Talk:Heckler & Koch MP7

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

New close combat and defense weapon for Royal Norweagin armed forces[edit]

The mp7 will replace the RNAF's mp5 as a part of their modernisation of their armed forces. they have already signed a deal with Heckler & Koch for 6500 weapons of this type. It won against its competitor the p90 during selection. The RNAF put weight on its superior flexability.

source: [1] & [2]

Translated synopsis of source 2:
"A little bandit with a punch"
Some of the reasons the RNARF choose the MP7 was its superior ammunition (4.6 x 30 mm) and muzzle velocity (750m pr sec) in comparison to the older mp5 (9x19mm & 400m pr sec). It also has an advanced red dot sight and the ability to be used in conjunction with night vision goggles. Take into account that it has double the effective range (200 meters), weighs less ( 0.5-1kg depending on loadout), increased penetration and its retractable stock this is definantly a little bandit with a punch.


A pet peeve - when people act like older weapons (MP5) can't mount red dot sights or have a retractable stock (MP5A3). Is the MP7 easier to put a red dot on? Maybe. However the retractable stock argument is for the P90, not the MP5. The NVG argument does not make sense to me. The 60 year old M16 can be used with NVGs. (I know that red dots are easier than iron sights for NVGs.)

I lament the fact that no one has cared to make another gun in 4.6. There are ballistic tests at Brass Fetcher (google it) that shows the 5.7 is not a glorified .22, but I don't think there is a source saying that the 4.6 is as good/better/comparative.Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Section[edit]

For the sake of continuity, I removed the section on video games and movies. I've placed it here. If you were able to borrow your dad's car to see "State of the Union" and thought that the rifles they used there were 'tight', please IM your friends or add it to the discussion here. Believe it or not, this is an article about an actual, real-life gun! --Asams10 19:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, plenty of other guns have movies and video games sections. 82.37.211.135 18:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture sections on firearms-related articles are simply "trivia magnets" — so pretty much every video game or anime fanboy will stop by an article and edit it just to add his/her favorite game/anime to the list. It gets out of control, and these sections often grow way bigger than they're supposed to, without actually adding to the article. It becomes a list of indiscriminate trivia, which Wikipedia is not. --Squalla 21:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason for calling it the 'children's section' is that those who play video games don't have the decency and self control to keep trivia out of the gun section. Feel free to create your own page called "Guns in video games" or some sort of trivial list like that. However, Wikipedia is not a trivia collection.--Asams10 16:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Video games, believe it or not, are generally not played by children. The average age for a video game player is 30. The cultural impact of things like firearms is very important; some guns, like the FN P90, are very prevalent in popular culture. If the sections grow too long, they can always be split off, like with FN P90 in popular culture. Furthermore, it's generally not suggested that people see the talk pages for more info; if something's worth talking about, it's worth talking about in the article namespace. -LtNOWIS 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not generally suggested perhaps but I was trying to appease the children. It's also not generally suggested to place lists of trivia unrelated to a firearm in an article about a firearm. For instance, one does not have a laundry list of tabloid magazine articles or 'nude appearances' under the entry for Linda Hamilton. I can see the value if the use in a film has some sort of impact on a firearm. For instance, James Bond should be mentioned under the Walther PPK article. The problem is, kids (yes, the majority of video games are played by teen-aged boys, especially the shoot-em-up ones) jump from editing 400 video game and pop culture articles to a gun article... one that they have no clue about, and try to stomp on it. It's like grafitti.--Asams10 04:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to burst your bubble, but 80% of gamers are in their late 20's to early 30's. It's decidedly unprofessional to judge a group on a few minor individuals. However I do agree that a section on whether a gun is used in a game or not does not need to be on that gun's page, it should be enough to have the link to this page when describing the contents of the game (or any other pop-culture appearance) on it's own page.GameJunkieJim 16:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a professional, first of all, and I don't have a bubble to burst. Logically, an entry about a fictional depiction of a weapon has no place in an article about said weapon unless that depiction has some significant impact on the story of the weapon itself. If you take it personal, it's not meant as a personal or "ad-hoc" attack on you. Perhaps this is more telling of a deeper guilt over spending hours playing video games instead of making meaningful contributions? JK. --Asams10 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it appears you completely glossed over what I said. How sad for you, if you weren't being so defensive you would have realized that I agreed with you. Still do, in fact. So maybe you taking it personally is due to spending so much time looking for fault in others lifestyles?GameJunkieJim 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, please refrain from attacking the messenger long enough to reread my comments. You're tossing accusations without referencing what I've said that is an attack. My assumption is that you have a problem with the word "Children." Well, fine, it's just a semantics issue then. You're certainly welcome to disagree over the word "Children" if you prefer.--Asams10 16:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it was an attack. Go reread. I simply stated you were wrong in your assumption, and you were. Glaringly so, I might add. I never attacked you either, you are the only one attacking anyone here. Gamers, specifically. GameJunkieJim 16:06, 10 May

