Talk:Gepárd anti-materiel rifle

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Hungary Low‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image of lynx when hovering over link

I noticed that when hovered over the link displayed an image of a lynx and not the rifle, I edited the page and removed the lynx image. -Paul Hughes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:617F:F5A6:698E:9A9E:C06C:3FFF (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What round?

what round does the gepard m6 use? there is so much conflicting information on whether it uses the 14.5mm round or the 12.7mm round —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.145.129 (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.50 BMG and 12.7mm Russian. Honved2018 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I realize this is a series of firearm, but I think it should probably be moved to the singular form Gepard anti-materiel rifle. And I would spell it matériel, but I suppose the accent is not used in the U.S. —Michael Z. 2006-07-21 04:23 Z

Picture

We need a better picture of this gun. The one at the top looks...doctored. It appears as though someone took an illustration out of a book and doctored it to make it look like the gun is sitting in the middle of the road.PowderedToastMan 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Honved2018 (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More powerful than 50 BMG?

I challenge this claim. Not for ego purposes, but for factual purposes. The idea that the case size being larger makes the round more powerful than a 50 BMG simply because it holds more powder is novel but not factual. It could be more powerful if more powder were put into the case, but is this really worth mention if it is not done?

The CIP for 12.7 x 108 mm is 360 MPa (52213 psi) with a 125% proof test which would be 450 MPa (65266 psi). According to TM43-0001-27 the average specification for all regular 50 BMG ammo (see 50 BMG article) is 378 Mpa (54923 psi), and in TM43-0001-27 the proof round is listed with a 448 Mpa (65000 psi) pressure. So the nominal pressure for 50 BMG is higher than 12.7 x 108 mm, and the pressure test difference is a mere 2 Mpa (266 psi). So here we get our first look at similarities.

If you want to claim its more powerful because specifications of rounds, that would be more reasonable and wikipedia' like, but here we have a problem as well. For example the specification for AP-I B32 in 12.7 x 108 mm is 48.28 g at 840 m/s which makes 17,033 j energy using the "E=MV squared divided by 2000" (2000 comes from 1000 ( grams in kg ) multiplied by 2) formula. The Specification for M2 AP round in 50 BMG is 45.69 g at 856.45 m/s which makes 17,706 j energy using the same formula. If we go closer to apples to apples the M8 AP-I round in 50 BMG is 40.34 g at 886.92 m/s which makes 18,989 j energy using the same formula. So once again here we still do not have 12.7 x 108 mm as the winner.

But let us address this further;

For example, the Gepard anti-materiel rifle article it lists the 12.7 x 108 mm round as having a 1100 mm barrel firing the round at 860 m/s and the Barrett M82 having a 737 mm barrel firing its projectile at 854 m/s. A mere 6 m/s difference from a barrel roughly 30% longer? These are two different guns so lets dig further.

Since that was too much of an apples and oranges example I provide this, the Zastava M93 Black Arrow is actually offered in BOTH calibers. Of note we see it uses a short 840mm barrel for the 50 BMG round and a longer 1000mm for the 12.7 x 108 mm round. The factory specification and listed velocity in for 12.7 x 108 mm in that article is still 68 m/s slower even with the longer barrel than the 50 BMG and its shorter barrel.

My intent is not to diminish the 12.7 x 108 mm round, it is nearly in every way its brother, at the very least its equal. To make claims of one or the other being more powerful is foolish.

For this reason I delete the claim that the 12.7 x 108 mm round is more powerful due simply to its length claim. - B4Ctom1 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're an ignorant dolt; this is not up for debate. Honved2018 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy reference

Article refers to "http://www.onwar.com/weapons/infantry/firearms/Gepard_AMR.html" as a reference for accuracy beyond 1000 yards. Yet that page is a copy/paste of this article, or vice versa. StraightAsADie (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]