Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Peer Review for Blackwater Worldwide, please help!

Blackwater Worldwide, an article under this WikiProject, is up for Peer Review to move to Featured Article status. Please help out and offer up reviews, advice, or edits to the article or review at:

Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, except that Blackwater Worldwide really isn't within our scope. It uses firearms, but so do a lot of other organizations, so it really isn't within our scope. I will be removing the firearms tag.--LWF (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I suspect Lawrence knows that. I looked at it as a compliment. He respects the opinions of members of this project enough to solicit their opinion on his article. Or maybe I'm off base.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

AK-47 to AKM split?

Hi, we are currently debating the validity of splitting the modernized AKM assault rifle from its parent AK-47 design. Please read the arguments in support/opposition of the split before casting your vote. The talk page can be found HERE. Your informed input would be greatly appreciated. Koalorka (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Variant merge

Isn't Accuracy International AWP really a variant of Accuracy International Arctic Warfare? If so it should be merged. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is. Feel free to merge.--LWF (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. In fact, all of AI's rifle's (excluding the semi-auto .50) are all based on their initial L96, therefore variants. Koalorka (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


I've been working on a complete overhaul of Stock (firearm), and I'm getting to the point of doing a section on wood stocks. I'd like to have someone with more knowledge of the subject volunteer to help me with that, for two reasons. First, to make sure I don't make any mistakes, and second, because I lost a pretty significant limb from a Juglans nigra (black walnut) tree in the Mid-December 2007 North American Winter storms, and I'm thinking of turning it into some gunstock blanks. I get the bit about making sure the grain flow goes parallel to the barrel, along the grip, and out the toe, but what about the orientation of the growth rings? I can't find any references online that go into detail on that issue. scot (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

M-1 Carbine page on lock-down

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memebers of the Firearms Wikiproject. Would anyone like to take a look and give their input? Sf46 (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Watching articles...

Just a heads up, I made it a little easier to watch articles in this project... You can now use this link to watch all articles/images/categories/templates tagged with {{WPGUNS}}. I'll keep it up-to-date as I can :) SQLQuery me! 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How about moving the infoboxes from the main page?

The info box documentation takes up a huge amount of space on the main project page. Anyone oppose moving it to a subpage?--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of leaving the info box doc on the main project page. The page is pretty long, but I think it's more convenient to have the documentation right there on the main page. Not a huge deal either way though. — Mudwater 03:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Combining Colt snubnose articles?

I notice there is a request on the to-do page for an article to be done on the 'Colt Agent .38 special' (Prob. should be simply called 'Colt Agent'). I believe the Agent is basically a Colt Cobra with a shortened, reduced-size grip frame. Anyway I recently expanded the Colt Detective Special article somewhat, and also saw that the current Cobra artice is very small, in fact it probably barely qualifies in noteablity to be a seperate article. I also did a bit of research on the web and could find very little material about the Agent which might be usueful in creating a new article - it would be (at best) a few sentences in length. Recently some members of this project and a few other folks came to the consensus that all the articles RE: the various Glock pistol incarnations should be combined into one article. I wonder if the same rationale might apply in this situation as well? Wikidenizen (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Colt M1902 article

Along the same lines as above, there is an open to-do request for an article on the Colt M1902 pistol and it is also redlinked on many pages. I've done some research on the web and have the material for a short article. Currently there is an aricle Colt Model 1902 Military which is short, poorly written; tagged as being a stub and needing improvement by being wikified and sourced. The 1902 Military is simply a variation of the basic Model 1902 pistol, probably not notable enough to have its own article. I propose renaming that existing article 'Colt M1902' and having '1902 Sport' and '1902 Military' sections. A few other articles link to the existing one, as part of the rewrite I would fix those. Comments? Wikidenizen (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the merge and would redirect Colt Model 1902 Military to the appropriate section in the other page. Will you merge it or should I ? --Boris Barowski (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Boris, since there seemed to be a consensus (silence is assent, right?) I was bold and went for it. Hope everyone likes the new article! - Wikidenizen (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ammunition naming conventions

Do we have a guideline for the names for ammunition, particularly wildcat rounds? Do we put spaces around the x or not, I see both variations? Do we use decimal fractions for length and do we abbreviate inches in the name as " or in. or do we write it out?--Doug.(talk contribs) 21:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The convention is AxBmm (Name), no spaces around the "X" for Metric cartridges. Thus, you have 7.62x51mm NATO, 6.5x55mm Swedish, and 7.62x39mm Soviet. Imperial cartridge naming conventions are .ABC (Name)- ie, .303 British, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum,..30-30 Winchester, and so on. No " or in. is used in Imperial cartridges names except to refer to specific measurements in the infobox; you should never have .303" British or .38" Special etc in the article itself when referring to cartridges in the Imperial system. As for Wildcats, I'm not sure whether the preference is for a dash or a slash when separating some of the numbers (For example, I'd usually write .22/250 or .303/25 when referring to those calibres, but others would use .22-250 and .303-25 and I'm not sure what the consensus here on that is particular situation. --Commander Zulu (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There is one sure exception to the use of the inch sign, and that's the .308 x 1.5", which is a thin walled, small primer pocket .308 case 1.5 inches long, most commonly encountered as the basis for the Remington "BR" cartridges (I think it's also called the .308 Barnes, after the creator). I think there were some black powder cartridges measured by length as well, but I'm not familiar enough with those to say what they were--I think that was a Sharps thing. scot (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's not confuse the issue, especially in relation to a cartridge that 99.99% of gun owners/shooters/collectors/wiki editors have never even heard of... --Commander Zulu (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is not to confuse the issue, but rather to point out that there are exceptions to just about every convention in cartridge naming. And that .308 x 1.5" is a highly important cartridge; not because it's common, but because it lead to the Remington URBR, the small primer, thin-walled case that is the parent of 6mm BR, which is right now one of the top medium range cartridges (300-600m) available. And when you toss in things like the .56-50 Spencer (again, a highly important cartridge), then it gets even more muddled... scot (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No that doesn't confuse the issue at all, that's what I was looking for - in fact it's exactly what I was looking for, since I wanted it for the Frank Barnes article. I've referenced several wildcat rounds (including the .308x1.5" actually) on the Frank Barnes stub and wanted to figure out how they were supposed to be named before they sat there so long that someone wrote an article and then we had to take the time and trouble to rename it. But now scot has put spaces around the x in his example, so I'm a bit confused is it the .308x1.5" or the .308 x 1.5"? Also, I've always heard it called the .308 x 1.5" Barnes, using both his name and the case length. But what about rounds where the common name has the case length first, like the 2" .458 American (also a Barnes cartridge), should the name be bastardized for the sake of standardization to .458x2"?--Doug.(talk contribs) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I changed 1.5in. to 1.5" and promptly got reverted for violating the WP:MOS. I took a look and WP:UNITS agrees (though according to that it should be 1.5in not 1.5in.) I guess that's what I'm looking for, do we have a firearms Manual of Style or proposal for one? If not, should we consider putting one together to address issues like this, at least a subpage working group to begin looking at how to deal with these finer points of topic specific style. You shouldn't have to search the big MOS for common issues like this.--Doug.(talk contribs) 11:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as spaces go, whether there is a space or not around the "x" should probably follow the convention of the metric cartridges, as that is formatting. As for the " vs. in or inch, you're dealing with a proper name. It's like saying Ipod rather than iPod; iPod is clearly incorrect by the rules of written English, but as it's a proper name, then it should be written as Apple decrees. As far as whether or not the "Barnes" should be put in the name, convention in print seems to be to use the name the first time you mention the cartridge, then you can drop it on successive mentions, i.e. "The .308 x 1.5" Barnes was intended as a hunting round for short action bolt action rifles, but the highly efficient .308 x 1.5" became a popular IHMSA and benchrest round...", unless there's a chance of confusion with some other cartridge. scot (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's entirely correct, in that case the proper name could arguably be with the word "inch" spelled out. Also, if by the "proper name" we mean either the precise name given by the designer or the most common name used in technical works, I think it would be ".308 x 1-1/2 inch", with the case length given as a x/y fraction not a decimal. I don't think there is any reason to diverge from the MOS simply because we are used to using the " symbol.--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

<--Agree on no space for ammo; I've never seen them used anywhere but WP, & I suspect the MOS was designed by people unfamiliar with ammo/firearm conventions. As for spelling out "inch", again, I've never seen that anywhere, either, & oppose; it strikes me as...pretentious, or something. Use what the designer or manufacturer uses. Wildcats are a headache, but I prefer "/" to "-", unless they've been commercialized, so .38/45, but .22-250. And just to complicate things even further, any consensus on which cal predominates in wildcats? Barnes uses .45/38 for the necked-down ACP, & .44/357 Barnes; I prefer .38/45 & .357/44, because the cal coming out is .38 or .357, & the case is bigger. Comment? Trekphiler (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (postscriptum I've heard the .308x1.5 was designed to hit the "magic 3000fps"...)

Let's be clear here, people. WP:MOS and WP:UNITS do not apply to cartridge designations. These aren't measurements, they are cartridge designations. Nobody is saying that we should list dimensions in this way, we are standardizing the way cartridges are identified, not making any attempt whatsoever to say that a .358 Winchester is in any way, shape, or form related directly to the .358 inch measurement. Further, 5.56x45mm cartridges are nowhere exactly 5.56 mm, nor are they 45 mm in any way. This is a designator. Actual cartridges measurements have a +/- range and the the actual dimension stated (eg. 45mm) might not even be in that range. Nobody can cry WP:MOS or WP:UNITS so long as the guidance given here in the firearms project concensus is in agreement. Frankly (get it, Frank Barnes?), I think we're mostly on the same page as far as the designations go. --Asams10 (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"WP:UNITS do not apply to cartridge designations". You'd never know it from the articles I've seen; they've all got the spaces...mostly by the unitiated, I'd guess. Trekphiler (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"Let's be clear here, people. WP:MOS and WP:UNITS do not apply to cartridge designations." Can we see a consensus for that, please? It sounds unlikely to me but I stand to be corrected. --John (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


I was going to do a tagging run, for WP:GUNS articles, in these subcategories: User:SQL/WPGSubCats, I thought I'd check here, and see if anyone saw any that needed removed, or, any that need added. SQLQuery me! 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I ran a test on it, removed the subcats about shootings, and shooting victims for now, and, I'm pretty happy with that list... I'm going to go ahead and run this process, if you guys think of any additional subcat's you'd like run, just let me know here, and, I can add them. SQLQuery me! 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don’t think that tagging Shaped charge within the ammunition category is appropriate. Shaped charges, either military or commercial, don’t really have much to do with firearms. Shall I remove the tag? Thanks —Travistalk 02:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Go for it, I was just getting ready to remove another couple in that cat SQLQuery me! 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that you beat me to it. Thanks! —Travistalk 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, sorry :) It was bugging me SQLQuery me! 03:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(u) Alright, all done, about 700 articles added, and, I had the bot update the global WPGUNS watchlist afterwards. SQLQuery me! 04:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