2006 (UTC)

MP7A1 Image[edit]

A short list of links to pictures of the mp 7:

Yes there are plenty of images of it around, but you can't just use any. They should be free from copyright. X360 06:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to use that ugly picture with that huge sight on top? The other one I put up had the standard red dot sight on top. It's actually better to have an angled shot so you can see more of the gun. -- X360 10:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a pretty good picture if I can find it. Took it at the SHOT show. The replacement picture was skewed and not proportional. For now, I have no idea where my picture is. --Asams10 09:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please get a decent picture of it soon? X360 08:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(If anyone hasn't realised, this picture has been replaced a while ago) X360 10:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know If I should just leave the image or use this one (since this one is free):
File:MP7A1 - 2005 Version.jpg Do you think it would be better? X360 11:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyway, since this discussion thread is so active (sarcasm intended), I have changed the image to the free one. X360 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we are back to the other one again. X360 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Defence Police[edit]

"In 2005, the MP7 was adopted by the British Ministry of Defence as the preferred weapon for equipping its own police force. The light weight of the weapon, as well as its close range accuracy, were both given as reasons for the purchase." Aletered the wording to make this more clear. Just out of interest, where did this info come from?

MP7 in UK[edit]

I don't know where the info came from, but I've confirmed that the police DO use MP7s although I am not sure when they adopted it or if it is their primary loadout. (Metroplex 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Fire modes?[edit]

Does the MP7 have any fire modes other than automatic and safe?

NVM: From photos it appears to have automatic, safe, and single shot.

There are special versions available that have 3-round burst firemodes, however they are not advertised by H&K and only available on request, they are not available as a standard weapon in the bundeswehr and you will probably never see any, so for wikipedia those do not exist.

Shadowrun?[edit]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Shadowrun a boardgame? If so, why is there an external link for it? (We are focusing on the real gun and not in video games, board games, movies, etc) X360 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowrun is an RPG. There may be a spinoff boardgame. 217.7.209.108 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

single fire 3 round and full auto in all possible combinations see hk website

MP7A1[edit]

Can people stop changing all the MP7 to MP7A1? I have stated in article that the current version is called MP7A1 and wrote the variant section to help people understand. I am constantly reverting edits over this. MP7 is still the base name, much like MP5 (not A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 etc.), M4 Carbine (not M4A1 for latest version), M82 Barrett rifle (not M82A1) X360 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


MP7 on Battlestar Galactica[edit]

Maybe this isn't warranted in the article, but MP7 is featured prominently with the Marines in Battlestar Galactica. Should this get mention in the article?

No, a great example was provided at the P90 page that i will use here. The MP7 is important to battlerstar, but battlestar is NOT important to MP7. So basicly its that while the MP7 could be metnioned on the battlestar page, battlestar shouldnt be mentioned Esskater11 18:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Include it in the BG page if you want. Koalorka (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dual wielding?[edit]

Does dual wielding this gun have about the same amount of control as dual wielding an Uzi? Malamockq (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dual wielding leaves no controllability, period. One can't use two sets of sights independently of one another with any accuracy or effectiveness. By the way, remember, this is not a forum, it is a page dedicated to discussing improvements to the article.--LWF (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, yes I know that already. But that wasn't my question. I was asking does it have the same amount of control as dual wielding an Uzi. Malamockq (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more controllable than an Uzi. But it would still have little controllability.--LWF (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akimbo noob detected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.30.202 (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image nomination[edit]

