Talk:Semmerling LM4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Most powerful?[edit]

Being from the UK, I don't get the chance to actually fire pistols, but I find it hard to believe this is "the most powerful" .45ACP pistol. How is it any more powerful than other .45s? Optimus Sledge 10:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignore me, must have been having a blonde moment. Optimus Sledge 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you were absolutely right, I changed ".45" to read "pistol" in the intro.--Cancun771 11:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Article reads like an advertisement.[edit]

Everything is about how carefully manufactured and flawless and perfect this pistol is, and how wonderful a performance a shooter can get out of it. In the real world, however, it's a rather expensive bad idea. The pistol is cumbersome and somewhat dangerous to use, the magazine tends to pop loose from the recoil when you fire it, and it's not a whole lot smaller than many other automatic pocket pistols chambered in .45 ACP. It's also $3000. Not saying this all needs to go in the article, but the entire article should not be completely uncritical, masturbatory praise for what is, in reality, an interesting but rather poorly executed design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.167.57 (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article, removing or amending praise of the weapon to give an encyclopedic tone. Inserted 'citation needed' tags to the many un-cited claims which add to the impression that this is an advertisement or tribute. I have also added a 'who' tag to the claim that "some" used the pistol as a hide-out weapon. Specificity is required if a legitimate source makes a general claim e.g. a magazine author writing that "several people I know" do so, but since there is no source we cannot know if this is appropriate or not.AS76 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

======== RESPONSE BELOW ======================[edit]

Honestly, where to begin with this one.

The "unsigned TALK" madness has to STOP. One of the most damaging aspects of Wiki coverage of firearms is that people who simple have no experience, no reference, no general knowledge of a given platform weigh in with comments like the one above.

"In the real world", the metallurgy selection for this pistol was the result of three funded studies and two published papers. S-7 was a material both expensive and with very real manufacturing requirements that far exceeded common use materials of this period. The heat treating of the S-7 material was expensive and represented dedication to a much higher standard than the vast majority of firearms produced then and today.

An "expensive bad ideas" is an OPINION without having a clue as to what the specifications were for this platform and how they were met and who PAID FOR the development of this pistol. Expensive as compared to what? Who thought it was a bad idea? When? Where?

No LM4 magazines popped loose ever, as they were held with what was then a new, double side expansion design, locking them in to the frame not once, but twice.

Neither "cumbersome".....it is TINY and had ergonomics not found on any other pistol of its age. Nor "dangerous" (other than being on the terminal force impact end) as there were/are no know instances of use resulting in injury.

"Poorly executed" really? Two magnaflux inspections on equipment developed expressly for this project. Few pistol received this kind of fit, finish, inspection, testing.

"Masturbatory praise" = opinion

"Bad idea" = opinion

What we have here is a great deal of non experiential opinion by a person that never held or fired this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEMMERLING (talkcontribs) 12:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Restructure[edit]

This 'History and Concept' section lacks focus and the technical details included therein seem to encroach on the 'Operation' section. There is a section for 'Finishes and Accessories' but no section detailing the different models. I would suggest breaking out the history element into its own section, and combining the remainder with 'Operation' to create a 'Design' section. 'Finishes and Accessories' could be renamed 'Variations and Accessories' and include details of the different models.