Talk:FN F2000

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Legal status[edit]

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)[reply]

It presumably means that FN will sell the weapon to any civilian where it is legal for them to own such a weapon, which doesn't just include the United States.--195.188.221.191 (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FS2000 now available[edit]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Encyclopedia articles...[edit]

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))[reply]

Using the Fire Control Computer[edit]

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))[reply]

Norwegian soldier[edit]

Does anyone know what that helmet is all about?

He is part of a helicopter crew I believe, possbily a smaller close support transport as he is wearing body armour - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.58.148 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - Norwegian? was a picture removed, I thought about the Slovanian soldiers when you mentioned the helmet. What Norwegian exactly? -Anon

Splinter Cell Usage[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But why is it called as FT 200M in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of chernobyl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clach92 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Agreed, this is what the IMFDB (internet movie/media firearms database) wiki is for, not wikipedia. - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.58.148 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ejection port[edit]

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)[reply]

Here is what I know, the F2000's ejection port is on the right side of the weapon.Clach92 (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fireforeffect.biz/WEB14.jpg Sorry, not proficiant enough to put pictures in a wiki but I found a great one to use. - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.58.148 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun[edit]

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)[reply]

I wondered the same thing a while ago, I tried searching the web, but it seemed a bit useless and most of the information was unverified. It would seem that the f2000 can accept any underbarrel shotgun, like Remington Masterkey and xm-26. I havent actuallu seen any f2000 with these or any other shotgun attachments, so dont take this as a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.213.172 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 hours of searching the internet yeilded no evidence of a shotgun compatable with the F2000 rifle, unless someone can provide evidence that this is possible I think it should be removed as speculation. - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.58.148 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Must have been a type-o. Mr. Popeneker even describes it as a short-stroke piston on his own website: http://world.guns.ru/assault/as41-e.htm. Most other documentation I've encountered refers to it as a short-stroke system. Koalorka (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drop free magazines and bolt hold-open[edit]

"The FS2000 is not configured from the factory to have a drop-free magazine system due to the friction from the removable dust gaskets. The magazine needs to be pulled out manually. It should also be noted that the rifle does not have a hold-open device; the bolt does not stay back after the last round is fired."

This would apply to all F2000 variants correct? Then perhaps it should be merged into the design details section. Hayden120 (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears so. I was just proof-reading the article yet again and I'll include it into the design section. Koalorka (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work by the way, sorry if that comment came across bluntly. Hayden120 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FN-2000 at Libyan service[edit]

They are videos at youtube about the 40th anniversary of Libyan Revolution that shown the libyan special forces soldiers parading keeping at their hands FN-2000 rifles.

John, Athens, 16/9/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.59.155 (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos or photos unfortunately are not considered a valid reference source. Do you have any local literature that documents this? Koalorka (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found and cited several online sources. Koalorka (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I saw an IP added an image with a black background and then a user reverted to a different image. I reverted back to the black background image because I feel the quality of the image makes the features more distinguishable than the image with the lighter background. I would suggest seeking an image with a light background with higher quality though. That's in my opinion though.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of quality, the new picture is a black gun on a black background. The gun's features are much harder to see now. ROG5728 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - I find the curves and distinction of the gun much more clearly with the new image. Like I said, the quality makes it easier for me to see. The definition of the gun in the lighter background image is fuzzier. Perhaps photoshoping a different background on the new image would be a compromise? I could give it a shot.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried. The colors are so similar in some places that a computer could not even differentiate between the gun and the background, let alone my eyes. The image is simply not appropriate for the infobox; where readers want an easily identifiable image showing at least the basic outline of the firearm, and not have to zoom in on the image and still have difficulty seeing it. Per WP:IMAGE: "Poor quality images (too dark, blurry, etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used". The previous image may be slightly fuzzy when zoomed in, but is more than adequate for the profile image of an encyclopedia article.
With this in mind, I am going to revert back to the previous image; which had been in the infobox for over two years. Please do not re-add the disputed image until you have a consensus to do so. — DanMP5 15:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Although my opinion still stands about the original image. It is fuzzy and poor quality, and I do not have to be zoomed in to see that. Thanks for trying on the other image though.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. — DanMP5 20:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about this image from Flickr?--TParis00ap (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe for the body of the article if it has an appropriate license (could you give a link to the description page?), but definitely not for the infobox.— DanMP5 20:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the assumption that Flickr images were free to use. I take it from your reply above that my assumption was wrong.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the images can be uploaded to Wikipedia, but most are copyrighted. If you could find that image again and link to the description page rather than directly to the file, I could tell if it was or not. However, the image still wouldn't be appropriate for the infobox, where we need a high quality image that clearly represents the standard F2000 in an assembled state; very similar to the current one but of higher quality. — DanMP5 04:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I googled the image and it came off another website that was linked to Flickr. I dont know where the description page is.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a better image that can be used in the lead? 173.34.97.54 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/machine_guns/fnherstal/press4.html
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on FN F2000. 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 10:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FN F2000. 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) 21:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on FN F2000. 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) 04:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

out of production?[edit]

it's the F2000 out of production?, this is not good Kalininos (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FN_F2000&oldid=1206692178"