This image has already been added on a Wikipedia article police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Customs_and_Border_Protection_officers.jpg

88.105.119.182 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any MP7's in that picture, though - they appear to be carrying HK UMP's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyboy982 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. There are no MP7's in that picture.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, those are UMPs, not MP7s. The MP7's front sight is a flip-up, while those had fixed sights.--LWF (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MP7s do not have to feature flip-up sights, though they are usually standard. The MP7 can be fitted with similar fixed sights like that of the UMP. However, the firearms pictured are definitely not MP7s, they are easily distinguished as UMPs by their overly large boxy shape, a foregrip mounted on a Picatinny rail, and a magazine in front of the pistol grip. Hayden120 (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping power[edit]

"Even though the round is much smaller in diameter than a 9 mm bullet, its special properties give it comparable stopping power[citation needed]. The projectile is designed to tumble in tissue after penetrating body armor, thus causing more damage than a bullet of this size would normally do[citation needed]. But this is still a point of widespread discussion since the MP7 and its specially designed ammunition have yet to prove themselves in action."

1. Do we really know that it actually IS designed and thought out to tumble? and 2. if it is so heavily debated and "a point of widespread discussion" (a good way to get your point across, that it is NOT "causing more damage than a bullet of this size would normally do" - perhaps "widespread discussions" should be cited too?) then why include it, or just both "points" to begin with? Nor that it causes comparably high damage or that it.. like the "nuancing" implies, doesen't, should, since it has "yet to prove itself in action", right? Ballistics can give some general indication, but it is not very indepth. It can to some point indicate if something is a cannonball or a pea, but other than that it doesen't tell you much, to push it a little. The anecdotal accounts on bullets of similar characteristics are far inbetween, if any. Fackler should always be mentioned but he still is of the first variation. Fackler doesen't compare if a tumbling bullet is more likely to offset over critical areas versus a fragmenting ones undebatably lethal micro explosion, or weigh the risk of overpenetration vs a tumbling bullets stop etc. Why do I go into the specifics? Because I have seen the same thing in other articles and I know it might stem out of this. A fackler study can AND SHOULD be linked if available, but it is not truthful to use them as sources for how a given round works, practically all things considered, and in definite terms. Ah I dont know.

And to back up I understand if it is all left in as a combination to create that very "clinch" to communicate that it is not really laid out, in a less perfect but effective manner, so maybe it's all good, but it still bothers me. Just my input, and nothing definite - obviously. Baga34 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have been reading Gun Digest's book of Combat Handgunnery by Massad Ayoob. Fackler needs to be verified since his group often ignores real-world results. A good source for what bullets SHOULD do, but his work can lack what they actually do. It may be apples and oranges; Ayoob deals with law enforcement/ self defense while Fackler often works with military ammo, such as 5.56. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page move?[edit]

