Talk:Service rifle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Service Rifle Competiton

civilian competitions Service Rifle competition is divied into two types SR(a) and SR(b) using a bolt actioned rifle with fixed sights, Courses of fire are based on those fired by the Armed Forces, Matches may involve deliberate, rapid fire and snap shooting, and will usually involve firing from a variety of positions including prone, sitting, kneeling, standing. Competitions are usually fired on representative figure targets such as the Figure 11 and Figure 12 figure targets. For civilian competitors firing in matches alongside military competitions a rifle with a magazine capacity of at least 10 shots is advisable.

Civilian Clubs that ho;d service rifle competitions are the Wellington Service Rifle Association and the 18th Battalion Memorial Rifle Club

I've removed the preceding section by Dougree. IMO it doesn't really belong in this article as currently configured. heqs 12:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why in your opinion does this not belong I would have thought that Service Rifle Competiton would be a logical extention to Service Rifle?--Dougree 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe it belongs somewhere like, for instance, Shooting sports#Rifle shooting sports or the type of article in Category:Rifle shooting sports. Service rifle is about service rifles, not shooting competitions. heqs 19:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

List

I think it is worth mentioning variants of the standard issue rifles, such as the M4 of the M16. CynicalMe 16:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like the list to be a brief (partial) list, with only the main service rifle of each regular army listed. A more comprehensive list could get its own article. But it's not a big deal to me. heqs 16:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, what about combining this article in some way with the battle rifle article? I think that having indiv. articles could be confusing to some. CynicalMe 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the only thing is that "battle rifle" is not as clearly defined a term. heqs 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem. Someone searching for info on service rifles may only know the term 'battle rifle', and not find what they are looking for. Although I suppose this could be fixed with a link. CynicalMe 17:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Service pistol

Service pistol seems to be an all around better, more comprehensive article - let's check there for pointers when improving this one. heqs 09:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep and the Service pistol article is only a few days old, credit to Commander Zulu for starting AND adding all the info! Deon Steyn 11:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well that explains why I never found it before... heqs 13:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the Service pistol article had a section on history, so I decided to implement a section like that in this article too (As well as a Future? section). Does it seem okay? CeeWhy2 11:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Dont you think that the list of service rifles at the bottom should be merged with List of service rifles of national armies theres no use splitting up the article. --Gw099 00:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It could be completely removed from this article leaving only a point in the See also section. --Deon Steyn 05:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be cut down, but not completely removed. Cut it down to the 8 rifles shown in the gallery towards the bottom, perhaps? CeeWhy2 07:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Leaving some will always invite editors to add more? --Deon Steyn 06:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. CeeWhy2 06:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, I think it would be a better idea if we just got rid of the whole list of service rifles, remove the gallery and just link to List of service rifles of national armies in the see also section. The article is becoming too cluttered. CeeWhy2 09:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Added extra section onto history

I have decided that the term "service rifle" could apply to any standard-issue firearm for infantry, and added a section onto the history written as such. AllStarZ 05:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First service rifle

I would have thought the MP 43, turned Sturm Gewehr 44, would be the first Assault rifle accepted by a country as a Service rifle, followed shortly by the Sturm Gewehr 45.--THobern 06:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Expansion

I've taken the liberty of expanding the article with a brief list of service rifles by nation, a la Service pistol. I'm taking a rather generalist approach, rather than listing every single rifle that might have been issued to a particular armed force at any given time. There's still a bit of work to do- for example, I know the Japanese are using M-16 rifles, but I don't know when they were adopted, nor what they were using between 1945 and whenever the M-16 was adopted (M1 Garands? M-14s?). Anyway, there's more expansion to come, but if anyone wants to help they're more than welcome!--Commander Zulu 14:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected, it turns out the Japanese are using Howa Type 64 and Type 89 rifles rather than M-16s (turns out Godzilla movies are not reliable sources of information on JSDF weaponry!), but there's still a gap in Japanese military rifles between 1945 and 1964 that I'm unsure about. --Commander Zulu 14:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations is misrepresented

