Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Uncluttering Category:Firearms

It appears that Category:Firearms has gotten awfully crowded and not very intuitive. Anyone else support moving the cats under some umbrella cats, such as Category:Firearms by type, etc.? There's got to be some better way to organise them. Can we put all the actual guns into a huge subcat, and gun issues/people/history into something(s) else? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Trying new Category:Firearms by brand

This seemed a good way to link trees for Category:Firearms and Category:Brands by product type. I got the idea when I saw the article for the Mauser revolver and realised there was no immediate/exclusive connection to other Mauser products. Does this seem like a workable branch to add to the Firearms tree? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to have issues with sub-types of actions? For example, a Martini-Henry versus a Martini-Enfield. Incidentally, the Webley-Fosbery_Automatic_Revolver might be an interesting case as well. Kartano (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In a case like that, I'd say add the article to all applicable categories. If we can use that as a workaround, I think this is a good idea. Cerebellum (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You're also going to have issues with military designs manufactured by several different companies- for example, I can think of at least five different manufacturers ("Brands") that have made Short Magazine Lee-Enfield rifles. Similarly, M1911A1 pistols (originally a Colt design) have been and are manufactured by almost every handgun manufacturer on the planet. You get the idea. How would the categorisation work? Commander Zulu (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Original producer? Primary producer? Offhand, I don't see any problem filing the 1911 under Colt but not under Remington (despite the Remington-Rand version of WWII). MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) D'oh! I already created Category:Firearms by manufacturer back in May 2009. Moving all contents to that cat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Added requests for translation from German and Italian

I perused the German and Italian wikipages, and found a good dozen articles with no parallel in English. I've added those pages to the Requests section, linked to their it.wiki and de.wiki versions (by adding a colon after the [[:), like so: it:Fucile Vetterli-Vitali, de:Gallager Carbine. Do folks find this a workable method to add requests? I realise that translating directly might not be the best method, as the it. and de. articles might not be up to snuff. However, they at least identify possible topics for article creation, and some have quite a few footnotes, links, photos, etc. that we can mine. I dunno, should we create a "Translate" section in the To-Do? Or just leave them as requests? Any project (translation, MilHist?) that we should mention these to? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Rifling

FYI, User:KVDP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has made two requested page moves at WP:RM that conflict with each other

• Rifling → Rifled barrel - see Talk:Rifling
• Rifled musket → Rifled barrel - see Talk:Rifled musket

Rifled barrel is a redirect that targets Rifling

76.66.197.17 (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New cat Category:Ammunition designers

I created Category:Ammunition designers for J. D. Jones and Lee Jurras. Any existing articles that need to slide into that cat? MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This cat really needs a bio of Neville S. Bertie-Clay, inventor of "dum-dum" bullets at the Calcutta Arsenal in India. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

New Article Assessment Bot

Hello everyone, I just read at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-12-28/News and notes about a new bot, User:WPArkansas Bot, that can scan a stub category relevant to a wikiproject (for us, Category:Firearms stubs and its subcategories and make sure that each article is added to the project and assessed as a stub. Then it scans the unassessed articles and automatically assesses them based on ratings given by other projects, if other projects have rated the article. I think it would be a good idea to request that this bot be run on WikiProject Firearms articles; what do you guys think? Cerebellum (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any objections, so I've gone ahead and made the request. Cerebellum (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of brass

Some anon(s), with apparent good intentions, keep adding "brass" here, ref forming the cases. Given plastic cases aren't reformable (AFAIK), I've changed it back a few times. It's beginning to get old, & I'm also getting a bit concerned over 3RR. Is there a more permanent fix? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in his defense...the reference (COTW)specifically states:"The .70-150 is based on the brass 12-gauge shotshell shortened and necked slightly". Plastic cases can be reformed, but not necked down, also this was the era of the paper shotshell as well, I don't believe plastic was in use in 1888. I don't see how adding the word "brass" hurts anything, if anything it might add some clarity.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'm working on a presumption necking down a case implies brass; I hadn't considered paper. That said, I'm going back in & adding "not paper or plastic". (Welcome to McDonald's, can I take your order? ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Montenegrin revolver"?