Did I miss the discussion on moving the article under "MP7" somewhere? Koalorka (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, you did. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was hinted at in Talk:Uzi#naming, which is exactly the same case. WP:GUNS has its own naming conventions, which is fine, but WikiProject-specific naming conventions only apply where the general naming guidelines don't. In this case, the short and common name ("MP7") is unambiguous, so that's where the article belongs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the term, "Uzi" is not ambiguous so the analogy with the designation "MP7" is poor. MP7 is fairly ambiguous. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... are we going to remove the manufacturer from the title of every firearm related article on Wikipedia? Or are we going to have a sloppy and inconsistent system where if someone believes it is unambiguous, it will be changed? Hayden120 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The former. This "sloppy and inconsistent system" is an enshrined part of Wikipedia policy. WikiProjects don't get to opt out of bits of policy that they don't like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as MP7 is ambiguous when used outside of a firearms context. Heckler & Koch serves as a useful way of explaining what's being talked about without having to go into great detail. Most people recognize the name, if only because they can see that it is frequently abbreviated to H&K, or HK. And I really think this should be moved back the Heckler & Koch MP7, the move was never discussed, goes against WP:GUNS, and the rationale is quite debatable.--LWF (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Uzi#naming is a completely unrelated discussion. Such a unilateral and unrelated move such as this requires consensus especially as it requires a change to WP:GUNS and WP:MILHIST naming conventions. Not to mention, who gets to determine what a "common name" is as Kolarka alludes to with the "Grease Gun" analogy. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Individual WikiProject naming conventions do not supersede the general naming conventions, as has been pointed out repeatedly. WikiProjects exist to help coordinate work on articles within the larger sphere of Wikipedia as a whole: they are not walled gardens with their own exclusive rules. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am putting up a request to have the article moved back to the proper name. The move came about without alerting the wider community, is against established community guidelines and the name itself is ambiguous. I'm sure there's a Mario Party 7 in the works with its followers ready to pounce on this page and ignite a passionate notability debate. Koalorka (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And besides, no harm can come of having the article named Heckler & Koch MP7, it's perfectly understandable, impossible to mistake for anything else, and it is completely accurate. On the other hand, problems can come if we name the article MP7, for example, MP7 being quite simple, it is possible for things to come about in the future that also have some claim to the name. There's already MP7 (media format), and there is a distinct possibility of a Mario Party 7, and besides, MP7 already redirects to this page, so I see no problem with the old name.--LWF (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with the move. If we are going to start naming articles based on their "common name", we will end up with a patchwork of articles that look like they were put together by a 5 year old. For instance, the "common name" of the Desert Eagle is now probably "Deagle" thanks to media perversion. Since G3 is definitely ambiguous, Heckler & Koch G3 would stay there following thumperward's convention. So now we end up with: Deagle, Heckler & Koch G3, and MP7. Makes perfect sense to me! In the mean time, the article needs to be moved back to the status quo until a consensus is reached. — DanMP5 03:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "start"? Outside of the WP:GUNS bubble, articles have been named like this since the beginning. It's an enshrined part of Wikipedia policy. I'm not even going to bother arguing against the false equivalences because those arguments have already been had on a wider forum. Frankly, the only argument given above that holds any water is that "MP7" is not in fact unambiguous (thanks LWF), though there was previously no indication of that (in the form of a hatnote) on the article. I've added a hatnote to point out the ambiguity, which should prevent this from happening again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further note[edit]

As it doesn't appear that most of the participants above have actually read WP:COMMONNAME, it is worth reiterating it here:

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline)

There then follows a finite list of "other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions". Note that the WP:GUNS convention is not listed there.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#How to propose a new guideline details the process by which new guidelines can be added to this list. I would ask that someone, anyone really, takes the time to propose the convention in question, which would ensure that WP:GUNS wasn't singing off of its own hymn sheet as regards naming conventions.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll propose the new guideline sometime soon, since it is coming from WP:GUNS it's probably best if I propose it. Also, I don't think you intended it to be insulting, but the phrase "WP:GUNS babble" is rather insulting, so it would be appreciated if things like that weren't said. But after reading through the naming conventions, I may add a little bit to the current WP:GUNS naming convention, making a reference to WP:Naming Conventions#Be precise when necessary.--LWF (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just gotta say that from an "encyclopedia anybody can edit", that's a pretty draconian set of hoops to jump through just to get "approval" for a WP to be able to make its own conventions. This whole debate is "wikisnobish" if you ask me. WP:GUNS has a convention decided by consensus and has a strong backing of active editors. To come in and change THIS article citing your own belief about what a "common name" is and then to throw another WP guideline out as your defense doesn't strike me as productive. The end result will be the same and the WP:GUNS convention will stand, I'm sure, but you could have gone to WP:GUNS and proposed that our group of babbling editors should have their conventions approved by the WP:CABAL. It's like going into somebody's home, picking up their kid, and cutting his hair because you saw an OSHA reg that said long hair causes workplace accidents. Not cool. No, not cool at all. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a wider perspective, it is just as "snobbish" for WikiProjects to make up their own rules for article content and to expect other editors to seek permission to edit articles under their purview. As has been pointed out time and again, WikiProjects do not own articles (so the "child" analogy is bogus). I've seen users bitten time and again by some WikiProjects for failing to follow guidelines which may or may not even be written down (the WP:GUNS style guidelines comes to mind). It is infinitely fairer to casual editors (who make up the vast majority of WP's content creators) to be able to follow guidelines given in a central place (such as WP:NAME) and not be bitten by exceptions which are only documented elsewhere. Yes, there are "hoops to jump through", but there are hoops to jump through to enforce any sort of consistency on WP. Once it's done you don't need to worry about it again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the "bubble" comment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MP7 in use with Bundespolizei[edit]

As another proof for the MP7-usage in the Bundespolizei, I would like to refer to the picture of 2006 which shows Bundespolizei officers, armed with the MP7, who arrested potential terrorists.