.308 / 7.62 Help Desk Question

Note that someone has commented on bullet diameter at WP:HD#Problems with Rifle Cartridges and Calibers and I have done my best to respond. I would appreciate it if someone else in the firearms project would take a look at it. Thanks! —Travistalk 20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good answer. I personally think the story is BS. Who reloads ammo based on wikipedia articles? In any case, perhaps we should consider a banner for ammo pages clearly stating that the articles should not be used for anything but informational purposes. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The user changed the .308 Winchester and the .30-06 Springfield articles to change the bullet diameter from .308 (7.8) to .30 (7.62), so who knows what’s going on… Anyway, the idea about the banner sounds reasonable to me. —Travistalk 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but we can't put any disclaimers in articles. See Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Besides, Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer should suffice.--LWF (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, yes, I think I already knew that, too. Anyway, anyone foolish enough to handload anything based on a Wikipedia article pretty much shouldn’t be handling firearms, either. —Travistalk 00:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone foolish enough to handload anything based on a Wikipedia article shouldn't be handling Wikipedia.--Doug.(talk contribs) 02:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Anyone foolish enough to handload anything based on a Wikipedia article" with any luck will shoot himself dead before having children, thus taking the "stupid" gene out of the gene pool. "Think of it as evolution in action." Jubal Harshaw 13:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No, no, that's Larry and Jerry, not RAH. scot (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for renaming two articles

I realize this might be the best place to get actual feedback on this question, but in July of last year I suggested looking to rename United States Navy Mark 12 Mod X Special Purpose Rifle to remove the "Mod X" from the name. I also might propose to remove the "United States Navy" portion too, making it effectively: "Mk 12 Special Purpose Rifle," which is much cleaner in my mind. As a designation junkie I say this is fine because the "mod" variations get talked about more than enough in the text. Similarly, I'd propose renaming CQBR to "Mk 18 CQBR." Thoughts? -- Thatguy96 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, uh, that's an M16. It's also a Target Variant. I'd say it's a useless article anyhow, why not just rename it the SPR? That's what I've always know it as. --Asams10 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"Useless" in my mind would suggest the M16 article could handle the volume. Its only about as useless as the M4 article and I've heard the same commentary about that. I just disagree. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, WP:GUNS#Naming states in this case military designation, specifically the semi-shorthand designation is meant. Hope that helps.--LWF (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well yes and no. The naming convention doesn't provide clear guidance for weapons without a sole manufacturer. The SPR/CQBR guns were made from parts from a variety of manufacturers in house by a US government agency before being produced in whole from factory by single manufacturers. So I guess I could leave the "United States Navy." There's also nothing in the convention about how to deal with designation structures, but I think it safe to say the implication is that variant designations should probably be left out of the title, meaning the "Mod X" should most likely go. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

.44-40 Winchester

.44-40 Winchester is currently an expired WP:PROD, looking at the other articles it seems like cartridge seems to be notable and this one seems to be quite a popular one. Currently the article is woeful. Could someone have a look at it. --Salix alba (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Wikidenizen (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


I have removed the example of the exception to WP:GUNS#Variants until we can find a better example of a variant of a firearm that meets the requirements for an exception. What I am looking for is a firearm where a significant amount of redesign went into the creation of the variant, more than just lightening cuts in the receiver, no offense intended towards Commander Zulu. If anyone can find a good example of this it would be much appreciated.--LWF (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's better, but I added the M16 rifle/M4 carbine comparrison. In reality, though it's still just a shortened version, it was part of a much larger program. --Asams10 (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know why I didn't think of that just now, I had thought about it before, but it seemed to have slipped my mind. Anyone else want to make a suggestion?--LWF (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reworded it using your text as a guideline Asams10, thanks again. If anyone sees any inaccuracies in the new text, please point them out here so they can be corrected.--LWF (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The SOCOM 16 (the 16+" barrel M-14A from Springfield Armory) had the gas system redesigned? htom (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Not an extensive redesign though, only a redesign that can be explained in one sentence: the one you just used.--LWF (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


May I join this group?

~Ya Boi Krakerz~ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Still at it, eh?

Haven't been around in awhile. Thought I'd check up to see what the deal is these days. I see you all are still putting up the good fight. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ever considered coming back? We could use every skilled and knowledgeable editor we can get to improve the firearms area.--LWF (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Wish you were back. You provided many good edits! Yaf (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If you can, do as I do, edit, improve and cite, but at the hint of conflict, ignore it and move on :p
really, it's stress free editing :D -- Boris Barowski (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

IWA -Germany - 35. International Trade Fair for Hunting and Sporting Arms, Outdoor Articles and Accessories

. IWA 14.03. - 17.03.2008 - Germany - [ 35. International Trade Fair for Hunting and Sporting Arms, Outdoor Articles and Accessories

Any requests for informations ? I am going there Tom--Dan Wesson (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to take some nice photos! Enjoy your stay there. Koalorka (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

i'll be there thursday, friday and saturday :) Will you be there as a visitor or at a stand ? --Boris Barowski (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

i'll be there sunday monday as visitor - Tom --Dan Wesson (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Other opinions on proposed C7/C8 merger

A user split the C8 portion from the C7 article. I was wondering if I could get other feedback concerning this, since so far its me and the other user who have commented. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

== Wolf Ammunition/Potential Problems: Steel jacketed bullets Howdy friends. I'd appreciate any information you might have about the use of this rifle ammo, which has steel jacketed bullets. (The bullets only appear to be copper jacketed-- The jackets are fairly thick "mild" steel with a paper-thin copper coating). I'd like to know if the bullets cause excessive wear in the bore. Has anyone has seen any test results? Thanks for the assist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Project on Commons for Weapons

Good Evening Wikiusers

Once I had a idea for creating a project for weapons to exchange information and list new galleries 'cause I think now we have a little chaos. What do u think about that? But I probably need your help 'cause I never created such a project. Some words about me: I actually work only with modern firearms. I also started an discussions on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force--Sanandros (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image request

Anyone have a foregrip at home? The foregrips page needs an image. --SharkfaceT/C 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


At .32-40 Ballard, it doesn't want to display the case type. Can somebody fix it? If you can let me know what's wrong, too, I'd appreciate it. Trekphiler (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. case type should be case_type, you just missed the underscore is all. MRIanthony (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Figures it'd be so obvious I'd miss it. Trekphiler (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Who qualfies project particpants?

I recently posted two firearm related Wikipedia articles. I was made aware of the WikiProject Firearms effort when one of the project's participants greatly enhanced the first article by adding structure, Infoboxes, cites and corrected typos. I took what I learned from this edit and carried it over to the next article. The second article has been edited by a different person who does not have a technical understanding of the subject and the result diminshed the quality of the information. Some was minor - changing a technically correct industry term "sizer" to "sizing die" and a "seater" to "seating die". Some was curious - inserting an internal link to "chronograph", as in a timepiece, where in context the information clearly meant "ballistic chronograph". Some where more distructive than helpful, inserting ref tags to bracket a book title that went nowhere and only blocked the original information. I thought the idea was to edit and expand, not critique and assign. Finally - a passage relating to firearm receivers, specifically bolt actions of various length was changed to mean whole rifles. As an example, a reference to a Remington 700 magnum length action as a component of a custom firearm was changed to a Remington Model 700.

I have no problem with edits and expansion or greater knowledge improving the quality of firearm information, but I do have a problem with little displays of attitude and creating work for other's through a lack of technical understanding. It just discourages people from adding firearm related material to Wiki and Wiki becomes yet another place on the Internet where bad information and a lack of manners prevail.Joe4570 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First, what article are you referring to? Second, no one qualifies project members, they decide to join. We all try to improve the firearms areas, and there is a pretty decent chance that the other person made honest mistakes. Always try to assume good faith.--LWF (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't note the article because I didn't want to make it a public issue, I just wanted to understand what I was working with. The first article was the .17-357 RG, the second was the .358-378 RG. The first went perfectly fine. A lot of quality clean up and a lot of contribution. There were points of disagreement, but none so serious that I would argue the points out of respect for the person's contribution.

In the case of the latter, it just seems your person needs to screw with me and the article. This is the third time he has removed technical references from a passage from the subject which are key to understanding cartridge design. The reference was not removed by deletion when edited, it was changed to non-functional reference tags so the information was gone and the tags were incomplete. The last time, today, the reason was, "Because I don't think the reference is needed". Even if I were to accept it is an honest opinion, what in the world is the reason for replacing it, multiple times, with a non-existant reference note rather than just deleting the section? Sorry I don't see this as an improvement, I see it as someone abusing a trust and showing a lack of respect for articles being added to the subject on Wikipedia. After spending 8 months designing and tooling this particular cartridges and firearm, then attempting to share the experience with others in public domain, something more than "Add pictures", "Don't understand", "I don't think the cites are required" and linking a ballistic chronograph to a watch link are not much of a step forward.

Editing technical substance without technical knowledge has the potential of causing good information to be edited into incorrect information. As an example, the project cartridge lists are incorrect. Cartridge official names are as submitted and approved when sanctioned by SAAMI and CIP or there is no standard they are obligated to follow at all. There is no such thing as a .357 SIG. It is a 357 SIG as petitioned by SIG and because it is not a decimal expression of a caliber which, in the case of a 357 SIG. is .355". Joe4570 (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned, it is always best to assume good faith. I've looked over the article in question, and it seems to me that the disagreement arose from a misunderstanding.
To start, I looked at it, and the user in question wasn't trying to remove the reference, he was changing the format to make it a citation. I have remedied your concern and his by turning it into a citation, and adding the section "References" just above "External links", and putting in the reflist template, which shows the citations. When he said not needed, he meant not needed in the body of the article, but needed to be turned into a citation, which would show up in the references section.
Second, I do not believe he intended to link to chronograph, I am sure he meant to link to Gun chronograph, which I have just done in a piped link.
Finally, asking for clarification, and pictures are not unreasonable requests, and I am certain he had the best intentions when asking for them.--LWF (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I goofed. I didn't check the footnote was working or where the chronograph link went. As for why I moved it into a footnote, read the passage as originally written. The info may be desirable, but it isn't necessary to understand what's being said. It may be necessary to understanding why it's done that way, who did it, whatever, but I got the point without it, whence a footnote. Trekphiler (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to respond and for the editing that was just done. I am currently working with some of the larger dangerous game cartridges and I will see if I can extract something from the project that might be useful on Wikipedia. I will keep in mind what I have taken away from this experience when I write this new piece, including the issue of increased photographic representation. Joe4570 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

AK-47 at FAR

AK-47 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Offspring Project in Dutch

Due to the succes we have achieved with this great project, I started a related project on the Dutch wikipedia site. The level of the firearms artikels was abysmal there, so I decided to take matters in my own hands and start a new WikiProject. I am copying most of the page layout, and will organise it similar to this project, with similar guidelines. I will ofcourse stay active here too. If you do speak dutch, please help out :) the link is Wikiproject Wapens Thanks--Boris Barowski (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


See here, upper photo ("Hezbollah fighter in Beirut"). AK-103/104? The AK-101/102 would seem to have a different magazine, the mag's curve in the photo seems more pronounced.