I've read before that at some point the king on Montenegro ordered that all males carry handguns, apparently the M1870 Gasser revolver. Is this something worth adding to that article, or making its own article, or which?

Interesting, I was just offered one of these today (chambered in .44-40) for $400.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

6.5 mm Grendel external links section

Hi all, I'm just posting here so that the wider community of Firearms experts/enthusiasts can provide some feedback about Talk:6.5 mm Grendel#External links section. That article seems to have a lot of external links, could I get some folks to review them or make some comments on the talk page? Thanks! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Improving 20-gauge shotgun

The article 20-gauge shotgun is awfully rough, and per stats.grok.se gets about 4,000 hits a month. Does it need a better title, link to more categories or pages? It certainly needs some references, and even the first sentence is awfully weak, given that it's basically the 2d most popular shotgun chambering in the US (and worldwide?). Just drawing it to the group's attention, may go weigh in myself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Yes to all. The article got off to a weak start right at beginning, and editors have been trying to bandage it, ever since. It really needs a complete rewrite. It's offhand information for novices that doesn't cover the topic. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

One curious side point. The 20-gauge and .410-bore both have their own articles, while 12 and 10 gauge simply redirect to the main Gauge article. Any thoughts on adding an article related to the 12 and/or 10-Gauge (history, development, loads, etc.)? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture and criminal use consensus tags

I regularly remove selected items of popular culture from articles I encounter. Exceptions are situations where, for example, a book is written about the article topic that accurately and significantly expands understanding of the topic. Popular culture that *inaccurately* represents the topic seems to have the potential to confuse, rather than to clarify. Unless it can be demonstrated, for example that a video game version of a gun adds knowledge to the article that is otherwise not available, it should not be included. (Offhand, I can't think of many video games that expanded my understanding of a gun, except Call of Duty.)

Very often popular culture sections become an indiscriminate list of any brief mention of a topic in a song, TV episode or comic book. Wikipedia can't be a cross reference to every use of word in the media.

Similar arguments apply to criminal use. If there's something highly significant about the way a gun was used criminally — that no other gun could have done, for example — then that's worth noting. (One thing that comes to mind is plastic guns getting past metal detectors.) Otherwise, where any of a dozen guns could have accomplished a similar result (or done it better!) mentioning specific criminal doesn't expand the topic understanding. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not limited to firearms. Seems every mention in a song or in "The Simpsons" or something warrants inclusion, according to some people. I've been strongly tempted to delete it all, but don't know if there's cross-project consensus on what is/isn't worth keeping. I'd agree with PNT, delete unless it's pivotal or adds to understanding. I'd also suggest a broader posting across projects (which seems to risk WP:canvassing, I'm afraid...) to see if there's a way to standardize the response. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. Something that is iconic, like Dirty Harry's Mdl. 29 would be an exception. If you can't think of the movie/show without thinking of the particular gun, it probably isn't unreasonable to include it. But most of the rest is just cruft. I've been dealing with this recently in the aviation project. People who want to list every South Park episode, Transformer or video game appearence of an aircraft. Most of it can be removed because there is little in the way of reliable sources for that kind of fluff. Same with criminal use.....if it is absolutely linked, like when you think of Chicago gangsters in the 20's, you think of the Thompson. But just because some jerkoff rapper uses a Glock to take a shot at some other jerkoff rapper, then "sings" about it, it shouldn't fly for either pop culture or criminal use. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both but believe the criteria we have in place now regarding notability is fine. Pop culture and criminal use references beyond said criteria should indeed be removed post-haste. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Olympic Skeet Medal List

There is something wrong - or rather difficult to grasp -- in table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_skeet#World_Championships.2C_total_medals) regarding East-, West- and "United" Germany. "United" Germany is listed as if a new state got born 20 years ago. That's at least not as Germans feel. It believe it would be more accurate to include the medals of West- and East-Germany when counting the the medals for "Germany". That would make the number of gold medals for Germany 10 (rank 5). Is there an "official" way of how rankings of "united" states are counted? Ultraxs (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gun politics article structure

I'd like to propose that a unified structure for the articles in Category:Gun politics by country be set. This would allow an easy comparison between the gun politics articles. Taboracek (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

ArmaLite page deleted.

