registration[edit]

what is the maximum effective range of the 995?

"it should be noted when registered"???? What the heck is up with this... 90% of US States don't require registration of any sort of firearm... Also, most states will permit the sale of 9mm ammunition as long as the buyer declares he intends to use it solely in a long-gun... Indeed at Wal-Mart they have a prompt that comes up on their register screen that beeps and asks "Is ammunition for long gun (18) or handgun (21)" So that bit about a person being able to buy the rifle but not ammo, is quite incorrect as well.

-January 13th, 2008-

Merger[edit]

How is this different from Hi-Point Carbine 9 mm?

It isn't much different. However this one does list it under the carbines proper model number instead of calling it carbine 9mm. IMO the older article should be deleted.

I think that a single article would suffice for all the Hi-Point carbines; they're all similar enough in design. A single article with a breif overveiw and then specs on each model seems like it would be a lot more efficient. scot 14:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No point in having two articles with no differences other than about ten words, it's just a waste of space. REN 08:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... anyone else? This article needs a LOT of work, anyhow.... but I see no need for two of them... --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the .40 carbine is model 4095, if memory serves... since both articles are about the same exact subject (Model 995 is 9mm ONLY, and both articles specify either 9mm or 995 in the name) I'm going to Go ahead and merge... --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing tone?[edit]

I'd like to see the advertising-sound of this entry scaled back; that the gun is "nifty" is a sentiment I agree with, but don't find exactly encylopedic, likewise whether the .45ACP is "trusty." In other contexts, those are fine characterizations, but here, I think off-kilter. timbo 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "trusty" was a bit much myself, and had removed it even before seeing your comment. Actually I gave the whole article a shakedown... it was full of minor mistakes and needed link cleanup and rewording. It could use some more work, starting with <ref>'s for example. — VoxLuna

^(talk) 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is sort of ridiculous. I mean, we all have our favorites, but writing an article so that you can gush about what a great plinking gun and "knockabout truck gun" (seriously?) a weapon is is not encyclpedic and is totally innapropriate for Wikipedia. MAYBE if there were sources corroborating these opinions, it would be appropriate to include them. But just throwing them in without citations is invalid. There are also a number of highly dubious statements (i.e., use of the HP carbine by police agencies). IMO, this article needs to be re-written objectively, even if that reduces it to a very short piece. -RR 63 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.193.136 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

better sourcing on LE usage[edit]

While smaller police and sheriff departments will use reliable civilian market carbines rather than formally adopted carbines made and marketed for police (I have seen Winchester 1894 lever action and Commando Mark III carbines brought out of patrol car trunks), I would want reliable sources on use of Hi-Point Carbines by LE agencies beyond just a web forum. Most agencies prefer standard military/police firearms for common training and supply reasons. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hi-Point Carbine. 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) 10:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]