Talk:Remington Model 870

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

Competition[edit]

I don't think this line really belongs: "Currently, only the Mossberg 500 provides genuine competition to the 870. Manufacturers like Winchester, Benelli, Browning, have been left far behind in sales.". It needs a citation, as last I heard Benelli was far outselling the 500s and 870s in the budget defense/tactical type shotgun, and the tone is just too NPOV in my opinion. You'd also need to define what constitutes "genuine competition", as that's pretty subjective by itself. --Junky 19:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different image?[edit]

The Air Force M870 picture is a pretty poor picture (lousy lighting), and of pretty obscure 870 variant. What would be a good typical 870 variant for the photo and does anyone have or can take a good image for this article? A simple express or police model seems like the best choice to me. --Junky 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that a simple picture of a Wingmaster style shotgun being used to shoot trap would be a fitting picture and show that this shotgun has more than just the "tactical" side. 70.131.221.160 (User spyder) 03:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it's been, what, 2.5 years since this comment was put in here? Find us a free or public domain picture of an 870 and put it in. This is Wikipedia, you're in charge. Be bold. --Asams10 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of images, all three pictures here are of Military/Law Enforcement setups (short barrel, extended magazines, etc.). Considering that the 870 is a ubiquitous hunting arm, shouldn't we make one of these three pictures of a Wingmaster or Express model? Just my 2¢. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.13.251 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image[edit]

Please see my reply to resolve this whole sourced/unsourced dilemma. Also keep in mind that I mean you no harm! I'm just trying to enforce policy. - Tronno ( t | c ) 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no internet source. It was captured from a US Air Force web site. It is sourced... not all pictures stay somewhere on the internet. It's in the 2002 issue of Airman Magazine.--Asams10 19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So did it come from the website or the magazine? If it's from the website, post a link (if the site no longer exists, use the Wayback Machine). If it's from the magazine, say so in the image description page, and provide the issue number. You have to cite sources, man. - Tronno ( t | c ) 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to disagree with me about whether or not it needs that link or that information. There is no RULE that says I have to do it and I've already given credit to the source. There is no internet link and, unless you can prove I stole it, there is no reason to discuss this further. It can stay.--Asams10 21:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why not use this image from the Remington web site? http://remington.com/~/media/Images/Firearms/Shotguns/Model-870/Model-870-Wingmaster-16g/870wngmstr16-prod.ashx Or maybe a couple different pictures showing the gun in both "sporting" and "scary" livery. With recent events (Navy Yard shooting), the gun is in the news. Regardless of the color or configuration of the stock, it's a pump shotgun. MisterFitz (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I found a page named Remington M870 Tactical. I believe that if the information can be verified that the page should be merged with this one. --Paulwharton 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I have no problems with the merge. I assure you that the information regarding the weapon is accurate. Also, I'd given up on finding a free use image many months ago, and haven't spent much time looking since then. If anybody reading this has one or could locate one, it would be much appreciated. Gamer Junkie 06:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this article IS about the tactical models--according to it, the only barrels available for the 870 are 10 to 18 inches. What's really needed is info on the sporting models. scot 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one no one has thought to link to the base page on the Remington 870. All that is shown is the parts diagram.I am going to add a link to Remingtons 870 mainpage. --Paulwharton 21:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge them. M870 Tactical is just a variant; the article is barely a stub.RandallC 11:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variants[edit]

It seems there's currently a disagreement about adding some new material to the Variants section. I'm starting this Talk page section to encourage interested editors to explain their opinions here. I'll start. In general I think this article could be considerably longer than it is currently. In my opinion a full paragraph about each of the five main variants would be quite appropriate. But, these hypothetical paragraphs should be written in a very neutral, encyclopedic tone. They shouldn't sound like a marketing web site or an enthusiasts magazine. For example, the paragraph for the Police Magnum could say something like this: "The Police Magnum has a shorter, more cylindrical, police style fore-end, and is made with synthetic or wood stocks, and parkerized or blued finishing. It has an all metal trigger group, heavier springs, and a more shock absorbent recoil pad. The gun has been manufactured with various sights, magazine extensions, and other optional features. Barrel lengths of less than 18 inches are available to police agencies and the military." That's just a rough draft, I'm sure that other editors could improve on it. Of course, reliable references would help too. Then the other four variants could have similar paragraphs. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have an opinion about what I'm suggesting, about the Variants section in general and the Police Magnum in particular? — Mudwater (Talk) 02:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, what you've just said is incorrect. There are, literally, hundreds of variations and any hard-and-fast statements are going to be incorrect. Remington doesn't stick to or enforce any standards. They produce models that mix pieces and parts from all variations as well as produciton improvements such as MIM parts, plastic parts, chrome plated parts, locking safeties, and the like. To put anything more in these sections would be imprecise and unencyclopedic. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of variations, but they fall into approximately five groups, including Express, Wingmaster, and Police. This is already reflected in the article. My suggestion is to expand the existing descriptions of each model, from half a sentence to one paragraph. If this is done right, it will make an already good article even better, by adding additional useful, factual information. An example is the proposed paragraph for the Police Magnum in my original post in this section. Similar paragraphs could be used to expand the other four bullet points in the current article. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that all of the information you're adding is wishy-washy. It is all generalized. Nothing but the name "Police" for instance sets the Police model apart from the Wingmaster or Express. Over the years, what is now a Poice might have been what the Express was or a dozen or so Wingmasters.
To be more constructive, you could say how the models were marketed as most of the model designations were marketing tools and did not change the firearms in measurable ways. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finland[edit]