Just letting everyone know that the page ArmaLite was deleted earlier today under G12. I have posted a message to the admin who deleted the page asking why he made such a decision and will try to get a copy of the page so that WikiProject:Firearms can rescue it.

RWJP (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

pop culture consensus

there wasn't a section on this, so here it is. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is a section.....Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Pop culture

I meant for the consensus discussion. apparently it needs consensus, and says to go to the section on the talk page, there was none, so I thought I would create one. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You can see discussions about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 6#Pop Culture: Did I miss a discussion somewhere? and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 6#Guns in popular culture. Since that's an archived talk page, any further discussion should be here, not there. It seems that within this WikiProject there's a general agreement to minimize pop culture information in firearms articles, but in my opinion it would be fine if there were one or more separate articles, or lists, devoted to guns in popular culture. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see more pop-culture acknowledgement as well; there are some guns articles (like Webley revolver and Winchester M1887) than need to be constantly watched as people are always adding "Jack Harkness uses a Webley in Torchwood" or "Arnold Schwarzenegger used an M1887 in Terminator 2 and the gun appears in Call of Duty 4" type things to the articles, and I honestly believe it would be best for the WP:Firearms project to establish an "approved list" of pop-culture references that, although not meeting the strict letter of the existing criteria, can be added to certain articles anyway just out of a realistic acceptance that people expect that information to be there anyway and will add it in themselves if it isn't. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Does no-one else have an opinion on this? Seriously, I don't think it would be that hard to use this discussion to say we're about to establish a consensus to include pop culture stuff, if someone was that way inclined... Commander Zulu (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose pop culture entries unless they are seminal appearences like Dirty Harry's Mdl 29. Most of these references are either unsourced or use dubious sources. Allowing the entries, without showing a significant influence, leads to all the gamer cruft about some gun appearing in some game etc. Unless it can be reliably sourced and shown to be actually significant, it shouldn't be in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Niteshift36; apart from a very small number instances where the pop culture property is both well-known and immediately identified with the specific gun (a category that basically consists of Dirty Harry and maybe The Rifleman), such "popular culture" references don't really belong. Any lower standard would just result in a big lump of useless trivia in firearms articles, which aren't intended as surveys of popular culture to begin with. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• James Bond and the PPK would be one of those acceptable ones. Tough to look at the PPK and not think of Bond. But even something like the Beretta 92 and the Die Hard series would be a stretch to my way of thinking. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of it is cruft. I'd only add Bolan's Big Thunder & Sable's Chinese M712. Otherwise, delete with extreme prejudice. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

users

every firearm article lists the users, this varies from just listing the nations currently using them to the detailed tables listing various small police forces and the variants they use. I think there should be a uniform format, or at least some guide lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree; a table-based format using a standard template would be a good idea. Right now, though, such sections are rarely even referenced properly. They need to mature a bit before standardising them can really be discussed IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Gemtech

I am thinking of adding a short article on Gemtech, the manufacturer of suppressors. I see other smaller weapons manufacturers covered, but no examples of those that specialize in making cans. Any comments before I commence research and building? Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I did create the page SIONICS, so there is at least one other suppressor article out there. There's also just the article Suppressor, but if you do the GemTech article we could probably at least start a category Category:Firearm suppressors or similar. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will see what I can find and, time permitting, start an article. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Gun laws by state article and Brady state scorecard

There's currently a discussion about whether or not it would be appropriate to add the {{2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard}} graphic to the article Gun laws in the United States (by state). Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion, at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion needs more input. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• To explain this a bit more: There are a few editors who want to add a graphic showing the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map to the beginning of the "gun laws by state" article -- like this. In my opinion this would take an important firearms related article and change it from being perfectly neutral to being a POV soapbox for those who favor the strongest possible restrictions on gun ownership. Like Niteshift36 I am really hoping that a lot more people will join in, at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state), where there are now several active talk page sections, including Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help out. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth flag issue

