for "SVD," viz., "Sniper rifle, system Dragunov, model of 1963" (Снайперская винтовка системы Драгунова образца 1963), would have been "Self-loading Rifle, system Dragunov, model of 1963" (Самозарядьная винтовка системы Драгунова образца 1963) rather than the "Semiautomatic Rifle ..." (Полуавтоматическая винтовка ...) listed in the Article preamble as of this Edit. The actual acronym "SVD" might be best used for a Disambiguation Article, as it applies to multiple subject titles. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Fixed link for "Simonov." B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Who keeps changing the title of above the picture at the top of this articial to " SVD rifle"?

the correct way of the name is " SVD DM Rifle" or " Dragunov Designated Marksman Rifle" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifleman77 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? And who says so? Koalorka (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with koalorka, where on the Izhmash web site does it say anything about SVD DM? I believe the role of the person who uses the rifle can be considered a "designated marksman" but the SVD does not have that official title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.8.26 (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Official full name is "7.62-mm Dragunov sniper rifle (SVD)". Source - military field manual.69.141.140.192 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

SVD in Popular Culture?

Or something simmilar? Like a SVD is used in many films, Such as Battle Royale 2? NekoKiyo (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No chance. Koalorka (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The weapon is also prominently featured throughout the Metal Gear Solid video game franchise as the typical sniper weapon. Nolte (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I just saw a reversion that had been done regarding something similar to this subject line. Someone added a section for the "Golden Dragonuv." I'm a huge fan of guns and video games, but I think from the article perspective, including those items in a subsection would be an unjust perspective on the article of the firearm. Now, if you were to include the "Dragonuv" into the respective popular culture item and link from there, that might prove to be a better link.

I mean imagine adding a Popular Culture section for the M1911, M-16, or AK-47? Those could probably be separate articles in and of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneah (talk • contribs) 02:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Iraq produces licensed copy?

The article now says, "Licensed production of the rifle was established in ... Iraq (as the Al Kadesiah)."

How would anyone know if Iraq obtained a license to manufacture the SVD from Izhmash in Russia? And since the Al-Kadesiah has not one single part that interchanges with an SVD, how could anyone claim it's a licensed copy at all?

Noted. Will fix that. Koalorka (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to Dragunov SVD

I propose we move thsi article to Dragunov SVD per the naming conventions:

Naming it like this would also eliminate the need for the undesirable disambiguator. What do you think?--Pattont/c 18:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, we've had this exact discussion before if you browse through the archive. SVD Dragunov makes no sense whatsoever because you're repeating the designer name which is the "D" in SVD, thus ending up with "Dragunov Sniper Rifle Dragunov". Koalorka (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but there's also at least two Avon Rivers in existence, and "Avon" is an Olde Englishe word which means "River", yet no-one has much of a problem with that. The thing is, in general use, people tend to refer to the "Dragunov" rifle, not the "SVD" rifle. The article could be moved to Dragunov Sniper Rifle? Commander Zulu (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have to strongly disagree with that. That would set a dangerous precedent for other Soviet designs, i.e. "Kalashnikov assault rifle" (AK), "Kalashnikov machine gun" (PK), "Kalashnikov hand-held machine gun" (RPK) etc. Our goal is consistency. Koalorka (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The WP:GUNS naming conventions do not supersede the general ones given at WP:NAME; they supplement them. If the weapon is truly known as the "Dragunov Sniper Rifle" more often than anything else in English, that's where the article belongs. The reason this was ruled out in the past was because nobody could actually verify if this was the case. The AK-47 is verifiably known primarily by that name in English sources; there's no slippery slope here, because articles are named by consulting the main guidelines, not by analogy to other articles. I'd argue that both MP5 and MP7 are the correct names for those articles as they're unambiguous, but I haven't the time for that argument right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm convinced now that "Dragunov sniper rifle" would in fact be the best way to go. I've requested the move. Koalorka (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

About SDV

Very interesting article. But it still lacks some things to point out about this very elegant and original sniper rifle.

One, is that it's maybe the only sniper rifle (made and thinked as sniper rifle) with semi-automatic fire, not as adaption of other rifles but born as sniper

Another, it's still a very light rifle, the lightest of all snipers.

More, it's a sniper rifle that, as usage, it's very different by the western's rifles. It's not meant as very ultra-accurate rifle, for special forces alone; it's a combat rifle, and almost all platoons had one sniper with SDV in the WP times. When DDR arsenal was numbered, the SDVs found were almost 2.000! SDV is so a first line weapon, meant to be a longer range support compared to AKs. This fact means that this rifle is: lighter, less accurate and more economic than a western sniper rifle. It has even a bayonet host! Only the latest version has no provision for it. This explains how this weapon born: as combat rifle with longer range than usual. Soviets liked atleast from WWII snipers and scattered them at the minimal level in the infantry: everywhere there was a platoon there was a sniper with SDV. In Afghanistan this number was even increased to fight with enemy snipers. Chinese version has a bayonet-knife, useful even to cut wires. So, without these specifications it's hard to understand why and how SDV born. It was meant to be a cheap, reliable, first line combat rifle, often for conscript's hands. Nothing that resembles Accuracy International or so, but rather the USMC traditions (with a widespread employ of snipers as well). --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam War?

