Talk:FN F2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
Flag of Belgium This page relates to the WikiProject Belgium, a project to create and improve Belgium-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can join the project, and help with our open tasks.

Flag of the Flemish Community and the Flemish Region

Flag of the French Community and the Walloon Region

Flag of the Brussels-Capital Region

Flag of the German-speaking community
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Find sources: FN F2000 — news, books, scholar

Contents

[edit] Legal status

It is stated that the FS2000 is civilian-legal, I assume this means the United States. Whether it does or does not, I think this should be clarified for a non-US audience. Hydraton31 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] FS2000 now available

Just FYI, the FS2000 is now available. It looks like there is a lot more initial supply than the PS90, but the prices are ranging from $1900 to $2700. Feel free to start up a new FS2000 page, provide detailed info, and take plenty of pics. One owner has already taken photographs of his FS2000 on AR15.com

(Metroplex 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Much like the PS90, I don't think neither weapons require their own articles. The differences between the military/law enforcement variants and their civilian counterparts are not sufficient, in my opinion, to start a new article. Take a look at the M16 rifle or M249 SAW articles for instance — they cover numerous variants within one single article. Variants which are more deserving of their own articles than the PS90 or FS2000, which are essentially the P90 and the F2000 with longer barrels, and restricted to semi-automatic fire only. Just my opinion on this. —Squalla 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no civilian counterpart of the M249 SAW, and the M16 is a select-fire variant of the AR-15. The AR-15 has its own page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR15, while the M-16 has its own page as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle. The PS90 differs from the P90 in a variety of ways such as the barrel length, hammer group, selector, frame, etc... and will have a different user base (P90 isn't legal for civilian ownership, I'm not sure on the semi-auto P90 though). Keeping everything on one page might be convenient for an editor, but an extra page contributes more information regarding the PS90. Unfortunately, the people buying FS2000s aren't too tech savvy and aren't taking as many photographs to post up. There are people buying 2-3 FS2000s at a time, so it is definitely selling faster than the PS90, most likely due to the .223 Remington / 5.56 x 45 mm caliber (common) and usage of AR-15 magazines (common and cheap).

In addition, whenever I added the info page for the PS90 on the P90 page, someone kept deleting it, even though its dimensions (weight and size) are very different from the P90. The PS90 deserves its own page, as does the FS2000 (whenever someone has enough photos and information on it to develop it).

(Metroplex 15:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

I understand the technical differences between the original weapons and their counterparts, but I don't see how they require a new page. It's not about whether the weapon has a civilian version or not, it's about whether the information about the variant can be contained whitin the main article or not. And, in these cases, I do think they fit perfectly whithin the main article. Unlike the M16 and AR-15, for instance, which are very different in that they have a whole different history (more importantly, whithin a military context) and their own sub-variants, while still being related, the PS90 and FS2000 are just what they are: civilian counterparts of their original system — longer barrel, fire mode restriction, etc. etc; reason: to comply with civilian gun laws, period. The description of these technical differents can fit perfectly whithin a section of an article (like the PS90 section used to) rather than its own article. The only reason I see for keeping the PS90 in its own article right now is the fact that more than half of the page's size comprises of photographs (which are great, but are currently taking up so much of the page that the article looks more like a photo gallery than an actual encyclopedia article). —Squalla 16:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia articles...

Should contain as much information on the subject as possible. In this day and age, photographs and text are great mediums of information. This isn't the reign of Encyclopedia Britannica where we pay a few thousand dollars for 1 photograph and a bunch of outdated text. I hope that the photographs explain more about the weapon system and I try to keep the PS90 article as updated as possible with new information as it comes to light. Had I kept the PS90 info on the P90 page, someone would complain that the P90 page contains more info on the PS90 than the P90... There is a separate article for the AR-15 and a separate article for the M-16. Both are very similar weapon systems and I don't see why the PS90 cannot legitimately have its own Wikipedia page.

I wish Wikipedia would allow "how-to" sections, because there really is no other documented source of information on adjusting the MC-10-80 or how to use the EGLM sighting system on the F2000.

(Metroplex 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Using the Fire Control Computer

The electronic fire control system calculates a grenade's trajectory and indicates the launcher's correct elevation for any given target. It is more accurate and faster to use than traditional grenade launcher sights.

To use the system, follow these simple steps:

   * Locate the target.
   * Input the range to the target:
        1. Look through the optical sights and align them with the target.
        2. Paint the target with the laser rangefinder. Do this by pressing the red button on the pistol grip, directly below the rifle trigger.
        3. The target's range will be displayed inside the optical sights.
   * Rotate the weapon to its proper elevation:
        1. The optical sights are equipped with two red LEDs. These will flash to indicate correct elevation.
        2. The bottom LED will start flashing when the weapon is aimed too low.
        3. The top LED will flash when the weapon is aimed too high.
        4. Both LEDs will stop flashing and turn yellow when the weapon's elevation is correct.
   * Fire.

I did not write this up, but I felt it was important/unique enough to retain at least in the discussion section since it technically is a How-To article and violates Wikipedia's policies.

(Metroplex 11:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Norwegian soldier

Does anyone know what that helmet is all about?

GREETINGS, HU-MANNS. WE ARE FROM PLANET NORWAY. WE COME IN PEACE. TAKE US TO YOUR SAUNA. Identity0 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splinter Cell Usage

Although I won't do this, I advise that it be noted somewhere in this article that the FN F2000 makes an appearance in all the Splinter Cell games in the form of the SC-20K rifle that Sam carries.

People have been editing in references to Splinter Cell on a regular basis, and every time it's been reverted. It's against policy, sorry (see WP:MILHIST#Popular culture). - Tronno ( t | c ) 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
All right, thanks for clearing that up for me. I'm still relatively new to the editing rules of Wikipedia. ShadowFox3735 05:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
According to that link, it'd only be not allowable if it was the standard firearm in most games, and thus non-notable due to proliferation. The only two video games I know of that it appears in are S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and the Splinter Cell games. 203.59.142.189 10:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
in BF2 too. 22:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canislupusarctos (talk • contribs)

Who cares? Koalorka (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

People who aren't you. 124.169.161.189 (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it relevant what game it appears in? The developers can put any gun they damn well want in. The same goes for movies. They are just props. Who cares. The lists become out of control, and that is why we worked these problems out a year or two ago. A prop is just not notable for inclusion. Should we include every movie that a particular television set has been in? No. Hayden120 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ejection port

Can someone get a pic or video of it ejecting brass? At the very least, a pic of where the ejection port is would be good. Identity0 19:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shotgun

The article mentions that the F2000's forward handguard can be replaced by, among other things, a 12-gauge shotgun. Is there a specific model of shotgun that it's designeded to mount, and are any pictures available of it with a shotgun mounted? 71.203.209.0 06:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gas-operated, long or short-stroke

I was looking at my copy of Assault Rifle by Max Popeneker yesterday, and I noticed that it said the F2000 is gas-operated with a long-stroke piston, while this article says short-stroke. I've tried FN's websites, but one of them isn't working on my computer. Could someone find some sources stating which it really is?--LWF (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)