But the muzzleward parts of the barrel differ. It does not have the AK-105/107 recoil compensator, and the distance between the forward sights and the gas port is small (even taking into account perspective). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

From the M16 article

"Cultural impact and civilian ownership The M16 and its variants are ubiquitous in American and many other countries' films, TV series and video games. Among U.S. firearms owners, fully automatic civilian M16 model production was restricted after 1986, but due to its long history there are many in circulation."

I admit ignorance on many aspects military type rifles, and perhaps I just never heard about the above, but it sure seems suspect to me. The statement "fully automatic civilian M16 model"s were "in circulation", either before or after 1986... Wouldn't such weaponry fall under and be outlawed by the 1934 act? Wikidenizen (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The National Firearms Act of 1934 outlawed nothing if I remember correctly. It merely put a federal tax on a number of categories of weapons and required federal registration and law enforcement approval before transfer (local LE and ATF). In 1986 a law was passed banning the construction of new machine guns (machine guns only) for civilian ownership. Machine guns manufactured for civilian consumption prior to 1986 can still be transfered legally under NFA rules. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Page merge proposal

I'd like to propose merging the Taurus Millennium Pro PT-140 page and the Taurus Millennium PT145 into a new page 'Taurus Millennium series' (which doesn't exist yet). Both of the existing pages are very short, the major difference between the various models of this series being some are 'pro' series and also finishes and calibers... I'm not sure the notability even exists to justify seperate articles for all these different pistol models. The new page would retain all the existing information, and can be expanded with information for the other models in the series. Comments? Wikidenizen (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You have my support. Koalorka (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Support, of course. A clear cut case of WP:GUNS#Variants.--LWF (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, this sounds like a good idea. I've got several of the MilPro's, might snap some pics later for an infobox there. SQLQuery me! 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

battle rifle designations

a battle rifle is supposed to be a rifle that fires a highpowered round, right? but its still a very general and broad term. so why do my edits get reverted when I tried changing the G3s designation to automatic rifle? wouldnt it make sense to better categorise and more auccuratly describe what type of rifle it is? ('bolt-action rifle', 'semi-automatic rifle', 'automatic rifle' or 'lever-action rifle') —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

any responses yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "bolt-action rifle", "semi-automatic rifle", and so on would be better than "battle rifle" for the Type field in an infobox. Although the term "battle rifle" is useful, and should probably be mentioned in some of the articles, designating the type by the action is more specific and informative. "P.S." To, you might want to consider creating an account and using it when editing, it's easy to do and your privacy is well protected. Mudwater (Talk) 13:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Concur, I find 'bolt-action rifle', 'automatic rifle', etc etc etc, a lot more useful than the very generic term 'battle rifle'. SQLQuery me! 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

so can we go ahead and change that or make it a policy? also i prefer to stay anonymous, thanks though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MP 446

This article needs an image. The author(I assume) included an image from in an editor's note. Curious if it'd be okay to go ahead and upload that one. Thanks, Wakanda's Black Panther!/ 07:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just make sure the fair-use stuff is correctly filled in. I don't see getting a free picture of that firearm any time soon, but, I'll keep an eye out at my local shop. SQLQuery me! 17:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and uploaded this image, as well as added a reference, and, an infobox. SQLQuery me! 15:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the page up. Koalorka (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Update: the MP-446 is actually just a civilian variant of the MP-443 Grach pistol accepted into Russian service as the PYa (Yarygin pistol). The page will be merged and the Yarygin pistol page will be renamed to MP-443 Grach, since PYa is only an in-service Russian designation. Koalorka (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Good work! SQLQuery me! 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Clip vs. Magazine

I was wondering if some members could chime in on the debate regarding the definition of a clip vs. a Magazine. I am looking for other firearms folks. The view at issue is that Clips are Magazines and the two editors for changing this are citing the dictionary. I don't believe that the side of reason is being represented proportionately yet. Thanks in advance for your opinions. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been one which occurs fairly often here, where common usage conflicts with the precise language used by specialists in the field. Wikipedia is pretty unambiguous in that we use the common names for things. Both of the views expressed in the diff here are pretty poor; what is needed is an NPOV version that expresses the differing usage of the terms, preferably with some better references for the usage. WP:NPOV says that in the case of controversies (which I guess this is) we report the controversy without taking sides. Maybe a compromise can be found that will stop the edit-warring, which at this point is getting faintly ridiculous. And this is not why Rome fell, by the way. --John (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to come up with a compromise version; see what you think. --John (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I made a minor correction to the terminology of the article after your edit. And I'm sure that Rome fell because of the Nephites. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Looking at the M1911 page, I don't see any mention of variants using the same pattern. I see the Ballester Molina in passing, but I'm thinking of, for instance, the AMT Hardballer (in stainless) & the ARM (with a 14rd mag). Can anybody offer any info? Trekphiler (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The trick there is going to be drawing the line between "variant" and "clone". The Ballester Molena looked like a 1911, but internally it was constructed more like a Jennings or Raven to simplify manufacture. The trigger group was completely different, using stamped steel parts, a rotating trigger, a disconnector milled into the side of the frame rather than in the middle, and it eliminated the grip safety altogether.
Since everyone is making a 1911 today, from Sig to Smith & Wesson, plus all the companies built on just 1911s, this is going to be an extensive and necessarily incomplete list. The significant variants are probably worth mentioning; the original Para Ordnance widebody frame and the new LDA trigger, plus the STI and Kimber polymer frames, and things like that. scot (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and don't forget the Double Eagle, and the Colt SOCOM entry... scot (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of notable variations, like the P14's 2-col mag, the Hardballer's stainless frame (a 1st, IIRC), or the Delta Elite (being 10mm), or not the endless copies. (I do wonder if something like Lee Juras' John Jeffredo's .45 J-Mag qualifies...) Trekphiler (talk) 11:27, 21 June, & 07:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC) (OK, I goofed, but it came out in 1976....)

PRB 408

  • I have created this article as well as others, but I don´t know the type of mine this is. Can somebody help me with this so I can place it in the propperly section of the List of landmines?
Landmines and Grenades are not firearms. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Landmines and grenades (most of them) although they´re not included in the firearm class. Actually, they fit to the definition of a firearm (al least of wikipedia), so I think it´s ok to contemplate them for those who are interested. -- Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . 13:39, 22 June 2008 (GMT-6)
Not really, landmines and grenades generally use explosives that detonate, rather than deflagrate. That being the key difference. Small arms use deflagrating low-explosives, and mines and grenades use detonating high-explosives.--LWF (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Beyond the fact that both are weapons, there is nothing about a landmine or grenade that even approaches the definition of a firearm. At its essence, a firearm is a tool that is reused; a landmine or grenade is consumed in use. You might better include dozens of more closely related tools such as cannons, airguns, and rockets. Each of these has a closer relation and still are not included because they aren't firearms. Try wp:MILHIST instead. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I should have read more Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . 08:42, 25 June 2008 (GMT-6)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 834 of the articles assigned to this project, or 28.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That would help coordinate our efforts. Koalorka (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article M1 Garand rifle which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jackyd101's comments are at Talk:M1 Garand rifle/GA1. I suggest that any discussion about this be centralized on that page. Mudwater (Talk) 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of ammo

Is there a military-specific task force for ammo? If so, .56-56 Spencer & .45-70 could use tagging, for starters. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 12:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Well, it might be a stretch, but I'm putting together a "Wikiproject: Cutlery" to do for the knife and bladed weapons, what we've done for the firearms articles. This project has made a huge impact! As I obviously have "crossover interest", I was wondering if any of you might have the same. We seem to face common antagonists (those who want to delete anything weapon related on Wiki or those who want anything other than plastic forks banned). Maybe a task force under this project? Let it be known here:[1]. Thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Take your aim

Given the of importance of volley fire to infantry tactics between 1600 & 1914, a better link than Volley gun or Organ gun is badly needed. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 13:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (P.S. Same issue raised here.)

Maadi arm

I just came across this article marked for speedy deletion as spam, which it clearly isn't. It is in need of references and expansion though, but an inexpert search on my part failed to provide any. So, I thought I'd bring it to the attention of the experts. Enjoy! Olaf Davis | Talk 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the ARM is a license copy of the AKM. Unless it has undergone dramatic modifications, I will merge it with the AKM page. Koalorka (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I can sign up please

Where must i go to sign up to the project? ¬¬¬¬

You just go to where it says "Active members", and add your name in alphabetical order.--LWF (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Spencer, For Hire

I moved .56-.56 Spencer to .56-56 Spencer; I've since come across a mention (but can't recall where...) the .56-.56 referred to the neck or rim, rather than powder weight (as was usual later). Can somebody confirm & correct it? Thanks. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 15:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The first .56 refers to the case diameter at the base (just inside the rim), the second .56 refers to the case diameter at the neck. The .56-.56 is a straight-wall case, the .56-.52, .56-.50, and .56-.46 were all tapered/bottleneck cartridges. The decimal place is therefore correct for both measures, though, as you note, that is not the case with the .44-40 etc. scot (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that I look, the most common form appears to be "56-56", with no decimals. The ".56-56" form is somewhat common, though very misleading (as you have seen). The .56-.56 is, to my mind, the most "correct", but appears to be uncommon. I think based on that I'm going to change all the instances to "56-56", "56-52", etc. as it is most common, and not misleading. scot (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

is this really accurate? velocities

9x19 article says - 8.0 g (123 gr) FMJ, 350 m/s (1,100 ft/s), 494 J (364 ft·lbf)

and .45 says 230 gr (15 g) FMJ-FP, 1,010 ft/s (310 m/s), 521 ft·lbf (706 J)

i thought .45 was a low pressure cartridge? --Tharmsen (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a .45 FL. That's mighty hot, esp for the 230gr. Barnes (1972) puts it at 855/405. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 17:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Input on C7/C8 merge proposal

I'm looking for input on the proposal to merge the C8 page with the C7 page (Discuss). I believe it was abruptly ended the last time, and that the lack of "consensus" was based on false observations and inaccurate understandings, as much as legitimate points. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Type 56 assault rifle