The info box mentions the SVD was used during the Vietnam War. If so (which I don't think it was), it should be sourced.--172.191.136.215 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I found and added a citation for that claim. ROG5728 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure about that source. It basically mentions Vietnam in passing; no proof, no dates, no places. There are too many people (and video game developers) that seem to think that just because North Vietnam was a client-state of the Soviet Union that any weapon of the right vintage was sent off there for use. That's not to say it wasn't possible that it saw use, but where are the bring-backs? Where are the photos of GIs or Marines posing with captured examples? How about an actual book as a source?--172.190.46.68 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, ROG5728, if I came across to harshly in the above comment. It is the three year anniversary of my left testicle being bitten off by Doris Roberts (yes, that Doris Roberts) during our lovemaking and I'm in a foul mood. For what it's worth, the book Vietnam Weapons Handbook by David Rosser-Owen does mention the SVD's use during the latter stages of the war. Unfortunately, the rest of the book is so riddled with errors that I'm left unconvinced of the book's value as a source. As a final note, some of what I've written here may not be entirely true.--172.190.213.104 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate of Fire

I added the rate of fire with 30 shots/minute. Source: a book called "Waffentechnik Band 1" an official book of the Austrian Army published by the ministry of defence. --83.215.59.99 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The book needs to be cited in the article as a source. You can do that by following one of the citation templates. ROG5728 (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

changed (SVD) to Dragunov SVD

for accuracy purposes Uncle Soprano (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Romanian use or manufacture is a myth

Romania did not built this weapon under license. This is a common myth. The Romanian Army only used the PSL rifle, which is not a Dragunov, it only looks like it. Internally, the PSL is roughly based on AK-47 and RPK, no single part is interchangeable between these weapons. In fact, you can see that only Western authors made this statement. I've seen books as recent as 2010 which still claim that the PSL is a local variant of the Dragunov. Romania should be deleted from the users. --Mircea87 (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

7.62x54 is incorrect?

The Drugunov that I have is chambered 7.62x65 just like the Norma Magnum I have. The 7.62x54 is a NATO round, the Soviets were never part of NATO. Why would they use a NATO round in their flagship sniper rifle? Russia to this day is still not a member of NATO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.232.234 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

7.62×54mmR is a very old Russian/Soviet round, used in Mosin Nagant, DP, SVT-40, and numerous other weapons - among them SVD. You must be confusing it with 7.62×51mm NATO. 50.46.154.47 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

English Transliteration of PVD

As mentioned in the introduction, the SVD was originally known as the PVD, and knowing Russian phonetics, that would be "Poluavtomatycheskaya Vintovka Dragunova". Since the transliteration of SVD is included, do you guys think it would be a good idea to mention the transliteration of PVD as well?

99.244.66.216 (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Dragunov rifle was never called PVD. From it's introduction in 1963 is was known as SVD. --Историк2010 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Which is consistent with what I understand of Russian firearms nomenclature; "half-automatic rifle" is nonstandard and eaasily confused with the terms for pistols other than revolvers and machine guns. "Self-loading Rifle, system Dragunov, model of 1963" (Самозарядьная винтовка системы Драгунова образца 1963 года) would be the alternate name, as I noted in Subsection "SVD rifle?: Reopening this," above. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dragunov sniper rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dragunov sniper rifle. 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: 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) 11:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Dragunov sniper rifle. 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) 13:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dragunov sniper rifle. 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) 21:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"Sniper rifle"

The beginning of this article says the SVD is a sniper rifle. It was developed as a DMR, and has 2 moa... it is definitely not a sniper rifle. Hell, the article even contradicts itself. Later down it says "The Dragunov is an original rifle design for several reasons. First, it was not meant for highly trained and specialized sniper teams, but rather for designated marksmen." That entire paragraph is a mess and interchangeably uses the terms "sniper" and "designated marksman". These are extremely different roles in the military

So yeah someone should probably update this article to be more accurate. If nobody has any argument against this I'll probably update it in a month.24.194.186.225 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The "SVD-63" designation is nonsensical

The designation "SVD-63" is fictitious. It doesn't exist in Russian (it's always been SVD / СВД, no numbers), IZHMASH/Kalashnikov Concern never referred to it as anything but "SVD," there are no credible sources to suggest it's been used that way by the West as with "AK-47" for the AK, and precisely none of the other language versions of this article use "SVD-63" in their title - it is always an equivalent of "Dragunov sniper rifle" or "SVD" but never "SVD-63". Why is "SVD-63" the page title? What was the rationale for choosing this fictional designation? Why is it prominently used in the opening paragraphs like that's the weapon's actual name? What sources does "KnowledgeableHrvatica," whoever they are, have to back up the apparently unilateral decision to rename the article? The article title should be moved back to "Dragunov sniper rifle" or to "SVD (rifle)." I would do it myself if this platform had any level of care for people who can't or don't wish to create an account, and I have no interest in doing so. If you're thinking of arguing that titling the article "SVD (rifle)" would make it redundant due to the letter "V" already implying it is a rifle, let me point out that only someone familiar with firearms and the Russian language would know that. "SVD (rifle)" has parentheses, the purpose of which is to differentiate the article from the other subjects on Wikipedia that are also called "SVD." Arguing about redundancy is frivolous and choosing a fictitious designation in its place is even more ridiculous. 176.154.184.23 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SVD_(rifle)/Archive_1&oldid=1168399225"