Talk:Ruger Standard

Merger proposal

I propose merging the Ruger MK II article into this one as the MK II is simply a variant of the Ruger Standard and most of the information on that page is merely a duplication of what will be in the "Standard" article. All the cited and relevant info from the MK II article would be preserved. Wikidenizen (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nambu/Ruger cocking systems

If you put both the Ruger .22 pistol and the Nambu pistol side by side, with their cocking handles (charging handles) pulled directly back, you will notice they are the same system. And Bill Ruger invented this system? Appears not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.156.2 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruger did not claim to have invented the bolt-in-receiver cocking system common to the Nambu pistol, the Lahti L-35 and the Mauser C96. The 31 Aug 2009 version of this article does not conceal that Bill Ruger started by replicating two pistols from a war souvenir Nambu pistol. The Ruger copies the grip angle and balance of the German Luger, is a straight blowback (as opposed to the recoil-operated locked breech Nambu), uses a grip frame stamped in two halves welded together with tubular receiver (as opposed to the forged receiver and grip frame of the Nambu); it has long been recognised that the Ruger pistol combines ideas from the Nambu and Luger with innovative manufacturing techniques from Bill Ruger. Naaman Brown (talk)

• I believe the controversy here is the fact that Mr. Ruger built or duplicated two Nambu pistols in his garage; and not the Lahti L-35 or Mauser C96. After duplicating those two Nambu pistols he then went forward with his Standard. Another words, there was no need to mention the Lahti and Mauser; he didn't duplicate those two firearms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.96.58 (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Ruger MK II, Ruger MK III, and Ruger MK IV be merged into Ruger Standard. I think that merging these articles will make all the information easier to access and edit, all information is closely related enough to warrant being in an article together, and the Ruger Standard article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the others with it will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. - Mr.1032 (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's great to see such a turnout; and with such an enthusiastic response too! Because some years ago someone proposed a merger of two of the four pages proposed here and nobody objected, and nobody responded in a week's time to this proposal, I'm going to be BOLD and go ahead with the merge. - Mr.1032 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Retroactive support, ha. @Mr.1032: do you have any thoughts on moving the page to "Ruger MK Series Pistols" instead? I'd like to give the "Standard" and MK I pistols their own infobox down in their section. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: Sounds like a great idea! Much better sounding name. - Mr.1032 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Criminal Use Section

At least one editor has expressed opposition to the "Criminal Use" section, and there have been reversions back and forth. I restored it, but I wanted to open up a dialogue to see whether people feel that this may be a WP:NOT list issue, or not appropriately balanced. Maltice (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Due to no counter argument being provided and the author having plainly displayed their political affiliation on their profile page, I believe that it should stay down until a satisfactory one is given. 108.58.17.26 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)