The picture can be seen here: http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,960474,00.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.121.49 (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture can be cited if you can find a version with a caption from a reliable source, identifying them as Bundespolizei. ROG5728 (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two citations you added are not suitable. The first citation (1) is not suitable because it does not say the MP7 is used by either GSG9 or Bundespolizei. It only says that the MP5 is used by KSK and GSG9, not the MP7. The second citation (2) is not suitable because it only says the weapon may be adopted in the future, it does not say it has actually been adopted. I will search for a good citation. Don't add the text back without a suitable citation. ROG5728 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dradio.de/images/40235/landscape/133,0&imgrefurl=http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/hintergrundpolitik/685356/&usg=__h8MXSaWUnw_Ly18YMQqG7iULSn0=&h=100&w=133&sz=5&hl=de&start=35&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=elRGA0u_Bd1zNM:&tbnh=69&tbnw=92&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dterroristen%2Bwerden%2Babgef%25C3%25BChrt%26start%3D21%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1C1_____enDE377DE377%26ndsp%3D21%26tbs%3Disch:1 These newspaper says that they are verfassungsschutz(german secret service) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minionator (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also have to distinguish between regular usage in the Bundespolizei, and with special forces like the gsg9 (which is part of the bundespolizei). While to my knowledge the MP7 is not part of the official weapons that you will ever see with police officers in uniform that patrol around important areas/buildings, the gsg9 is quite free in choosing their weapons. If a member of the gsg9 asks his commanding officer for an mp7, and gives good reasons, chances are actually very high that when the money is there, they will get one. If they spend the money on the weapon and ammo on their own, it would be even easier, since the gsg9 officers can and should freely enhance their equipment.

Operating mechanism[edit]

Is there any reason why the exact operating mechanism is not listed in the data table or the article? All you get is the broad category the operating mechanism fits into, (Gas-operated, rotating bolt) not the actual mechanism. I'll try to find the information myself, but I have never actually edited on wikipedia and don't know how to handle the citations.

71.112.210.100 (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've found it. The weapon works on a short-stroke piston, according to this article here.
The only issue is that I still don't know how to handle the citation. If anyone could add the information for me or show me how to cite this properly, that would be fantastic.
71.112.210.100 (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can cite a source by adding the link into the article with <ref> at the start of the link, and </ref> at the end of the link. ROG5728 (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's in. Let me know what I did wrong, I'm certain there's something. 71.112.210.100 (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works. ROG5728 (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. 71.112.210.100 (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Osama bin Laden[edit]

In light of the recent additions to this article, it must be noted that dozens of different guns, such as the SIG P226 pistol and HK416 rifle, are "reported" or "rumored" to have been used to kill Osama bin Laden. Rumor is not sufficient evidence for adding claims to Wikipedia, and that is especially true with regards to claims about a secretive DEVGRU operation. ROG5728 (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article specifically mentions that the MP7 and M4 were used in May 1, 2011 raid: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle 174.143.252.250 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MP7A1 woodland camo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:MP7A1 woodland camo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MP7A1 woodland camo.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wheight problems[edit]

Could someone overwork the wheight specifications since I found them to be a little confusing. Tarendas (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MP7 and the OICW program[edit]

