User talk:D.E. Watters: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:14, 25 August 2009

		The Minor Barnstar
		For watching and correcting, improving and tweaking so many pages. Deon Steyn 07:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For maintaining and fact-checking new articles with an eye for precision. -NorsemanII 03:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, D.E. Watters. I recognized your name on the Recent Changes list... I used to be an avid user of your superlative NATO weapons mods for the Rogue Spear FPS. Enjoy your stay here! --FCYTravis 18:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

G3 development history

Hi, I can certainly appreciate the detail of your revised history of the G3 rifle but it's gotten to the point where it's almost grotesquely complicated. Come to think of it, my initial version said the same thing in 3 paragraphs less. I don't think we should trace back the political development of the Bundeswehr after the dissolution of the Wehrmacht or go into extensive detail about the administrative procedures of the procurement process. Regards. Koalorka 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Browning Automatic Rifle

Hi, D.E. Watters. About the BAR, could the "belt" of ammunition you're referring to be described as a bandolier? If so, let me know so I can edit the page and add the link to the stub. Of course, feel free to edit it yourself as you see fit. Thanks, and very good job on your revisions so far. Squalla 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in the modern sense of the term that it comes close, but it does not match it in the classic sense. The belt carried pouches for the spare magazines of the BAR and M1911. A bandolier would carry individual cartridges or clipped ammunition, respectively the classic and modern definitions of the term. FWIW: The US military nomenclature for the BAR gunner's belt was "cartridge belt." --D.E. Watters 17:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glacis

Hi. I'm kind of a newby and was hoping you could look at Glacis article. I added a pic there that I think is a glacis plate on a machine gun, but I am not completely sure; it might not be called that anymore, I mostly know about WWII stuff. since you seem to know something about guns I thought I'd ask you. If you dont know just ignore this message and thanks for your time. --SpencerTC 18:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current nomenclature for the armor plates shown in the photo is "gunner shield." --D.E. Watters 21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium vs. Steel liner for AR-10 in the M16 (rifle) Article

My source was a photo caption on pg 176 of "The Great Rifle Controversy" which stated that the liner was titanium. When I re-read the section of "The Black Rifle" it indeed states, somewhat more authoritatively, that the liner was stainless steel. Both books are by Ezell, but Blake Stevens edited The Black Rifle. I'll assume the TBR is correct. The article did state, however, that the flash suppressor was titanium. The sources I looked at all stated it was an aluminum alloy. Which is right?--Asams10 00:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see now. It does say they switched to titanium for the muzzle brake. Can't rely on my memory anymore. Thanks for the correction.--Asams10 00:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also had the date of the failure wrong. GRC had it as 1956 and TBR has it as 1957. Further, they list the serial number as 1,022 whereas TBR says it's 1002. Can't trust GRC any more, I guess... at least not the captions.--Asams10 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More recent works by any author will typically have the benefit of additional research. GRC was not supposed to be an in depth history of the individual rifles mentioned. It was more about the history of US small arms development, selection, and procurement. --D.E. Watters 13:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 x 57 mm

Thanks for clearing that up. I just assumed that the previous addition of that link for the 7mm Mauser was incorrect, because it didn't point to any page (think it was just the "x" versus "×"), but now it's pointing to it's own page and I see it obviously is differen to the 8mm Mauser. Deon Steyn 06:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper Rifle

Hi, from our previous interaction it is obvious that you are knowledgeable and interested in small arms/firearms and weaponry in general. I would like to enlist your help in looking at the Sniper rifle article, because a user with a fairly limited history on wikipedia and has made substantial changes and additions that I feel detract from the article. He reverts changes and repeatedly pretends to answer criticisms and questions (using wordy and long winded arguments) and pretends to makes compromises in many edits (120 in 3 days). Maybe I'm crazy, I just though some other users might be interested in the state of this page and more voices might reach a better compromise/solution. See discussion on Talk:Sniper rifle#Capabilities Section Discussion and Talk:Sniper rifle#Intro. Thanks. Deon Steyn 16:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think that you'll be able to reason with him. The best bet is to let him get this out of his system and move on to another pet project. After the latter occurs, it should be safe to edit/revert the article. --D.E. Watters 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that might be the best/only option, he's made another 120 edits... sheesh :-) Deon Steyn 14:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VEC-91

Very very nice catches on both of your edits to the Voere VEC-91 article, and to Voere. Your contributions have inspired me to stop being so careless and put some serious effort into these articles. For your keen eye, I award you the Barnstar of Diligence. -NorsemanII 03:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M79 Grenade Launcher Article

The manual I cited is for the M203 and contains, in an appendix, the information on the M79. If you have access to an earlier field manual or technical manual for the M79 that stats the same thing, we can leave it as is. If not, I'd appreciate it if you returned the reference to the manual cited in the references... The FM on the M203. Thank you. Deathbunny 09:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although I was hoping you had an older manual... Deathbunny 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M16 rifle and edits by Ve3 (talk)