I noticed on a lot of British fireams pages (e.g.,Sten Gun, Enfield Revolver, Webley Revolver, etc.) that the flag for the Commonwealth of Nations seems to be messed up. Any idea on what is causing this? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about the usage of nationalist flags in firearms articles

What does this project feel is appropriate style when a controversial historical national flag is placed in the infobox of a firearm? The manual of style says to avoid inappropriate use of a flag. Over at R4 assault rifle, a special purpose account is currently engaged in an edit war to force the use of the old apartheid flag of South Africa instead of the current one , which has been in use since 1994. The old flag is offensive to the majority of South Africans, and irrelevant given that the weapon is being manufactured today. PS: Other weapons from the same era (e.g. G5 howitzer, Ratel IFV) are using the present-day flag. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That raises a question: use the flag at the time the weapon was adopted, or at the time it remains in service, or what? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the flag used should be the one representing the era in which the firearm saw the majority of its service. So, if a South African gun was designed in 1992 and is still in service today, then the modern flag should be used since most of its service life has been with "modern" SA. But something like a Lee-Enfield rifle (introduced in the 1900s and if there are any still in use in SA it's in a limited capacity in remote areas) should, IMHO, be represented by the "old" flag since that's the era in which it saw the most service, if that makes sense. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're making perfect sense (to me, anyhow...) and I'd agree. A minor question, tho (& one I'd have asked about, frex, the M1911): if the flag changes during its main service, as the U.S. flag did, does the icon get changed? (Use both?) The U.S. flag, AFAIK, won't show up drastically different at icon size; others in this circumstance might. Thoughts? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting one. Fortunately, the various "modern" (post-Civil War) US flags are more or less identical except for the number of stars, so I don't think it's as much of an issue, but there are certainly countries that have had three or four or more flags in the past century... I guess it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis? Commander Zulu (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with the one idea that comes to mind, which is different icons with dates of service (i.e. {1921-64} & {1965-}), & that's because I've never been thrilled with using icons to ID countries to begin with. (It presumes the ability to recognize the country by its flag, which isn't always true. If that wasn't intended, & I'm betting it wasn't, it was an unintended consequence.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a difficult one. The thing is, Canada now is the same country as it was before 1964, whereas modern South Africa is a very different place to Apartheid South Africa. So you could use the "Modern" Canadian flag for any time period in Canada's history and it would convey the same concept, whereas the older SA flag says "This item is from the pre-Reconciliation era". It's a lot more difficult than it looks at first, though, isn't it? :p Commander Zulu (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, the Maple Leaf would readily fit, same as the 50-star U.S. flag, or the Union Flag. (Leave off the nationalism debates that might cause... ;D) And the inability to recognize nations by flag only compounds the problem, with the likelihood of using a wrong-era flag... Can you say "can of worms'? ;p Yeah, simple it ain't. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as the country's name is next to the flag I think that's not really an issue, but the Nationalistic debates are still going to be problematic. Still, my personal feeling is to go with the suggestion I made earlier, and tough luck if the revisionists don't like it... ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I doubt many will make a big issue of it, but the Soviet flag (USSR) and the Russian Federation flag would be a similar situation. Several overlapping weapons there and that is another nation that has undergone a drastic change like SA. And what happens with the former Soviet Republics if we use the "when it was adopted" criteria? Ukraine, for example, was part of the USSR when a lot of their weapons were adopted. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There've been a few thoughts put forward so far, however none has particularly considered the manual of style (this is a WP policy, so will be the overriding consideration here). Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• To clarify, the MOS is a guideline, not a policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yip, thanks for correcting my error. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what has been done with German guns, since Germany has had several flags, and produced and used many guns. Of course in that case, as well as the USSR/Russia, cases, they are different states, with different borders etc. whereas the change of the flag doesn't indicate a new political entity. Therefore, either way works, and I wouldn't change it. Although, one could say the old flag is the flag of the Union of South Africa, and the new one the flag of the Republic of South Africa, although, it didn't change the flag immediately. The question is can a flag be used retroactively for a nation-state?

