Talk:IWI Dan

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Middle East

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 articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Move proposal[edit]

Unless I'm missing something, there's no reason to have "sniper rifle" in the article title. Normally, I would just move the article to "IWI DAN .338" to correct this, however I believe the title should actually be "IWI Dan".

I say this because IWI capitalises the names of all of their firearms on their website, yet the article titles for the Uzi, Tavor, Negev, etc. ignore this (the ACE is an exception, as it was originally the "Galil ACE", so that one should be capitalised). It is also written "Dan" in the last paragraph on IWI's page for the Dan.

As for the ".338" bit, while the headings on the IWI page have it as part of the name ("DAN.338"), the body of the page has it separately, as a description, with a number of instances of "DAN" (or "Dan") not being followed by ".338". Thanks, RadiculousJ (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use by the SAS[edit]

I find the claim that the SAS uses the Dan a dubious one for a couple of reasons. First, the source given only says that they're testing it, and second, I hardly think that the Daily Star is a reliable source on this subject matter. If anyone does have a reliable source, please say so, else the claim will be removed. Thanks, RadiculousJ (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]