Finland issues this shotgun. It should be added to the list [1]. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reference that says they issue the 870 and add it yourself. You've tried to reference an unreferenced Wikipedia Article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it's been added with a reference to the Finnish Defense Forces site. The other users need references too.66.191.19.217 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS!!! Nice pictures on that site, BTW. Wish I knew how to read Finish! --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines[edit]

The Remington 870 is in fact in active service with the Philippine military. It is even posted on the Philippine Army and Philippine Marines. It is also in service with the Philippine National Police. The 870 is the main shotgun of the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.88 (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Post your reference. --Winged Brick (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Sorry. I mistook the Mossberg 500 for a Remington 870. The Philippines uses the Mossberg 500 not the 870. I cant tell the difference between the 2 shotguns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.51 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Winged Brick I understand that the Philippines doesnt use the Remington 870 but someone continues to add it to the Philippine Army, Philippine Marines and Special Action Force pages. I was wondering if you could do somthing about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.14 (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British[edit]

This is used in (very small) numbers by the british army. Being phased out though, thanks to a new shotgun based on the M4 Super 90 being introduced. Was used mainly for breaching in N.I etc... but the new one is aimed more at afghanistan, for clearing rooms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.232 (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom[edit]

Read the section header. Don't make entries to the Users list without a citation from a reliable source. ROG5728 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source added. [citation needed] might be a hair more polite than reverting an editor, btw.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section header already serves that purpose. If the text wasn't removed, you would not have cited it. And if you had not cited it, it would not be verifiable so it would not contribute anything at all to the article. ROG5728 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some folks edit first and add the citations later, as I regularly do. Apologies for presuming your knowledge of firearms to include British nomenclature, thought you were Euro for some reason. FYI...several Brit articles referring to that model link here as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of verifiability, not knowledge. I don't doubt the weapon is used in the United Kingdom and other countrys. But you can't assume every reader will know that. A citation allows anyone to verify it. Without a citation no one will know where the information came from. And if they don't know the information came from a reliable source, they won't have any faith in the article. ROG5728 (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with citations, as I've probably added more of those to articles than actual written prose, I'm just saying I don't revert established editors who I know will add a source in an hour or so. The thing was, you left USA in there unsourced with a [citation needed] tag and only removed the UK one, so you had to have some doubt. I sourced them both because it was easier than deleting it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't have known what you were planning to do later. If you're going to add a source in an hour or so, you can wait that long to revert my edit too. The reason I didn't remove USA is because I wasn't watching the article back when it was added to the list. I noticed it later (recently) so I only tagged it. ROG5728 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education?[edit]

Why exactly is the 870 used by the US Department of Education? Nerdly dood (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Office of Inspector General is the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Education and is responsible for the detection of waste, fraud, abuse, and other criminal activity involving Federal education funds, programs, and operations. As such, OIG operates with full statutory law enforcement authority, which includes conducting search warrants, making arrests, and carrying firearms. The acquisition of these firearms is necessary to replace older and mechanically malfunctioning firearms, and in compliance with Federal procurement requirements.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Users in Canada:

Brinks Canada division uses the police model, if anyone know how to edit and wants to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.74 (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit needed[edit]

"In the United States, where Norinco products are specifically non-importable, this gun is imported and sold under the names Norinco Hawk 982 and Interstate Hawk 982." This sentence contradicts itself. Dtaylor05 (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Navy Yard Massacre[edit]