Hello, I recently wrote an article on the QBZ-56C, a carbine variant of the Type 56 assault rifle which has since been merged into the Type 56 assault rifle article. While I am aware of the WikiProject Firearms view on variants it states that 'The exception to this is where significant amounts of design and/or history would be lost by merging', if you view my original article, you can see that I spend a great deal of the article discussing its development along with its service and specifications. I believe that by merging the two articles, a great deal of information on its development history and design differences from the Type 56 is lost and if all that information where added to the Type 56 article, I believe it would detract from the original article. I would like to point out that the article on the similiar but unrelatedZastava M92 has an article, regardless of the fact that it is also a carbine variant of the Serbian Zastava M70, another AK clone. Additionally the QBZ-56C has less in common with the Type 56 than the Zastava M92 has compared to the Zastava M70. Semi-Lobster (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Zastava M70 and M92 articles should not be separate. Thanks for pointing that out. The QBZ-56C is a minor subvariant of the type 56 and produced for export only. No statistics are listed for the numbers produced. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The QBZ-56C is in active service with the People's Liberation Army Ground Forces, People's Armed Police, and People's Liberation Army Navy, it has never been successfully exported outside of China. The M4A1 is a minor variant of the M16, it has an article because if merged with the M16 article, a significant amount of information would be lost, particularly in terms of its development history. Most of the QBZ-56C article is on its development history and its differences from the Type 56/AKM. The People Republic of China does not generally release information about the amount of arms it produces and has been known to be extremely evassive about its export relations. Semi-Lobster (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it really difficult to believe that it's in service with all of those services without some sort of serious confirmation. As a disqualifier, you say that China doesn't release info, etc. etc. So, are you meaning to say that the information that you are providing can't be verified? That doesnt't pass wp:verifiability or wp:notability then. You say it has a significantly different development history, well I disagree. Quite honestly, this is the very definition of a minor variant with little reference or verification of the info you bring forward. I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on... however, please feel free do add any REFERENCED information you have to the Type 56 article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have provided sources! Read the article, I have three sources, I could have put sources in my original article for every paragraph but I thought that would be a bit of clutter. None of my sources are in English but even a simple babelfish translation of a few links and here btw is one of the largest news companies in China and the last last link is an official Chinese government website. As for China not disclosing the production numbers and exports, I was refferign to instances such as this where the Communist Party of China has been less than forthcoming about its international arms sales. As for it being a minor variant, as I said earlier, variants can recieve articles if enough information as to why can be provided, especially its development history as is the case with the M4. Even variants of variants can recieve articles. The Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine, which is a copy of the M4 carbine, the ONLY real difference is that it is only capable of semi-automatic fire, yet it also has an article and it was marked for deletion and it was voted that the article stay. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hard to argue with that if the project voted in favour of retaining an article like the Bushmaster M4... This duality needs to stop. Koalorka (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, believe, I don't want to tell you guys how to do your job! You guys do excellent work here. I was just using the Bushmaster as an example, there are far more differences between the Type 56 compared to the QBZ-56C than the M16 compared to the M4A1. My main point is that by merging the two articles, a lot is lost and the 'development history is significantly different, qualifying it for its own article.' The QBZ-56C was designed for warfare high in the Himalayas and was originally supposed to be a modified Type 81 assault rifle. It was introduced 30 years after the Type 56, has several improvements, especially in the gas regulating system that lets it operate in extreme temperatures along with a variety of other differences as well. Another, less inflammatory example would be the Gewehr 98 and the Karabiner 98k which although, only a carbine variant of the Gewehr 98, represent different eras of military thinking an tactics, this is a difference also present between the Type 56 and QBZ-56C. The Type 56 was a weapon of the Cold War, an infantry weapon for the massed infantry armies of the PLA while the QBZ-56C is a specialist's weapon, designed originally to operate by small groups of highly trained alpine soldiers. Semi-Lobster (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Dude, it's shorter... that's it. I find it odd that you have all of this information and no references. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of modifications including its gas regulation and gas cutoff system, for example, thats the difference really between an AK and an INSAS rifle. On top of that, the development history is very, very different. And what do you mean I haven't given any references? I've just given four references in this very in this very discussion. Do you want three more? Semi-Lobster (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, you're on a different wavelength. When I say REFERENCE, I assume you've read Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. Understand that you, yourself, confirm that the Chinese aren't good at releasing information, therefore how is a Chinese language article that translates to say, uh, it's a short Type 56, be a reliable source. Beyond that, you'd created an entire article based on this information and flying in the face of the WP firearms guidelines. There are asinine articles out there (mostly created by Jetwave Dave) of minor variants of firearms. While yours might eventually gain enough RS info to warrant a beefy section under the Type 56 article... read a SECTION, not an article... placing it on its own is plain silly. This article Smith & Wesson Performance Center Model 460XVR Hunter 14" muzzle brake barrel really takes the cake. Every type 56 listed in the parent article has a 'significant development history' based on your standard. In fact, they don't have enough to warrant a separate article based on reality. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out there are no English reference, not a single one, on the QBZ-56C other than brief mentions here in there, no mention of even basic information such as length or weight even. Indeed, there is also no good sources of information on the Saudi Al-Fahd Infantry fighting vehicle as well in English, even though the Al-Fahd has been exported all over the Middle East. Therefore 'assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality' does not apply other than maybe a token quote saying 'it exists... but we don't know anything about it' such as in this Modern Firearms article stating that it 'apparently' is in service, it might be, it might not be, but nothing further than an educated guess. The fact that you would argue against the validity of Chinese articles based on international politics and foriegn relations, well, thats one thing, thats governments dealing with transnational agendas and global energy struggles but this is about a rifle. The articles I have given are written for viewership within the Chinese speaking world, thats 1.75 billion people, not just those in the PRC but also in the Republic of China (Taiwan), Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore etc. etc. and we can't just ignore them because the government produced it, that what all articles on the Type 96 and Type 99 tanks or Chengdu J-10 are based on, translations of Chinese sources its not as if the Chinese government has any reason to lie about something as simple as a tank, or fighter jet, than why lie for a rifle? We can't just ignore Chinese sources just because we may or may not agree with their politics. The articles I have presented are generally from major Chinese new media corporations, military press releases, even from official government websites or in the case of Zero Rose and Gun-World, two of the biggest firearms sites in China, written in part by people formerly in the army who have operated them. Another matter is wether it merits an article, you make an argument that 'Every type 56 listed in the parent article has a 'significant development history' based on your standard', thats ridiculous, the only other variants of the Type 56 have the shoulder stock foldable either vertically or horizontally, while another variant, the Norinco Type 86S is a bullpup clone of the Type 56 has its own article, the only difference is that... its a bullpup. As I have stated, the QBZ-56C, has had extensive reworking of its gas regulation and gas cutoff system, a muzzle flair reduction system along with tons of other differences and has years of research put into it to test and redesign it. I don't want to cause any trouble, I just like writing wikipedia articles, I understand you want to avoid clutter and bad articles (Wow! that S&W article is TERRIBLE, its pretty much one sentence!) I apppreciate what you do, and maybe you can convince me to put my 7000-8000+ byte article (I wasn't done writing it yet, nor did I get a chance to upload a picture) into an original 10500 byte article but I don't see why the M4 should have an article but not other military carbines if the 'development history is significantly different' and 'significant amounts of design and/or history would be lost by merging', especially since the QBZ-56C has been extensively reworked of the Type 56 while the M4 is just a short M16 with 80% part commonality. Semi-Lobster (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
TLDR. Look as I did with the Smith & Wesson Model 460 article, if you see something wrong, fix it. WP:GUN is about providing a framework to opearte under. Given the nature of the Type 56C being a variant that's poorly referenced in English, keep it under the Type 56 article for now and if soemthing significantly more Verifiable comes along, it can be split off, again as I did with the Bushmaster M17S article. Think notability, verifiability, and variants when reworking such articles. The Type 56 itself is little changed from the AKM and is a variant article itself. Having a variant article of a variant borders on the rediculous for me. Lots of work was done to consolidate the Glock pistol articles into one article for this very reason. If you have a separate article for each and every variant or caliber, you get into quite a confusing forrest of articles that all say basically the same thing. The story of the QBZ-56C is not complete without reading the Type 56 article and, in turn, the Type 56 article is not complete without reading the AKM article and, in turn, that article is not complete without reading the AK-47 article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
If you're not going to even read my responses why am I even discussing things with you? While I agree that the consolidation of the Glock article was necessary, and I'm still not against merging the Type 56 and QBZ-56C article together until a good English language source is written but I'm just worried about double standards occuring with articles on non-Western firearms, we have the AR-10, whose variant is the AR-15 whose variant is the M16 rifle whose variant is the M4 Carbine whose variant is the Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine, all of which have separate articles. Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a second, he's not talking about a double-standard. He's talking about documentation and source material. One thing about the M4 vs M16 vs AR15 is that there is close to 20 years worth of information about the M4, plus lawsuits over names, etc; let alone 40 years worth of information on AR15, M16, etc. I am leaning toward your side that the QBZ-56C probably should have it's own article, based on what you've said above. If you have reliable sources to back that up, bring them forward and write it up.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to read long posts, sorry. The AR-15 was a completely new design, not a variant of the AR-10. Stoner wasn't that involved in the AR-15, truth be told, and most of the work was done by Jim Sullivan. The AR-15 is also the M-16. The Air Force adopted the AR-15 rifle and the name changed to M-16. The Army added the forward assist and adopted the M-16A1. You're arguing that I have a double standard and neglecting to note that I am for consolidation of the M4 and Bushmaster M4 articles as well as. While articles that should be consolidated slip through the cracks, that doesn't mean that they should not be merged, only that editors are fickle. I'm of the opinion that you spent some time writing the article and feel some fondness for it. I also believe this fondness had led you to overstate its importance for the sake of argument. This does not seem constructive. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there is a double standard, I'm saying that some people might jump to the conclusion that it is a double standard when it is a matter of documentation because they may be insulted that their 'sources' are not as valid as others based on language. I on the otherhand, understand your concerns over language but I'm just not seeing how an official government website could be dismissed as suspect completely, for example if the UK government released a press release on the Eurofighter Typhoon, then you could assume that the information published is believable regardless of controversy over the Al Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia. Semi-Lobster (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Colt Trooper

If no one objects I'm going to rename the current stub Colt Trooper Mk III to Colt Trooper and expand it with sections for the various series (I, II, II, etc.) I don't think the individual series are notable enough to each rate their own articles per Wikipedia:GUNS#Variants. Wikidenizen (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree -- No objections. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What to do with Shooting?

Hello guys! I'm working on sport shooting articles and I have noticed a problem with the split between Shooting and Shooting sports. The former article has changed a lot over the years; sometimes it has been close to a guidebook on how to shoot a gun (which Wikipedia is not), and sometimes (seems we're at that end now) it mostly duplicates some of the information from Shooting sports. Just now, someone added an interwiki link to the Portuguese article on shooting sports, and the talk page also reflects how many people go to Shooting and expect to read about shooting sports. Now, the easiest solution would of course be to redirect Shooting to Shooting sports (or even move Shooting sports to Shooting), but then, the actual activity of shooting a gun, for whatever application, is certainly a notable subject on its own, and something kind of central to this WikiProject. That's why I come here and ask what you suggest we should do with this article. -- Jao (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I took out the sport-specific stuff from the article now, but I still don't know what to ultimately do with it. -- Jao (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I dug around a little on similar articles. Ice skating is about the activity (the sports being at speed skating etc) and even gets a little technical, skiing is almost entirely about the sport, swimming and canoeing have the elements mixed together, while rowing is a disambiguation page. So it seems like anything goes really. -- Jao (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 firearm

I see that this article has been selected for Wikipedia 0.7 for publication on CD/DVD. As this is a core topic, would any editors like to invest a little time improving the article? Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

6mm or 6 mm?