The weapons in this section may stand true for Britain, but not necessarily for other commonwealth nations. Canadian weapons, for example, are mostly American- or modified American-Standard Issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.215.40 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It needs to be split up into the seperate countries, as it is rather confusing. The "Austeyr" that it mentions is only used in Australia.203.206.184.80 (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Up until the Vietnam War, all the Commonwealth countries were using the same guns. The problem is that if we differentiate the countries from the start, we end up with a dozen countries with almost exactly the same guns until the 1980s, when they all get one unique gun apiece. It might be easier to keep the current format and then add a (Country) after the firearm in question. So you'd have British Empire/Commonwealth of Nations (Because like it or not, the British Empire was there first and the CoN is descended from it), and then have things like Ross Rifle (Canada), Austeyr (Australia), SA-80 (UK), INSAS (India), and so on. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Was there any consensus on the Service rifle --> Service weapon change?

Or was it just done unilaterally? If so, I think it should move back to "service rifle", being that 99% of the firearms on the page are rifles, and that "service rifle" is a commonly-used term. I suspect it was unilateral, since whoever it was also capitalised it "Service Weapon" which is clearly not WP convention. Any argument for keeping it here, or shall I go get the redirect deleted so this article can be moved? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No consensus at all, as far as I can tell- needs to be moved back ASAP, I think. Especially because "Service Weapon" covers rifles, handguns, shotguns, longswords, katana, javelins, spears, and pointy sticks when you think about. This particular page is designated for longarms; there is another one for handguns, and I see no reason why a third page couldn't be created to cover SMGs if any nation issues them as a primary servuce weapon to their armed forces. Commander Zulu (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just moved it back. , I don't want to protect the redirect , for , as mentioned above, it would prevent the writing of an actual article on the broader concept. DGG (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
by the way, you guys here might want to look at the first sentence. Normally the actual name of the article is the one that goes at the start, not broader or alternate terms. . eg. The service rifle is.... wording it the way it is now is a little bit of a problem with respect to the move. DGG (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to List of service rifles?

I think "list" better describes what we have here, since it's a little about the concept itself, and the a huge list, rather than the other way around. Plus, I think it'd get more readers with a clearer title. Objections? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

M1 Garand in History Section

The History Section has an illustration of the M1903 Springfield with the caption:

For example, the bolt-action M1903 Springfield was used as the USA's service rifle until the Korean War, when it was replaced by the gas-operated M1 Garand.

The M1 Garand was known as "The gun that won the war [WWII]".

M1903 Springfield Bolt-action .30-06 Springfield 1903-1957

M1 Garand Semi-automatic .30-06 Springfield 1936-1963

WoodenBooks (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

China's use of K98 Mauser

The page states that the K98 mauser is still used by the Chineese Military, which I am fairly sure is incorrect. I.E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.58.63 (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 

       It is correct, they use the 7.92 caliber, and they use the k98

Netherlands

Couldn't help but realize rather large and historically significant nation, the Netherlands, is missing. It would be appreciated that, if someone with the proper knowledge pf the nation's service rifles, could add them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caturday2 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

India and Pakistan

Where are India and Pakistan,why not mentioned here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.231.148 (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

G3

Have removed the Heckler & Koch G3 from the list of "assault rifles" that replaced battle rifles, as the G3 IS a battle rifle, firing a full power cartridge. It even says in the intro to the article, "[It] is a...battle rifle...", so it doesn't make sense to list is as a rifle that replaced battle rifles..45Colt 05:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge

An IP suggested a merge a few months back and I'm following up on that and starting the discussion. This appears to duplicate the list (more comprehensive list actually) in Service rifle. I would just redirect it myself right now except that I want to ensure that any non-duplicate information is merged. Then, if necessary, Service rifle could be split into this list. But right now they're virtually the same. Shadowjams (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As a follow up, the last time merge was discussed (I think) here was in 2007, so it's certainly ripe for discussion again. I think ideally the list of service rifles would be a useful fork, but I don't know if this article has enough content outside of the list portion. It certainly could, however. Any ideas? Shadowjams (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think i link or abbreviated list would suffice... ==MeepSire 20:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tk421 c (talk • contribs)
Delete the list page. It clearly serves no real purpose, and half the information isn't even sourced properly anyroad. The facts on this article already suffice. --Katangais (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I just came across the merge tag on List of service rifles of national armies. I agree that these two articles are redundant. I suggest moving the long list from this article to that article, replacing its current, undersourced content. That would leave this article as just a brief discussion of the role of service rifles, and other general topics. Rezin (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