I'm not sure where this should be mentioned in the article, but I very strongly feel that it is inappropriate for it to be in the header. 174.227.128.115 (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's inappropriate anywhere in the article. It's not noteworthy or relevant. ROG5728 (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on the anywhere part. Wikipedia already has precident. Look at the JFK assassination page. It talks abiout the gun then click that and it goes to to gun page, Carcano. On the Carcano page there is a Wiki link to the John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. So there is a full 360. I do agree it should not be in the header. It should be set like other Wikipedia pages. 216.81.81.85 (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote in a reply on my talk page: "The text ... does not belong there, it's as simple as that. I don't for a second doubt that the reference you provided is correct but text about what murders have been committed with which weapon does not belong here, it's outside the scope of the articles. AFAIK most murders are committed with knives, but you don't see a list of murders in that article, nor do you see a list of atrocities committed with the Kar98k, AK-47 or M-16 in those articles.". Thomas.W talk to me 11:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the text does not belong. I only added what Wikipedia has done in the same type thing. I think you have me confused or are trying to put words in my mouth. 216.81.81.85 (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I would like to know is if you speak for the Department of Homeland Security, which your IP leads to, or only express personal opinions. If they're only your personal opinions you should use a registered account to avoid misunderstandings. Thomas.W talk to me 11:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really; so you attack the messenger since you are getting upset your bad edits and/or opinion is called out? Try and keep a more civil approach or take some time off. 216.81.81.85 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't attack the messenger. You're free to edit either way, I just like to know who/what I'm talking to. But it's also common courtesy not to make personal edits from an IP belonging to a company, organization or government body since all edits made from such an IP could reflect, possibly in a negative way, on the owner of it. So it was a friendly advice, not an attack. Thomas.W talk to me 12:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it’s pretty clear you are getting upset and now attacking the messenger, why even look at my IP if not looking for a reason to use it against someone. This is not even the right place it seems to bring this up. At no time did I say I was representing anything other than myself, yet you seem to be, again, assuming something not brought up. As said, Try and keep a more civil approach or take some time off. If you like contact an Admin and have them look at this page if you think your edits have been civil and/or proper. 216.81.94.68 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always look at IPs to see where they're from (WP even provide a quick link for it named "Geolocate" at the bottom of the contributions page of all IP-editors). So don't flatter yourself, you're not being singled out. And as I said, suggesting that you use a registered account was a friendly advice, just to avoid misunderstandings, because I'm not the only one who has a habit of geolocating IP-editors. Thomas.W talk to me 12:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reason to look, let alone your un-civil response and improper way of going about it. That and you keep going on in an improper place trying to defend your un-civil edits. Again, contact an Admin and have them look at this page if you think your edits have been civil and/or proper. 216.81.94.68 (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Un-civil? There's nothing uncivil about my question, or my friendly advice that you use a registered account instead of editing from an IP that belongs to the DHS. But if you feel there is you are of course free to contact an admin. Just stop trying to portray yourself as some kind of abuse victim here. Sheeesh. Thomas.W talk to me 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you are not being un-civil then why do you keep posting on a subject that is improper and in the wrong place over and over? You now are coming off as very deluded and need to just drop it. 216.81.94.68 (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deliberately trying to cloud the issue, or garner sympathy for your cause? If so, I think you seriously underestimate the intelligence of other editors here. Thomas.W talk to me 13:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP user, Wikipedia does not operate by precedent. Pointing to other stuff on Wikipedia is NOT a valid reason to add more of the same content to another Wikipedia article. Also, you need to stop edit warring on this article and inserting meaningless cleanup tags. ROG5728 (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the JFK, sandy hook, etc... all other events like this are tied together the same way. I am following the other Wikipedia articles that match this as base. In fact the sandy hook one the gun page has a bigger piece like the original editor wanted to add. I think the middle approach is better between the 2 of a large line vs nothing. 216.81.94.68 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article about the Sandy Hook Shooting is not comparable to an article about a Remington 870 shotgun. Very different subjects. Regardless, Wikipedia does not operate by precedent. Pointing to other stuff on Wikipedia is NOT a valid reason to add more of the same content to another Wikipedia article. ROG5728 (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the thread on ANI as there's no reason discussion can't continue here. In terms of content, I see no reason for the advert tag. A valid application would be on something like "The Remington Model 870 is the greatest and most powerful shotgun invented, and perfectly ideal for a wide variety of applications and highly praised by critics and fans alike as an essential component of modern technology". Or, follow any article from this link to see more blatant adverts. I have no opinion on the other link. I see edit warring on all sides, and it is problematic when it's one editor against two, as the pair on one side can avoid WP:3RR more easily. I would advise everyone to stick to just concentrating on what's in the article, and refrain at all costs at discussing who changed what and where. That goes for both the IP and the registered users. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, it now relivant to story as shoorter used 870 gun and put writing on gun with messages. News supply information on this. Should be include as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamTheClam (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, sock, why not jut say the shooter was following Vice President Biden's advice and using a shotgun? Speak English, much?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice troll language. What that has to do with 870? SamTheClam (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Remington Model 870. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Picture... is that modified?[edit]

Excuse my ignorance, but does the pic at the top of the page have a modified non-Remington stock and grip, or other non-Remington modifications? Or is that all Remington. I'm asking because it seems to me that the lead picture of a piece of equipment in an article should represent factory output, without after-market add-ons or modifications. Hopefully it's all Remington. Marteau (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC) ... and actually, even if it's all from the factory, I'd prefer to see a more common variation representing the iconic look as the first pic, and leave the tactical ones for later in the article, but I'm not going to press that issue as long as it's all Remington. Marteau (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Remington Model 870. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 21:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Remington Model 870. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Remington Model 870[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 Remington Model 870'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":

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⚡ 07:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Criminal Use[edit]

The wiki page for the Ruger Mini-14 has a detailed itinerary of crimes committed with it. Why can't the page for the Remington 870 have a smaller list? TheEpicGhosty (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Remington_Model_870&oldid=1212525568"