This image shows a 1999 OICW variant with the "2" configuration showing the interesting option of mounting an MP7 under it instead of the 5.56mm KE module (3 seems to be an early XM25). Is there any substance to the idea that the MP7 was designed in part as a component of the XM29 weapon system? Herr Gruber (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Heckler & Koch UCP[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merge following a weak consensus over almost 3 years; incoming page was only a prototype weapon and as a companion to the MP7 can reasonably be associated with it. Klbrain (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Heckler & Koch UCP was intended to be a pistol using the same cartridges as the MP7, but it never went beyond the prototype stage. Since it never went into production, and didn't generate any controversy or attention, it doesn't seem notable on its own. It'd be sensible to merge it into this article instead of deleting it. Rezin (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Against. One might as well merge Five-seveN and P90's articles with that logic. As far as I know, no: the UCP/P46 didn't garner any controversy, but attention— that's subjective. Just because something didn't enter into the realm of selected practical use (and "popularity", in some lights), doesn't mean it would warrant its absorbing into something else that's related and relevant, but different. From my understanding, the MP7 and UCP are two different designs, under one project, to answer for one requirement. Doubt it can become any more unambiguous than that.
Post Script: I didn't see any indication that the UCP's article was up for deletion or any other action than this merger proposal; is something missing here? 2601:5:C480:88E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE96:5BB8 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting here - I'd forgotten about this. The situation here is quite different from the two FN firearms because the UCP never went past the prototype stage. Some prototypes are notable, for whatever reasons. The problem in this case is that there are not enough sources to write an article about the UCP - it currently only has one, and that one is a fairly indiscriminate self-published site. The alternative to merging is deletion. Would a week be enough time to search for better sources? No rush. I'll circle back in the new year and see if there's enough material in UCP to merit a standalone article. Rezin (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The UCP article is in shambles, painfully. I'm doing a quick Google run-through as I finish up this reply, and any measurement of information I find are woefully unsourced themselves or horrifically, reciprocated data from our article in question. HKPRO used to have an article, but bits of their content seem to've been lost or removed ever since their site's layout change some time ago. Annoying.
I'm not too thrilled on the idea of merging two clearly different category of firearms, but should this lack of information continue, I figure something should be reached. For now though, a refimprove would be prudent. 2601:5:C480:88E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE96:5BB8 (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they were merged it'd be sufficient to include just a line or two, saying something like "HK prototyped a semi-automatic pistol as a companion weapon but cancelled it before going into production." There really isn't much more worth saying. But if you can find more info and sources then by all means go for it. I don't know that HKPRO.com is actually a reliable source though. Rezin (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think HKPRO is a reliable source, since their articles are anonymous and there's no discernible editorial process. That said, this might be the article you were thinking of: [3] Note that it doesn't say much either, basically the same as the Modern Firearms article. However it does mention that the weapon was discussed in Janes, which is a highly reliable source. Even so, a prototype which didn't receive much attention probably isn't worth an article. Rezin (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to provide a counterpoint, here's a protoype of unquestioned notability: Heckler & Koch G11. Rezin (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HKPRO used to be what one probably could call "reliable source" as they were one of the more notable websites since the earlier 2000s in compiling multiple information on Heckler & Koch arms. At one point though, they seem to have gone through a redesign/layout change twice that resulted in information disappearance and clutter (some of which have been fixed), and appears to be mostly abandoned since. The P46 article archive you generously brought may be what I had remembered back then. If there really is a mention of the pistol in one of Jane's multiple publications, I guess it's a matter of finding that and adding it to the citations list. My stance still is that attention doesn't always equal worth.
Albeit being one of the prototypes', specifications of the pistol is there so if a merge were to happen, it should at least merit another infobox and one more sentence mentioning the reason for its development cancellation. As everything stands now though, I've put a refimprove banner up on UCP's article, and this entire ordeal—like you said—requires no rush. Could even be a matter of time before additional information are unearthed or newly released. 2601:5:C480:88E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE96:5BB8 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out the UCP page. As far as I can tell, with it not being produced, the page is and always will be a stub. I think it should be merged with the MP&, since the F2000 and SCAR both have grenade launcher sections. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heckler & Koch MP7. 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) 23:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heckler & Koch MP7. 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) 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heckler & Koch MP7. 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) 20:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heckler & Koch MP7. 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) 13:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heckler & Koch MP7. 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) 05:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Heckler & Koch MP7[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Heckler & Koch MP7's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

  • From YouTube: Todd Spangler, YouTube Terminates Toy Freaks Channel Amid Broader Crackdown on Disturbing Kids’ Content, Variety, November 17, 2017
  • From Germany: "Gross domestic product – at current prices – 1991 to 2015". Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. 5 November 2016. Archived from the original on 5 November 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heckler_%26_Koch_MP7&oldid=1205840456"