I'm tired of this. I look through a half dozen articles and see a lack of consistency. It seems that the 'units nazis' have taken over and forced their standards on cartridges. The point was made in one discussion that these are designations and not measurements, therefore they are far outside of the bounds of any units standards. When you look at cartridge boxes, you see "6mm Remington" not "6 mm Remington." You see "5.56x45mm" not "5.56 x 45 mm" The truth is, the 45mm is not a hard and fast measurement nor is the 5.56. There are tolerances in these things, political considerations, etc. Can we build a concensus on these designations? I thought that the concensus was for "6mm" however the article stands as 6 mm Remington. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling you're shouting against the tornado. The vast majority on WP know nothing about firearms or weapons in general & believe (wrongly) the space is mandatory. I'm less than convinced consensus here (assuming it exists, which I suspect it does) will make any measurable difference outside the project, which means, I think, edit wars or reversions by the less-informed. I'd also add, many of the metric IDs are systemic, not intended to be strictly accurate (the 8mm Mauser, for instance), so "unit nazis" really have no grounds to "correct" them. Neither do I think that will hold sway with them. That said, I'm in complete agreement with you. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 17:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A concensus here would be nice. I'll start a vote and see what comes of it:

Please answer below whether to eliminate errant spaces in firearms cartridge designations. For means you prefer them with no space. Against means you feel that there should be a space as is common for Metric units.

  • For - It's a cartridge designation, derived from an actual measurement, but there are almost never spaces in firearms usage. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • For - I was just coming here to ask about this. In all firearms literature I've seen, there is no space. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • For- But we went over this well over a year ago and I was under the impression we'd reached a consensus then, namely to get rid of the spaces. As Trekphiler says, the problem is that most Wiki editors know nothing at all about guns and their auto-editing bots change all the articles... it's irritating and the best we can do is keep an eye on the "Major" calibre articles and hope the non-gun savvy finally get the point... Commander Zulu (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, this was the decision before, however with a strong concensus here, we should really add wording to that effect on the project page so that we have a clear guideline to cite when we're doing this. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • For - It's a designation, not a measurement (necessarily), & in usual usage extremely rare (I've never seen them in 20+yr. And agree with Nukes. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 13:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • For -- Proper noun usage should take precedent over "unit nazis". Yaf (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Our most popular articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Popular pages, is a bot-generated list of our most popular articles, by pageviews per month. Interestingly enough, some of our most viewed articles (M4 Carbine, List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces etc) are unassessed. SQLQuery me! 00:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've assessed the two you mentioned, as well as gun. I wasn't sure exactly how to assess List of firearms or List of rifle cartridges, so I'll leave those to someone more experienced. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment here

United States Navy Mark 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle - Recently made lot of changes. Need outside opinion on the class. Ominae (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Criminal use guideline RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does the "Criminal use" section in the WikiProject Firearms guidelines conform or contradict our content policies, namely WP:NPOV? Everyme 08:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how it fails to conform to our content policies. Could you be little more specific? Thanks. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me phrase it this way: Which piece(s) of policy, logic, commonsense or whatever is that section based on? What's the underlying rationale for this remarkable departure from NPOV? Everyme 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of your motives, but this seems to be cut and dried. If the criminal use of a firearm shows a verifiable effect on the firearm, then it should be included assuming there is no concensus against inclusion. Why is that complicated? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read the latest version of WP:GUNS#Criminal use. It is not in fact a departure from NPOV, it is an extension of it, most directly of WP:UNDUE. The idea behind it is to keep articles free from long lists of various times a firearm has been used criminally, and limits it to those which are significant to the firearm, and the easiest way of judging if it is significant to the firearm is if it had some sort of effect on it. So contrary to what you are saying, it does not contradict or go against NPOV, it is merely how NPOV is applied to the subject of the criminal use of firearms.--LWF (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The notion of a criminal use having to have had any impact on the gun is ridiculous and is a perversion of UNDUE. The only thing that matters to NPOV/UNDUE is wheter or not the use is itself notable. If so, it clearly merits mentioning in the article on the gun. Everyme 19:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you are interpreting this logically. The criminal use of a firearm is only notable to the firearm model in rare cases. The vast majority of criminal uses of firearms have no impact or meaning to the firearm whatsoever. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't have mattered if Cho had used a Glock 19 or a S&W Model 6904. The gun, for all intents and purposes, was nondescript. Once again, what is your agenda on this? Where is there a mention that should be there. Please cite your best example of a firearm that should mention a notable criminal use but does not? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The specific example that spawned this seems to be Talk:Heckler & Koch MP5#Red Army Faction. -- Jao (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It was the cause célèbre, yes, but the section is not policy-compliant in its own right and so is a separate issue. Everyme 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Judging by this, it isn't pure notability that is the criteria for inclusion in UNDUE, it is significance to the subject.--LWF (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The entirely arbitrary demands the section makes have nothing to do with UNDUE. Everyme 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious here or is this just a troll. I don't see any merit in your single point nor do I agree that it's unrelated to WP:UNDUE. Again, if you could cite an example, that would probably help your case. I'm afraid the "Red Army Faction" example is borderline silly. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Borderline silly, because? And do not accuse me of trolling again without substantially elaborating on that point. I am being very serious and convinced that my observations are very accurate (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered). So much convinced, in fact, that I consider this just the first stop. This ridiculous piece of guideline will not stand, not like that. Everyme 11:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, if you don't see it as a silly example and you don't understand why I'd suspect a troll, your credibility is shot with me and I don't see any point in further engaging you as you are unable to be convinced. Further evidence of this is your overt threat to 'go above our heads' when you don't get your way here. Let me see, you don't get your way on the MP5 page so you take it here. You don't get your way here so you take it above us. Through it all, I haven't really seen any support for your point of view. Good luck at the 'next level' though I think this is way too much drama over your misinterpretation of the rules. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Really? To me it seems like a bit of a leap to say that criminal use has nothing to do with UNDUE. Especially when you consider that the criteria are merely examples of how one can go about showing a criminal act was significant to the firearm. Take a moment to think about it, WP:UNDUE says that the weight given to a particular item in an article should be appropriate to its significance to the subject, Criminal use says that it must meet certain criteria, these criteria are all ways of showing that a particular criminal act was significant to the firearm.
By the way, the criteria given in Criminal use are only examples, criminal acts don't necessarily have to meet those exact criteria, it just has to be shown that the act was significant to the firearm.--LWF (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No. The section arbitrarily demands not (as UNDUE does) that e.g. a criminal use must be significant to the subject in terms of notability, but that "it must have had an effect on the gun". Those are entirely different things. They have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Everyme 11:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh, let's take the logical route, Eve ryme. How can something be significant and have no effect on the firearm? The two go hand-in-hand. It's just a different way of saying the same thing. Once again, since the logic eludes you, it makes me suspect that there is merit to your point of view. It's crystal clear to me. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
In other words, you would never, under any circumstances ever include e.g. anything that happened after a person's death into the article about that person, because it did of course not have any effect on them? Yes, that kind of logic eludes me. Totally. Everyme 11:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think your analogy works; while the person may be dead, his/her work and life's story still exist and may be subject to changes in interpretations. I can understand there may be a need for clarification as to what "an effect" on the firearm is for the guideline, but I do not consider it at all inappropriate. I see it as being necessary to prevent articles from becoming bogged down with lists of miscellaneous information. I would like to hear what you propose in place of that guideline, however. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record: I too am a very strong opponent of indiscriminate collections of context-less trivia. As to how the section could be rephrased, I'd appreciate anything that replaces those arbitrary demands with an approach that emphasises the spirit of accuracy and common-sense and also explicitly embraces the occasional exception. I've tried to do so in another guideline here. Everyme 12:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh, it does embrace exceptions, you just disagree with who gets to decide. Since it's a concensus-based inclusion system, you aren't allowed to just jam it down our throats as you are trying to jam this change to our rules down our throats, therefore you lose control of the situation. The way you get an exception and inclusion is through the concensus process. You try it and if it fails, you're out of options. Crying to mommy for an RFC or other arbitration won't change the concensus. People just disagree. Move on. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Funny that you would say such things. Let me clarify: You are the ones "jamming it down our throats". Local consensus cannot possibly defy the general consensus in our core content policies. "Lose control of the situation": Truly hilarious. Fact is, I am making an effort to restore control. You guys have had your policy-violating way for far too long. It will end here, or maybe at ArbCom if need be. This is just getting started. I have no intention to let this go. The Criminal use section is in direct and massive contradiction to core content policy and it is going to be adjusted, one way or the other. Everyme 14:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note. At this point, I see no better option than to bring this issue to wider community attention and have requested input from neutral admins at AN. This is of course not meant to spread the discussion to another place, just to ideally get some input from uninvolved admins, who are after all trusted to have a firm grasp on policy. Everyme 15:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was your goal since you came to this page. We understand. Get on with it. Not sure why you felt the need to engage in a disengenuous discussion here since you only engaged in this discussion to give the appearance that you were willing to discuss it first. Please be intellectually honest here as I feel you're being condescending to our project members here. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent/ec) Let's all try to keep a level head here; discussion isn't harmful. You'll have to excuse me, Everyme, but no matter how many times I read your comments in this discussion, I can't see a direct argument as to why the Criminal Use guideline constitutes an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. While I do understand that you feel it makes some specific and arbitrary criteria to inclusion, and that those criteria should be changed to something more subjective, I do not understand what you would change. Could you please point out what specific parts of WP:NPOV are being violated here and make a specific proposal to correct/alter the current Criminal Use guideline? I feel that if so, we could have a much more constructive discussion rather than a lot of confusion. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd replace the section with something far less explicit and far less prescriptive. Something along the lines of
Accuracy and appropriate weight
As per WP:DUE, editors should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. More specifically, editors should carefully consider whether any planned addition of material would indeed improve the article by widening its completeness, depth and scope, or whether the addition would merely amount to a bit of trivia which is barely relevant to the topic. As usual, the burden of evidence rests with the editor adding or restoring material. However, also consider that Wikipedia combines aspects of both specialized encyclopedias and general encyclopedias, which means that general notability and verifiability should determine the content of the article. Information on a particular criminal use of a particular firearm warrants inclusion if and only if that use is notable by itself.
Something like that. I think it would simultaneously "keep up the guard" against indiscriminate trivia-dumping and allow for general interest information to be included if notable. Is that a viable compromise? Everyme 15:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Trivia is subjective and thus subject to (by definition) concensus. The WP:Firearms concensus was for the wording on the project page. This isn't WP:Aviation and rules that apply there don't apply here because it's a different community. As you said, this is a specialized encylopedia subcategory and therefore should and does read like any other Firearms Encyclopedia. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
No, you're dead wrong on all counts. All of Wikipedia is one community. WP:GUN is part of that community and a local consensus here cannot ever override general community consensus. "Rules" apply everywhere on Wikipedia homogeneously. Also, you have to understand that guidelines are merely more specific reformulations of policy. Anything else is just an essay, championing the personal opinions of a small group of editors, as is the case with the current wording. Most importantly, Wikipedia is of course not a specialised encyclopedia. I said, as is the case, that all of Wikipedia combines aspects of both specialised and general encyclopedias. There is also a name for randomly excluding material: It's censorship, and we don't do it. If you're interested in participating in a specialised encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not the right place for you. Everyme 15:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Please stop trying to score points and address, instead, the person who came here out of nowhere to address your concern. Now you're crying Censorship, but you haven't addressed the head-on questions that the other guy asked. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to score points, but that perception of yours is quite telling. Also, I have made a proposal. Discuss it. Everyme 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, I almost overlooked the most widely gaping hole in your logic. What is and isn't trivia has of course to be decided on a case by case basis. To set arbitrary criteria other than what WP:NPOV and WP:V say and, even more importantly, what their spirit is, is to defy our core content policies; and it's out of the question. Everyme 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Widely gaping hole, eh? This is a project guideline, not a criteria. Case-by-case concensus building uses the guideline, not policy. If you'd simply read the heading of the section this guideline is under, it's, uh, GUIDELINES. Please define guideline for me if you disagree with my definition. It is meant to GUIDE editors in making edits and GUIDE concensus building discussions. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your definition, Wikipedia does. Ok, look. I am trying not sound condescending, but dude, if you wanna be taken seriously talking about abstract concepts like P&G, please make an effort to at least use correct spelling. It's consensus, not "concensus". Now that I have that off my chest, once again: Guidelines are merely more specific formulations of policy. They are not set in stone and not binding in a prescriptive way. They may be formulated as recommendations and summarise different policy-compatible approaches. You may also be interested in our article on Guidelines (although it's only an unreferenced stub, probably due to lax standards over at WikiProject Guidelines or some such). Everyme 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Buddy, if you're going to say you don't want to sound condescending and then criticize my spelling of a single word, uh, you're being condescending. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny that you should keep saying that Criminal use demands that the act must have had an effect on the firearm. No where in Criminal use does it say that it must have had an effect, it just says that it must meet some criteria, gives examples of criteria that would work, and then says that coverage of criminal acts in articles must be balanced according to their significance to the firearm. Also, you keep saying that general notability is enough, but it in fact isn't; UNDUE clearly states that the weight given has to be appropriate to its significance to the subject, not to its general notability. And I have said it once, but I'll say it again, the criteria explicitly given in Criminal use are only examples, they aren't hard and fast, "has to meet this criteria before it can be included", they are merely examples that one can use to tell if it really is significant to the subject.--LWF (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So "In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria." and "As per WP:UNDUE, editors "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject"." constitutes the core core of that section, right? Then why not leave it at that? Why the totally overblown examples? They are overly specific and can therefore only be interpreted as excluding material on criminal use that didn't have the effect of "legislation being passed" or of "greatly increased notoriety". No no. It defies policy and it must go. Everyme 16:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if the section was changed between the time this discussion was started and now, but I don't see the problem. Considering it references a section of WP:NPOV, I really don't see how it violates it. What's the benefit of listing all the crimes committed with a particular weapon? How is it not neutral to do so? What viewpoint are we ignoring? The viewpoint of the criminal who chose the particular weapon? How would such content be better than a crufty "in popular culture" section? What would be gained by including in an article something like "The gun was used in an armed robbery of a <random bank> in <random city> on <random date>"? You keep saying its censorship, its an NPOV violation, but you don't say how.
I find it very ironic that after completely misinterpreting the censorship policy (which is supposed to be about censoring things that people might find offensive, which isn't the case here) you have the nerve to make an extremely condescending remark (saying that you don't mean it to be so doesn't change the fact that it obviously is) just becuase someone spelled consensus wrong. (dude, if you wanna be taken seriously isn't supposed to sound condescending? Yeah, right.)
You want an uninvolved admin's opinion? Drop the stick. Mr.Z-man 17:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The guideline was added to shortly after the posting of this RfC, the addition being the reference to UNDUE. Although discussion had not yet started in earnest, the RfC had been started, but no one had commented or discussed anything.--LWF (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man, so you think that my above proposal is worse than the current wording? Everyme 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think your wording is vague, unnecessarily wordy, and an incorrect use of the notability guideline. WP:N is a guideline about article subjects not content within an article. Based on the response on my talk page, this seems to be a (over)reactionary response to one dispute, in which several editors seem to agree that this was not the correct guideline to cite. Mr.Z-man 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks Mr.Z-man; I'd been getting at basically that- Everyme may have a valid point, but it's impossible for me to divine no matter how much I look at the relevant guidelines. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

