Talk:SRS99D-S2 AM sniper rifle

Scope Image
Hey, I made an improvement on the scope image halfway down the page of this article. Thought I'd leave it here for you guys to decide if its decent enough for the page. I just used Paint, maybe someone could do a better job using Photoshop or something, if they wanna improve it a bit better. - TheLostJedi  19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Merging
I think there should just be an S2 AM Sniper Rifle article, with the SRS99D and SRS99C variants just being different notes in the article. It makes no sense for the same weapon to have different articles, in the regular wikipedia there isnt a seperate article for the M16, M16A1, M16A2, M16A3, and M16A4. I think variants should just be kept in the same article. Justin Time 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"It's the SRS99D, a new model, with different looks, and characteristics. Just like the M6C, M7/ SSMG, MA5C, and Brute Plasma Rifle are different models" --CommanderTony

Thats just not true. The SRS99D is just a variant of the SRS99 S2 AM series of rifles, and they should all be included in one article. Differences in game play are minimal and the difference in look does not make it look like a whole new class of weapons either. Why not discuss this with me in the talk page rather then the history? Justin Time 07:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Like i've been saying a hundred upon thousands of times to you, and YOU only. The MA5C, and the MA5K have their own articles, and their variants of the MA5 series. The M6C and M6G are variants of the M6 series, they have their own articles. The merging of the BR55 and the HB SR failed, and I say this article should stay as it is. File:UNSCoH_Dingo_without_letters.PNG|30px]]UoH/D Company| Captain]]  Tony  Talk 8/2/2007


 * The different M6s and MA5s are totally different weapons, while the SRS99s are minor variants of the same S2 AM weapon system. --Justin Time 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The M6G is really just toned down M6D, and the MA5C is a suped-up MA5B, but they both have different articles. File:UNSCoH_Dingo_without_letters.PNG|30px]]UoH/D Company| Captain]]  Tony  Talk 8/2/2007


 * They have different magazine sizes, power, rate of fire, dual wieldability, etc. The two S2 AMs only differ in rate of fire barely, in fact the S2 AM from the first Halo is far more different from the S2 AM in the second halo then this one is (nigh vision, 2x instead of 5x), and yet it does not have its own article. I think the S2 AM should just have its own article with variants as subsections.

I really dont think us going back in forth is gonna do anymore, I say we let other users read our sides and talk, and decide for themselves. --Justin Time 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Justin, the two weapons are different. Their rate of fire differ, as to the physical dimensions of the weapon. Just the same as the MA5B, MA5K and MA5C or the M6D, M6C and the M6G differ. -- Avalon 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For Merge

 * 1) FOR MERGE Read my statements above also. --Justin Time 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) FOR MERGE it's the same thing, really. --70.133.6.101


 * 1) strongly for Merge The only noticable differences are asthetic, and the D has felt recoil. Agent Tasmania 11:50, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Against Merge

 * 1) AGAINST MERGE Read my statements above. File:UNSCoH_Dingo_without_letters.PNG|30px]]UoH/D Company| Captain]]  Tony  Talk 8/2/2007
 * 2) Really Against Merge They are different models, I know they have little aesthetic changes but leave it. Clavix2 22:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose - Definately different models. There is no need to aggregate all the sniper rifle articles into one. =] Cheers, RelentlessRecusant  'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg TALK • MESSAGE 23:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Very Strong Oppose As per RelentlessRecusant.--Sp art an- 781  File:Kill_Frenzy_Medal.gif|30px]] CommCSV 01:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Different weapons, rate of fire, model and scope vary from Halo 2 to 3. -- Avalon 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose I have to disagree, the weapons are different in many ways. If you put two beside each other, you would see the difference. -- Shadow-609X  20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) STRONGLY AGAINST MERGE The weapon has a different name, different aesthetics and functions differently. Why is that not enough for you people? Btw, the last votes for this were taken like 2 years ago. I'm pretty sure that means the matter is settled.--Emblem 1.jpgRusty - UserWiki:Rusty-112|112 ]] 16:32, September 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Against Merge Gameplay doesn't factor in to the actual finesse of the models, and shouldn't really be used as a reason to merge. Besides, like CT said, the MA5 series all have their own articles.  --Do not insult me. 23:04, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats because the MA5 Varients actualy vary significantly in power, accuracy, fire rate, range and slightly astheaticaly. the only differences between all of the SRS99 varients is looks and that MC doesn't automaticaly correct the aim after recoil hits but thats not actualy about the gun. Agent Tasmania 09:00, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy
Why does every weapon to this rifle insist on calling it a sniper rifle more than once? It seems completely redundant, to have SRS99D-S2 Am Sniper Rifle, when that stands for Sniper Rifle System 99D-S2 AM. The correct was to write it would (most-likely) be: SRS99D-S2 AM Rifle, considering that AM stands for Anti-Material. So, it would be the Sniper Rifle System 99D-S2 Anti-Material Rifle. I think that would fit it better. Just my two cents -- Avalon 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sabot
The ammo section of this article seems to imply that the discarding sabot is the fins on the bullet, when in fact the sabot is compleately differnt. I am going to rewrite this with the correct information. Not Now John 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Barrel
Most weapons systems that employ APFSDS (Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilised, Discarding Sabot) have a non-rifled barrel so that they are more effective as using an APFSDS round in a rifled barrel would convert some of its linear kinetic energy into rotational kinetic energy and thus, means it's ability to penetrate materials in reduced. If the SRS99D-S2 AM has a rifled barrel, it would seem somewhat illogical, though it is possible if it incorporated ball bearings to isolate the rotation. It would also however increase barrel wear. So would the SRS99D-S2 AM have a rifled or smoothbore barrel? SSG Bozo 00:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC) -It has a fluted barrel.