On further review, I see that this article is almost unsourced too. While I don't think that merging unsourced content is a good practice, it'd be better to have only one unsourced list instead of two. Rezin (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Name of the article needs to be changed

Shouldn't this article's name change to "standard infantry weapon" or "standard infantry firearm"? If we decide to use the term "rifle", we need to remove all smoothbore muskets, etc. Kadrun (talk)

I agree, the name is not perfect, but when talking about firearms we may also need to include side arms and machine guns. Wouldn't these be considered standard service firearms too? M11rtinb (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Former countries

If we're talking about nations we should also consider adding former countries: for example Austria-Hungary included territories that are today parts of many other countries - Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine. So the service rifles or firearms were used by the people of so many ethnicities other than Austrians (Germans). Take my country, Slovenia for example: in the last 150 years its current territory was part of Austria-Hungary, after WW1 it was split among the Kingdom of Italy and Kingdom of Yugoslavia, during WW2 it was split among Kingdom of Italy, Nazi Germany and Kingdom of Hungary, and after WW2 was a part of Yugoslavia. My ancestors served in the Austro-Hungarian Army during WW1, the Royal Italian Army (some other Slovenians served in the German Wehrmacht) and in the Yugoslav People's Army during WW2 before Slovenia as a country ever existed. M11rtinb (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Mosin Nagant for Vietnam

How exactly is the Mosin Nagant a service rifle for Vietnam starting in the 1920s?

I can see how it was the service rifle for the Vietcong early upon independence, but how can the rifle be used that far back, when there was no Vietnam or even a large communist movement to speak of. It's unsourced too, so am I missing something?

Thom430 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

List, sources etc

I've removed the list as it was almost all unsourced. Please don't restore it without providing a reliable source for each entry, which specifically states that it is a service rifle. --hippo43 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


I've found the list useful as a jumping off point for additional research in the past. Is there a way we can retain it with a templated flag stating that it is unsourced without removing it altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.196.215 (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

For me, no. That pretty much defines original research. You can still use an old version of the page as a basis for research though, and add solidly sourced examples to the article when you find them. --hippo43 (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you can literally click through most of these gun's article pages and find the sources right there, I don't see how removing HALF OF THE ARTICLE, which was a VALUABLE and ACCURATE resource fixes the problem of citations not being on it, if you wanted to be productive, you could have done the work of clicking through all of the pages and citing the guns instead of being pedantic and deleting half the article to leave it as barebones as it is right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.111.136 (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with bare bones. In addition, a lot of the sources that were used were not reliable. Please understand, it's up to the contributors to cite reliable sources WHEN they add content, not to make already busy editors to clean up after them. If you want to work on a list in userspace or draftspace, and verifying it with reliable published sources, you or anyone else are quite welcome to do so. - BilCat (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

Add "list of service rifles by nation" 74.104.184.254 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Is that an article? I couldn't find one under that name. DannyS712 (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018

The wording "Assault rifles such as the Soviet AK-47, the American M-16, the Belgian FN FAL and the Swiss Sturmgewehr 58" should become "Assault rifles such as the Soviet AK-47 and the American M-16, and battle rifles such as the Belgian FN FAL and the Swiss Sturmgewehr 58" (or similar). To reflect the fact that the latter two are battle rifles rather than assault rifles. 203.97.181.188 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Too broad

If this page is called service rifle, there is no sense in adding rifles that are not standard issues like the one issued to special force. It just make things more confusing. Dannyguns (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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) 06:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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) 06:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

IWI Carmel

The IWI Carmel is not a service rifle, it is currently being tested by several units, however there are no plans to make it an actual service rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nir Koren (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

List of service rifles

Let's try and avoid edit a war if we can, and discuss the merit of keeping or removing the list of service rifles in this article. My position is that since we already have articles for military equipment of other nations, e.g. List of equipment of the United States Army, if someone wants to know the particular weapons used by a nation, that's probably where they're going to go. If we take assault rifle as another example, there's nothing wrong with putting in subsections for specific rifles, but not an exhaustive list of every assault rifle made by every nation. That's what list articles are for, which this is not. Loafiewa (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Related AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of service rifles by country. FDW777 (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Service_rifle/Archive_1&oldid=1105405664"