SN machine gun

Did this weapon exist? Mieciu K (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Knowing Jetwave Dave, he probably saw it in a book, scanned it and posted it to "" or some other site then made up stuff about it. I'd disregard and leave it as an orphan or tag it for deletion as being non-notable. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Major caliber?

Looking at this, I see the .38-45 Clerke is listed. Anybody think moving .45/38 Auto Pistol to .38-45 Clerke makes sense? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 00:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer .38-45 Auto or .38-45 Clerke. The current name is improper, I believe. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I find .38-45 more rational, but Barnes used .45/38... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I've got the 10th edition handy, don't have any older ones. I think that .38-45 (with redirects for the .38-45 Auto, .38-45 Clerke, and .45/38) would do just fine. Also need a wildcat redirect on the .45 Auto page that sends you to the .45 GAP, .45 Super, .400 Corbon, and .38-45 pages as the .45 Auto was their parent cartridge. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm using the 1972 ed (what's left of it... :D It's in3 pieces.). No prob with that solution. Absent objection, I'll move it later today, & tag .45ACP. On another, related, issue, any feeling about .38-45 v .38-.45 or .38/45 & .38/.45? Barnes uses .45-38, but I prefer .38/.45, just as a personal preference. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:20 & 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The .250-3000 Savage and .38-40 Winchester follow the general pattern I'm used to. Of course, one is an indication of velocity and the other of the, um, well, I'm not sure what .38-40 stands for... do you know? I'd still go with .38-45 in this case. In orther words, the decimal 38 indicates bore diameter (in this case based off of the .38 Caliber that is actually closer to .36" rather than the .38 of the .38-40 indicating what is actually .40" but based on the .44-40 Winchester that is closer to .43" but uses 40 grains (or is that .40 grains?) of black powder. Did I mention that the .38-40 doesn't use 40 grains of black powder? Is it 38 grains of black power? In which case, shouldn't it be the .40-38 or even the 38-.40? So, as I've come to understand it, the .38 caliber was meant to be the diameter of the ball, but you'd fire it through a bore that was .357" or thereabouts. That means a .38 is truly a .38 when firing a round ball... But I digress) and the -45 (without the decimal) indicates that the parent cartridge is the 45. There are no hard and fast rules on this one, but I would argue for the .38-45 version myself. Clear as mud? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we've got different ishs there. .44-40 has a powder charge 2d, .30-'06 (commonly .30-06) is a year, 56-56 Spencer I haven't any (evidently there's a convention I've never heard of, & it's not a .56 round), the .41 Long Colt is actually .386 (but the BP round was .410...), the 40 in .38-40 could have been an original powder charge (not often used in FLs) because the 19hC designations were nothing like regular (including cases of the exact same round & loading wearing at least 2 completely unrelated names, FWI read...). (Does this give you a headache, too? ;D) I lean to .38/.45 because it's a .38 on the .45 case, & because I think it's esthetically a tick more attractive, but I'm not fanatic either way. It occurs to me what Bo Clerke originally used would be best, so I'm going to see if I can track down the ish of G&A it's in. Ah, another wait.... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Firearms

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are only a few days left to identify versions of firearms articles to be included in the Wikipedia 0.7 CD and download. By specifying a particular version for each of the articles that has been selected, we can make sure that the articles are free of vandalism, and do not contain unhelpful edits of the type that end up being reverted online. I've done this for a few articles, but perhaps members of this WikiProject will want to make sure that all the articles selected for Wikipedia 0.7 have versions specified. This is happening at the page called User:SelectionBot/0.7/F-2#Firearms. Mudwater (Talk) 00:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Today's the last day, so I've gone ahead and specified versions for all 21 articles in the Firearms section. (Not every article is actually about firearms, but that's a different story.) I think we're good to go, but if anyone wants to specify any different versions, I'd say go for it. Again, this is at User:SelectionBot/0.7/F-2#Firearms. Mudwater (Talk) 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
No Webley Revolver]? That's a Featured Article, you know. I don't see Lee-Enfield there either. Very disappointing. Could you fix that please?Commander Zulu (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I suggested that ballistic missile be removed from the list of articles selected from our project since it was a mistag, but it's still there. I suggested Webley revolver or M4 Carbine to replace it, because Webley is actually a featured article, and the M4's article is the third most popular in the project, but it appears no one noticed my comment, since ballistic missile is still there. By the way, Commander Zulu, I think the process for selecting articles for 0.7 was based on a combination of popularity in page views, and quality rating, which is probably why Lee-Enfield and Webley didn't make it.--LWF (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough; I just would have thought someone might have said "Most of these articles are B-Class... we should probably get a couple of FA articles in here to show the best of what Wiki has to offer". I'm too busy with work to get stressed out over it, but I am disappointed in the choice of articles. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on SelectionBot's post at the beginning of this section, it looks like there are three different processes for Wikipedia 0.7 -- identifying specific versions of selected articles at User:SelectionBot/0.7/F-2#Firearms, nominating additional articles for selection by following the procedures at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations, and suggesting articles to be removed from the list at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. I was just working on the first of those three things. In my opinion, adding Webley Revolver, M4 Carbine, and Lee-Enfield, and removing Ballistic missile, are all really good ideas. I'm not sure if there's enough time left to get that done though. Mudwater (Talk) 03:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just checked, and Webley Revolver was nominated two weeks ago. I didn't know the exact procedure, but someone noticed my comment when suggesting the removal of Ballistic missile, and they nominated it for me. Also, M4 Carbine was selected from Military History. Finally, I agree that Lee-Enfield should be included, but it's probably too late for that, and I suspect that it wasn't selected primarily because it's unassessed.--LWF (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's good. Thanks. Mudwater (Talk) 04:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Webley Revolver has been added to the Wiki 0.7 release list. Hurrah and thanks to everyone for helping with this! Commander Zulu (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I've already thanked Walkerma, the user that nominated it after I suggested it. Now if we can just get some of the other articles that have been selected to FA... but that will have to wait just a little bit; more on that soon.--LWF (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


There are a couple of sections of the Glock article that might belong in the Glock pistol article. A merge discussion is open on Talk:Glock and any input is appreciated. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Input required on edits to FN P90

Resolved: draft copy has been merged with the main article with the approval of close maintainer

Hey folks,

I've been asked to come here for more input (or at least some pointers on where I'm going wrong) on my attempts to expand the FN P90 article so that its lede provides more than just a basic introduction to the article, per the guidelines at WP:LEDE. The last version of the article with the new layout is here, and the rationale I gave on the talk page is as follows:

  1. As the section currently headed "development" includes only one line on design other than on ammunition, it has been repurposed as "Ammunition" and moved below the more general details in the following section.
  2. As the current lede is too short, and does not adequately summarise the article, I have expanded it to provide a more complete overview.
  3. Various tweaks, including the removal of curly quotes, and the consistent use of {{convert}} for lengths et cetera instead of a variety of different conversion templates.