A fluted barrel is just a method of decreasing weight of the barrel without it getting too hot. The weapon or to be precise, the barrel, being specifically designed to fire the APFSDS round, would probably not be rifled. As SSG Bozo said, the spin on the round would reduce effectiveness, so there would be no point in rifling the barrel, just to counteract the spin by adding ball bearings to the ammo. A needlessly complicated solutio for an easy problem. I also don't recall there being any official mention anywhere that the S2 AM has a rifled barrel. Diaboy 08:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, this means that it is no longer a sniper 'rifle', as the barrel is smoothbore. Diaboy 12:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at a detailed image of the tip of the barrel the you can see a polygon-type rifling. or that could be a streight-line polygon barrel cross-section to STOP the rounds from spining...im confused too Gunnery sergeant Maiar 11:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Related Link
I made a damn detailed 3D model of this weapon, which is freely available here: http://vrogy.net/srs99d-sniper-rifle-model/

Mistake on the correction comment
To anyone who might be watching the page, I meant that there's no such word as 'severally', not several. My mistake. Smoke. 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm...
I always thought that when you shot the sniper rifle, the bolt goes back and the round is ejected. Can anyone confirm this?


 * The bolt does go back. The Sniper Rifle is gas-operated - the gases from the expended round cycle the bolt, which puts another round into the chamber.


 * What you're probably thinking is the bolt (the handle on the side of the weapon) isn't the bolt - that's the charging handle. The bolt is inside the rifle. When you load a magazine, you pull the charging handle back, which cycles the bolt back, and then the bolt cycles forward, stripping the round off the top of the magazine and pushing it into the chamber. This action brings the charging handle forward as well. The charging handle does not move when you fire the weapon, however; the spent shell flies out of the ejection port when the bolt cycles back, due to the gas - and then cycles forward again, putting yet another round in the chamber. So the cycle repeats again and again until you're out of ammunition. Smoke My pageMy talk 00:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh.


 * The handle's attached to the bolt, so it does move. Smoke My pageMy talkMy Editcount 08:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuing my edit summary.
First off, that smoke you see in the air - that's called a tracer. It is not as a result of air disturbances. The bipod isn't used in-game; that does not mean it is impossible to use, and that does not mean that there is no need for it. You try hefting that rifle around, and then trying to keep it still when trying to shoot it. Remember that games do not always reflect reality. Cleaned up a bunch of inaccurate and useless information as well. Smoke My pageMy talkMy Editcount 08:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * odd tracer though. Most tracers nowadays glow red or yellow and are mainly used to show the firer the direction of his shots or to help nearby allies to direct their fire on your target(s). I can't really see why we would use a whiteish/clear tracer, whitch at night would be pointless....just sayin'--Arabsbananas 21:46, September 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not a tracer, its a vapour trail, evidenced by the way it dissipates. Agent Tasmania 12:00, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

In Halo 3: ODST
In Halo 3: ODST it seems to be the same Model, but it seems smaller. This is probably because the Version used in Halo 3 was made for Master Chief. But sense you're a ODST you can't wield that big of a Rifle.

@Whoever that is up there ^ (please remember to sign your name with four tildes) it's the exact same model. Why would they spend more on materials and development of different sized rounds and components just to scale it up to a single Spartan's size, and keep the same damage? --Do not insult me. 23:09, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

it also seems to do less damage, I have seen brute minors live after a headshot with this weapon on easy. Jabberwockxeno 21:53, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary
Continuing my edit summary: Small corrections made, usually concerning nomenclature or punctuation. Also, there was a tidbit in the disadvantages about easily missing shots when not using the telescopic sights, especially head shots: I don't know if the author intended this, but that statement (I didn't put its exact wording here) inferred that head shots were easier. The head is a very hard target, due to its size - and that difficulty is compounded by the fact that the head is often mobile.  Smoke Sound off! 00:23, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Range
It says the range of this sniper is "Standoff". If anyone can specify whatever this is. I think it might be the length of standoff the Halo 3 map, but what is its length??? 98.242.105.36 06:19, December 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Standoff = long range.  Smoke Sound off! 06:30, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

RETICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RETICLE is the correct spelling nor reticule

reticule is a purse!

its spelled wrong EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!````
 * Unfortunately, you are right. Additionally, there are 100+ pages that include the word "reticule". WTF... - JEA13  [ iTalk  ] 09:30, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

It can be spelled either way.  Smoke Sound off! 12:20, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Symbol Similarities
I just noticed that there is a close similarity between the Trinity symbol and the Weapon Systems Technologies logo. It seems rather odd, and I wondered if a note should be made of it. Has anyone noticed it, and thought the same? -- Xamikaze330  [Transmission |Commencing ] 11:42, 7 October 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330