Hi Watters, I suggest you take a look at Ve3's talk page for a discussion about the M16 rifle article's introduction (redundant material, etc.). He has reverted my previous edits a few days ago (which were similar to your last revision of the article: Revision as of 19:07, 10 November 2006), and has now reverted yours as well. Since this user seems unable to reasonably discuss issues, do you have any suggestion on how we can solve this matter? Thanks in advance for your time. —Squalla 16:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a best-effort to respond to Squalla, and I thought we resolved these issues. However, his focus on unwarranted personal criticism has made this difficult, despite my continued goal for an amiable and appropriate conclusion. Ve3 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SL-9 section on Heckler & Koch G3

I believe you are misunderstanding my remarks. The SL-9 would have been banned under the Assault Weapons Ban. However, said ban has expired. Domestically produced SL-9's, if there were any, would still be considered legal. I never said anything about importation. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but HK does not yet have a production facility running in the US. Thus, any attempt to reintroduce the SL-9 would involve importation, and as a result run afoul of the Clinton Executive Order. To make it importable, HK would have to constrict the magwell so existing HK91 and G3 mags would not fit. D.E. Watters 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but if there hypothetically were an HK plant in the US, it would be legal production. Can we clarify the sentence to say that the ban on the mag capacity has expired for domestically produced SL-9's (hypothetically since they do not exist), but imports are still banned? Something to that effect? I only mention it because when I read through that section I immediately thought of the AWB rather than the clinton order, and was confused. We should probably differentiate between the two. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

above on your page

Waiiiiit, you're the guy who made the NATO weapons mod for Rogue Spear? I played the hell out of that!⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MP5J

concerning the removal of the MP5J from the MP5 article: I have not been able to find any English references to indicate the "real steel" existence of the MP5J. However, an article I translated on the Tokyo Marui home page, indicates that the MP5J really is a gun being used by Japanese police forces. [[1]]

Do you think it is enough evidence to go on? The apparent lack of English articles on the subject does seem odd...

Airsoft manufacturers have a bad reputation for making up variants to encourage sales. D.E. Watters 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Sorry for the inconvenience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Causality-GT (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please vote for whether Gun Nut deserve deletion or not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut --BillyTFried 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pistol and Rifle catridges introduced at the same time

Some may have been used in pistols soon after. If a cartridge was first made for one or another then it should be listed as one or the other. If you want to say oh now the 45/70 has been in a hand gun it should listed as a pistol cartridge. Then both lists should just be combined as there will be examples or nearly every one in the other. So how is it decided if it belongs in both lists?--Big5Hunter 08:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my defense in Talk:List of handgun cartridges. D.E. Watters 16:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FNC

FN Herstal calls it a wire stock in their English sales brochures, but I agree, tubular does sound better. Wire makes it sound flimsy like an M3 or Skorpion stock, which it isn't. Cheers. Koalorka 01:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons evaluation result

I just wonder which carbine won ?--Blain Toddi (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

		The Invisible Barnstar
		M249 squad automatic weapon was just made a featured article! Thanks for all your help! Patton^t/c 13:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M2 Browning Machine gun

Quote: "One problem with your story: John Browning didn't develop the original M1918 prototype with FN. From August 1914 to November 1918, FN Herstal wasn't in a position to do firearm design work for anyone except for the German occupation forces. Instead, Browning's work on the M1918 was done with the help of Colt and Winchester. The M1921 redesign has been credited to Colt engineer Fred Moore, and the M2 to an Army Ordnance engineering team working with Colt. Please note that Browning had been dead a few years by the time work started on the M2 variant. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "

Read the FNH book and catalog D.E. Watters. It has the history for the M2 Browning machine gun saying he designed the gun with FN Herstal. He even had an office there. AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 05:13, 25 August 2009 edit AR-15(6.8 SPC) (talk \| contribs) 45 edits →‎M2 Browning Machine gun ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:14, 25 August 2009 edit undo AR-15(6.8 SPC) (talk \| contribs) 45 edits →‎M2 Browning Machine gun Next edit →
Line 132:		Line 132:
	Quote: "One problem with your story: John Browning didn't develop the original M1918 prototype with FN. From August 1914 to November 1918, FN Herstal wasn't in a position to do firearm design work for anyone except for the German occupation forces. Instead, Browning's work on the M1918 was done with the help of Colt and Winchester. The M1921 redesign has been credited to Colt engineer Fred Moore, and the M2 to an Army Ordnance engineering team working with Colt. Please note that Browning had been dead a few years by the time work started on the M2 variant. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "		Quote: "One problem with your story: John Browning didn't develop the original M1918 prototype with FN. From August 1914 to November 1918, FN Herstal wasn't in a position to do firearm design work for anyone except for the German occupation forces. Instead, Browning's work on the M1918 was done with the help of Colt and Winchester. The M1921 redesign has been credited to Colt engineer Fred Moore, and the M2 to an Army Ordnance engineering team working with Colt. Please note that Browning had been dead a few years by the time work started on the M2 variant. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "

	Read the FNH book and catalog D.E. Watters. It has the history for the M2 Browning machine gun saying he designed the gun with FN Herstal. He even had an office there. [[AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk)]] 05:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)		Read the FNH book and catalog D.E. Watters. It has the history for the M2 Browning machine gun saying he designed the gun with FN Herstal. He even had an office there.[[User:AR-15(6.8 SPC)\| AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA!]] ([[User talk:AR-15(6.8 SPC)\|talk]]) 05:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)