It's been suggested that there is a "standard layout" for firearms articles which this contradicts - however I can't seem to see where this is given, and it certainly wouldn't seem to contradict the overall MoS guidelines on things like lede content and punctuation. Any pointers would be great. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And the counter-argument is that it is unnecessary, Chris's edits also removed significant amounts of information on the development of the ammunition which is tied directly to the history of the P90 and several edits to the infobox resulted in non-standard and outdated layouts and templates being used. Furthermore, the additions would be in conflict with WP:GUNS-specific informal standards applied in most remaining firearm articles and would require hundreds of man-hours to adjust to this single user's demands. Koalorka (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't remove any material at all - it was relocated to the next section down, but I didn't remove anything to my knowledge. The edits to the infobox we minimal - the only changes of note were to remove links which said "see article" and the use of the {{convert}} template in place of the {{kg to lb}} one. If there are "informal standards" then I'd appreciate if someone took the time to write them down. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Chris, the edits you made to the infobox removing the subsection Wikilinks was unnecessary, and unexplained. They are actually quite useful; getting taken directly to the appropriate area of the article is much more informative than just the word 'multiple'. Hayden120 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with reinserting them. I can see the argument there. Any input on the rest? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Some of the edits defy the de facto standardisation we are trying to apply to all firearm related articles. The ammunition section may be a good idea, but I'd rather not have the development section removed -- many other articles have one; removing it diverges from any form of standard layout. Perhaps the development section could be expanded (which may take some time), and then an ammunition section could be added. Hayden120 (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds good. Does it need to be the first section after the introduction? I'll work on this in a sandboxed page at User:Thumperward/FN P90 - please continue to drop suggestions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
So far all of the other articles that have this format, have the development section first. It gives some background on the history of the firearm before jumping into more specific design detail. Hayden120 (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I've reorganised the sections per suggestions, and added another paragraph on development to round out that section. Please check it out and let me know what you think. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I join??

I'm just curious if I can join. I added on the to-do to create the CZ 2075 RAMI which I own an example of. I also have many other pistols, revolvers, and rifles I can contribute pictures and specifications on (I have all the manuals). I'm a CCW holder in the state of Missouri, and I'm a firearms enthusiast. However, I'm not extremely familiar with how to become a member of a wikiproject so forgive me if this is the wrong venue to ask, and please let me know how to do it correctly on my talk page.

I'll try my hand at creating my first firearm article tonight! DigitalNinja 22:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Creating a new sub-category of category:shotguns for automatic shotguns

Take a look at the "See also" section of Daewoo USAS-12. Like many of its kind, this article links to a variety of other shotguns capable of fully-automatic fire. I'm thinking about creating a new sub-category of category:shotguns for automatic shotguns, such as category:selective-fire shotguns, which would allow readers easy access to this select group without having to manually add it to the endnotes of every relevant article. Any thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That'd be quite a whimsical category considering the scarcity of these shotguns. Of those listed, how many are truly production shotguns? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Not many, but aren't they a distinctly different form of weapon? As I say, currently every article on a potential member of this cat seems to link to every other example in the endnotes; if it's assumed that readers will be interested in other examples of the technology, then a better way or grouping them would be good. A navbox seems like overkill, but a small category might be appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Though a small segment of the firearm population, I would support this. Koalorka (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. We have Category:Machine pistols, and (even more whimsical) Category:Underwater firearms, so why not this? Cerebellum (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I've now  Done this. Please re-cat any I've missed. Thanks folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Project banner on redirects?

Lately, I've been doing some assessing, and I've noted that lot of redirect pages have project banners. I've been removing these, figuring they're probably left over from when the page was actually an article. Is this correct? Thanks! --Cerebellum (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep it up. There's no need to have tagged redirects.--LWF (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Input on a new article

I've been working on this article and I think I'm almost happy enough to move it to the mainspace. Can someone check it out and give me some pointers on what else to add/remove/change? I hope it's ok, I'm not very good at this. Thanks DigitalNinja 01:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's been moved out to mainspace, see CZ 2075 RAMI. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Great job on the article DigitalNinja! Wikidenizen (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


I'm casting about for a handgun-related article for expansion or rewrite, actually an entirely new article would be even better. None of those on the 'requests' page inspires. I've considered doing the Colt Woodsman, other than that are there any project-member specific suggestions or requests? Wikidenizen (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well most of the AMT pistol articles need merged, rewritten and expanded. Also, Ruger SR9 needs updated. Simple stuff that I've been meaning to do for a while but just don't have the time. — DanMP5 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
How about some of the early cap & ball revolvers, like the Beaumont-Adams Revolver? Commander Zulu (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

.455 Enfield Mk 3?

Doing this, I compromised between the text & the info table, relying on the table for the case dims & the article proper for the caliber. I have a sense, tho, there was information dropped out in the writing of Barnes' article explaining the seeming contradiction, so if it needs correction.... Also, given there were Mks 1 & 2, with little info, does it make more sense to start with .476 Enfield & mention the Mks, with new pages as info comes available? If anybody can resolve the issue on cal, feel free to fix & move to mainspace (but will you update my "open vanity" list for it? ;D). Or you can ask me. ;D Thanx. Also, FYI, this is cross-posted here. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Belated notice... Done. Thanks to Not George Takei ;D for timely & invaluable assistance. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


This looks like a literatim copy of this. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

SDK carbine

I just came across this article this morning and at first thought someone was pulling my leg; a quick Google search does seem to confirm that this rifle existed but that's about it. There was a claim in the article that the SDK influenced the British DeLisle Commando Carbine, which I removed- I've read extensively on the DeLisle and until this morning I'd never heard of the SDK carbine, which suggests that it didn't influence anything. The SDK article itself isn't well written ("Hitler Assassination Rifle"???) so it might be worth investing some time and research into cleaning it up, if anyone's interested. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious in the extreme. I'd nominate it for deletion for lack of reliable sources.--LWF (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

3-dot sight article

I came across this article and am in the process of expanding it. I was wondering what the consensus might be toward renaming this article as "three-dot sight". From what I've seen alpha-spelling the numeral out comes closer to Wiki naming standards, and I believe most people in the firearms industry express it that way as well. Wikidenizen (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be called a notch sight. Koalorka (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That's a notch sight, not a three dot. A three dot (at least to me) is a variation of a notch sight that has three illuminated dots visible to the user, one in each of the three blades, usually these days tritium filled. advertising link: [[2]] Sometimes the dots are not round, and "best colors" is (or was) disputed. htom (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article on iron sights, in this section: Iron sight#Contrast enhancements. scot (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge it. Koalorka (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Scot's point is well taken, but there isn't really anything to merge - there is already more material in the iron sights section. A request for deletion would probably be more appropriate, then I could add my additional material to the iron sights contrast enhancement section. Wikidenizen (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not add your material to the iron sights article, and then redirect both 3-dot sight and three dot sight to the appropriate section there? htom (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

False breeching

A question has come up re how to disambiguate False breeching. See Talk:Firearm#False breeching. --Una Smith (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Crossbows in "Shooting Sports" article?

I am looking for comments on the edits on the Shooting sports article regarding crossbows. Kilmer-san (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch G77

Hi, just to let you know I've proposed this article for deletion. I can't find any online sources other than Wikipedia mirrors, but was hoping someone with a little more knowledge of firearms might be able to turn something up. the wub "?!" 15:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, and I'm not finding any references to it anywhere else either. Go ahead and delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, fiction. Koalorka (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Gun politics in Australia

A new poster has been making a number of disputable inserts into the article about the use of firearms in self-defence in Australia. I and one or two other posters have tried to politely explain that while it's possible to use a firearm for self-defence in Australia, the legal ramifications of doing so are severe enough for the practice to be Not Recommended except in dire circumstances. Mediation has been suggested, but the new poster wants a "European" because of possible bias concerns from Americans or Australians. At any rate, if anyone can provide some neutral or impartial input without biting the newcomers, it would be greatly appreciated. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The new editor now named Jack v1 has put up his request at . If you are intersted, join us at Talk:Gun_politics_in_Australia ChrisPer (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hand loading data does not belong here

I think there needs to be a discussion about hand loads on Wikipedia. Advertising hand loading information on Wikipedia is, in my opinion, just not a good idea. For example in the article about the .14-222 loading information is given. The first problem is that the information is from a copyrighted source. The second problem is that the round is, as we all know, a wildcat round which means that each rifle is chambered by a gunsmith. Different rifles will have somewhat different properties and working up a load for an individual rifle should be done with caution, being careful to check for signs of excessive pressure. I believe that Wikipedia is exposing itself to legal liability by publishing loading information; copyrighted or not. It would be one thing to carefully quote published data providing citations if this did not violate copyright. But anyone can enter or change data without regard to accuracy. That is, in my opinion, really dangerous. Its OK I think to publish bullet weight, velocity energy and pressure of factory loads or even other well documented loads. At a minimum I think that any loading information must be documented with a citation of a well know and reliable source. Original research just can't be allowed especially in this regard. To resolve this issue I believe that this project needs to have a policy in this regard and police articles that fall within the projects purview. --DRoll (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, it is providing powder type and powder weight that I think is not a good idea. --DRoll (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with you 100%. Reoading data violates a few Wikipedia rules, not the least of which is that Wikipedia is not a manual. Reloading data is also a touchy subject even within the firearms community. There are those who live fast and loose with rules regarding firearms and in reloading, you have to be 100% every time. Even a well done manual can have mistakes. If there is one thing that wikipedia ammunition articles is NOT it is well done. I'd suggest a generalized rule that reloading data not be given, however this is not to exclude discussions about reloading or discussion about types of powders, case capacity, etc. when it deals directly with the history of and/or development of the cartridge. A good example would be the .45/70 that enjoyed a resurgence of popularity due to firearms like the Marlin 1985 and Ruger No. 1 where loads significantly higher in pressure were attractive. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that providing powder types and weights is probably in violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. I think an approach similar to what's taken in articles about food would be appropriate- what I've seen is a general idea of ingredients and methods of preparation without laying out a start-to-finish recipe. However, since there is controversy within the firearms community about reloading data, it's technically necessary to address it (provided there's the ability to source statements). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Explicit hand loading details (loads and rounds) should not be given, but principles, generalities, and warnings are appropriate, in my opinion. htom (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your template


Template:WPGUNS is currently incompatible with the WikiProject banner shell. This should be fixed immediatly.--Pattont/c 20:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be working fine, see Talk:AK-47 and Talk:M16 rifle. — DanMP5 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh wait it's actualyl fine it's just that I saw two pages in a row where someone forgot to nest the template wasn't nested and assumed it was broken.--Pattont/c 17:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Revolvers and Category:Semi-automatic pistols brand filing

Okay, I got a bit sidetracked from what I was trying to state in the above section. To simplify: I suggest that all major brand (Ruger, Beretta, S&W, etc) firearms currently in the Revo and Semi categories be put in brand subcats within the parent category, so as not to clutter up the main page of the parent cat with 23 Ruger variants. I'll agree with Koalorka that filing semis/revos solely by nationality is too obscure, and that nationality may be a useful additional way to file handguns, but as an additional rather than exclusive category. So the difference would be that we can file major brands as brands, so the parent category will list only smaller brands/models separately, making them easier to find rather than burying them in with 28 Colt products. Is that a fair compromise which both cleans up the cat, and doesn't make obscure handguns hard to find? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a fair compromise.--Pattont/c 22:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me; lists of guns tend to extremely long, redunant, and red-link filled, so anything that makes them easier to navigate has got to be worthwhile. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to Category:Semi-automatic pistols and filing each brand that has more than, say, five models. Where applicable, I'm also filing the pistols in that brand by country. Going with the consensus, by-country won't be an exclusive category (i.e. we won't file the one single Bolivian pistol under Category:Bolivian semi-automatic pistols and nowhere else. So I'll be putting the following categories on the current Steyr pistols: Category:Steyr semi-automatic pistols Category:Austrian semi-automatic pistols. If other folks want to chip in and do Taurus, Colt, etc. that'd be great. A couple of us together could do it all in 20min. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Dangit, do we want to standardise on "X pistols" or "X semi-automatic pistols"? Most of those brands/countries don't make non-automatic pistols (derringers, howdahs, etc), but spelling it all the way out makes it a little more precise since they're all subcats of Category:Semi-automatic pistols. What say? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Winchester rifle

The project says this needed copyediting, so I copyedited down to the (lengthy) list of specific models. However, I feel that list does not belong in the article, since the entire purpose of the article (it appears) is to explain how "Winchester rifle" became synonymous with "lever-action". All the following bits, especially for non-lever rifles, seem misplaced. Honestly, the whole article is a bit iffy since we already have articles for Winchester Repeating Arms Company and whatnot. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article needs to stay- Winchester Repeating Arms Company is the company that made the guns, Winchester Rifle is for the guns they produced. I agree that anything not from Winchester's heyday (ie, 1866-1901) doesn't really belong in the article; after that point there was a lot more competition and Winchester aren't really noted for their single-shot .22 rifles etc, except by collectors. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Winchester's 'heyday' for lever actions includes the 20thCent. Western movies kept their brand high, American hunters loved the Model 94, and the creation of Western Action competition has taken the whole thing to another level. Involvement in military production and classics like the Model 70 mean their 'notability' is in a number of aspects. ChrisPer (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The term "Winchester Rifle" is a colloquialism, not an actual rifle. As stated earlier, it is a term that ignorant people used to describe, most often, the Winchester 94, however as Winchester made tens of millions of rifles of dozens of different models, it's a useless and somewhat pandering article that only perpetuates the ignorance that the term came from. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd call it "Ignorant"- calling any lever-action rifle a "Winchester rifle" might qualify, but the Model 73 and Model 94 lever-actions are Winchester rifles. If someone says "Winchester rifle" to me, the Model 1894 is the first thing that springs to mind. And whilst Winchester's Heyday does include the 20th century, I was thinking from a design point of view, not actual production years- so a modern repro of the Model 1873 or the Model 1887 is still basically a 19th century design, despite being manufactured in the 21st century. What would you like to see the article become? Commander Zulu (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
A redirect to the Winchester Repeating Arms article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, the article is all kind of jacked up. The infobox is just copied right out of 1873. I'm about to just go propose a deletion and redirect to WRAC. Anyone object? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I do, and very strongly. They're two different concepts. Winchester Repeating Arms Company are the people that make the guns, Winchester Rifle(s) are the lever-action guns the company made. I mean, we have both Mauser and Karabiner 98k, and Webley & Scott and Webley Revolver; there's no reason (IMHO) why we can't have Winchester Repeating Arms Company and Winchester Rifle. Commander Zulu (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That actually gets right back to the point, there is indeed an article Karabiner 98K, but Mauser rifle just redirects to Mauser. There certainly should be articles about all the individual Winchester rifles which are notable, but I don't see a need for the concept "Winchester rifle" in general to exist separately of both the WRAC article and, for example, the Winchester 1894 and Winchester 70 articles. And even setting all that aside, the current article is poorly written and organized, with all the material pretty well covered under the individual model articles and the WRAC article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I can see your point; my main concern is that there's a couple of famous "Winchester Rifles" and people searching for it aren't necessarily interested in the company itself, so I don't know if a redirect is really appropriate.Commander Zulu (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Generally, those looking for "Winchester Rifle" really have no clue what type of rifle they're looking up in the first place. Further, if you redirect it to, say, the Winchester 1894 and somebody's looking for the Model 70, M1895, Winchester Carbine, Winchester Garand, or whathaveyou. I don't know, is there a list of Winchester products on the WRAC Page. Perhaps hae Winchester Rifle redirect to a list of rifles on that page. Heck, the M1892 and M1886 were also referenced as "Winchester Rifle's". --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's getting even sillier, there's also List_of_Winchester_models. So there are pretty much 3 articles when 1 would do. We don't seem to have any kind of consensus yet, but can we agree that three is excessive? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I still think that there's space for articles on WRAC and "Winchester Rifle", but a third List of Winchester Rifles is getting a bit silly. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge Riot gun/Riot shotgun?

This had been discussed in the past, but I think it worth getting back to this issue. As it stands, Riot gun is entirely about non-lethal 12ga and 37mm/40mm firearms. I think this use of the term is inconsistent with a century of usage, and that the term "riot gun" is more commonly synonymous with "riot shotgun." I'd vote that Riot gun and Riot shotgun be merged under one title or another and discuss 18"ish shotguns used with buckshot for defense/fighting, and the info on non-lethal 12ga/37mm/40mm be given a more specific title in a new article, maybe with a disambig in there somewhere. I almost want to say Gas gun, but that wouldn't cover crowd-control guns shooting rubber buckshot and foam batons along with CS gas. Ideas? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would endorse moving the content now at Riot shotgun to Riot gun - in my experience, that's the common usage in actual practice. I'm afraid I don't have a good suggestion for where to move the current contents of Riot gun - I want to say something like Crowd control weapon, but I'm leery of any title I suggest being original research. Gavia immer (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support- I've only ever heard the term "Riot Gun" in relation to police-issue (or style) pump-action shotguns.Commander Zulu (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Did some thinking, and I'd like to see better coverage since I own a police surplus 37mm launcher (FedLabs 1.5", way cool). Did some googling, and as best as I can tell the widest-used modern term that fits our subject is "less-lethal launcher". Scads of Google hits from industry and LEO sources and the like, so looks pretty solid. Covers all 12ga/37mm/40mm, so good there. So we could file all the non-lethal big-bore firearms under Less-lethal launcher, move all the buckshot shotgun stuff to Riot gun or Riot shotgun (and make the unused term a redirect), and keep any military 40mm HE separate where it is now. One alternate tweak is to make Riot gun a disambig that can lead to either Riot shotgun or Less-lethal launcher. I didn't think that "Riot gun" referred to non-lethal stuff much, but I'm getting some Brit g-hits where they reference "37mm riot guns" in Northern Ireland, and similar. I guess a disambig at Riot gun that gives you the option of choosing Less-lethal launcher or Riot shotgun might be the most friendly way to chop these up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with "Riot gun" being a disambig page directing to "Riot Shotgun" as well as Less-lethal launcher, bean-bag rounds, net guns, paint-ball guns, tear-gas grenade launchers, rubber bullets, rubber buckshot, and whatever else somebody might be looking for in a riot gun. Riot shotgun should be its own page as there is a long and unique history associated with this type of firearm dating back perhaps 100 years. BTW, a Riot shotgun ENDS the riot, it does not control it. If there is a mob rioting and you shoot a rubber ball at John, the others MIGHT run. You shoot 15 .33 caliber lead pellets into John, the others are sure to run. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tried moving it, but some Brit who's been editing that article since 2006 jumped in an hour later and moved it back, insisting that "riot gun" is a more precise term and that "launcher can refer to Cape Canaveral". Given that the article has been up that long and is still that hinky, there's probably a lot of personality/politics going on there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to move M1 Garand rifle to M1 Garand

Resolved: article moved--Pattont/c 19:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a proposal here to move M1 Garand rifle to M1 Garand. All comments should go there.--Pattont/c 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

BERSA or Bersa (Think GLOCK vs. Glock)

Resolved: 3ea articles moved, "BERSA" changed to "Bersa" in all articles --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that BERSA is being spelled out in all caps on the manufacturer's page and all of the various subpages for firearm models. I'd like to discuss changing the name to "Bersa" as is the convention under WP:ALLCAPS and also [the consensus built] for using Glock in place of GLOCK. Starting the timer now. If no significant opposition within one week, I'll move the pages. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO you should be bold and move it now. Only if someone objects should we move it back.--Pattont/c 22:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Bah. There might be a good reason not to move it. AFAIK, this isn't an acronym. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean "not an acronym" as in "it's pronounced B.E.R.S.A"? 08:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, reading the article more carefully now, I can see this in the founding members, "Benso Bonadimani, Ercole Montini and Savino Caselli". Didn't see that the first time through. Still hasn't changed my mind, though, as it's certainly not going to be "BeRsA". --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse move ALLCAPS are discouraged per the MOS. It even goes as far as to say that terms usually capitalised should not be capitalised here.--Pattont/c 22:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree - Good call. I wouldn't imagine any opposition; this is followed pretty universally on the encyclopedia now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Per WP:ALLCAPS and the Glock vs. GLOCK debate. Also, I can't imagine any opposition either, I would go ahead and move it after 3 days instead of a week. — DanMP5 04:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree – An even more specific guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#General rules, where it says, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'. avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS; instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss." Mudwater (Talk) 13:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)