anyway there are two usage of flags, for place of origin, and users. for place of origin, the usage doesn't really matter. whereas for the users list, for modern weapons the lists only list current users, hence why the R4 article uses both flags. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The infox template says "Place of origin", not "Time and place of origin", and does not specify that a flag should be used in this field, let alone an outdated one. The R4 was in service with the SADF for 12 years, and subsequently with the SANDF for 16 years, so it's had both longer service and manufacture under the current flag than the apartheid one. Everyone else has moved one, it's time that this article did too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but by your own admission, pre-1994 South Africa is a different place to modern South Africa. In the R4's case, the gun was developed by the Union of South Africa for a specific need and its use has continued through with the present day Republic of South Africa. The point I guess I'm trying to make is that it saw a lot of service with pre-94 SA and changing the map icon on a Wikipedia page isn't going to make all the unpleasant things that happened in that time go away. Commander Zulu (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting at all that anything that was done in the name of apartheid with the R4 will magically go away by changing a flag in a WP article. South Africa was a republic throughout the weapon's use, so I'm not sure what your reference to the Union of SA is about. Also, now that it's become apparent that the R4 has had longer use under the new flag, you seem to be changing position from "Personally, I think that the flag used should be the one representing the era in which the firearm saw the majority of its service"...? I understand that some WP users with personal experience of this rifle had that experience pre-1994 during their national service, but the world has long changed since and that flag is no longer appropriate to this article, despite the fond "love" that some folks may still have for the R4 from back then. This is a simple matter really, best decided by someone on this project who has no ties with (old) South Africa. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When I said that, I was thinking of countries like the USSR, where a gun like the AK-47 was developed in the USSR and served for 50 years in the USSR and 20 years in modern Russia, as opposed to a nearly 50/50 split between eras. I have no connection with South Africa (old or modern) so I don't actually mind which flag is used, but I am wary of un-necessary historical revisionism. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue in this case is not historical - it's current; and the ratio is not 50:50, but 3:4 and widening. If production stopped pre-1994, or perhaps even soon after, then I'd agree with the "revisionist" comment and oppose any change.

In any event, your first suggestion ("the flag used should be the one representing the era in which the firearm saw the majority of its service") was the best one and I support moving forward with it as a general principle. Please use the straw poll below to Support or Oppose this proposal: Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Remove - for reasons stated above. Agree with the comment below. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Sheesh. Just get rid of the flag. See MOS:FLAG #Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. There's no good reason to be waving a flag there. Eubulides (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Remove the flags. What good are they really. They give no information that text can't and they create problems that ends up in discussion like this. 12:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Remove them. This discussion is a good illustration of why flags add nothing but pointless controversy to the articles. --John (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Remove, but not because of nationalistic problems, per se. Flag icons are useful as navigational aids when browsing a long list of items that are associated with different countries (like a list of athletes in an international tournament results article). But a singular flag icon in an infobox has zero navigational value. It also draws undue weight to the "Place of origin" infobox field for no good reason. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support- I think the flags are a nice visual addition to the articles. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support- I believe the flags present a good visual guide to the users and don't see any real advantage to removing the content. Anything that helps present the material in a simple, graphical format is usually a benefit. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What would you say United States has that United States lacks? How many of our readers will "get" the former but not the latter? Did you follow the arguments above about anachronism and overemphasis on nationality? Text is fine on this project designed for grown-ups who can read fluently. --John (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, I am familiar with the arguments and issues present above as I have kept an eye on this discussion from the beginning. I also think there is a solution for the anachronism issues.

I am not, however, totally clear if we are only discussing the 'place or origin' field (per the original post) in the infobox or that and the 'Users' section lists (per the AnonIPs tangent). Some articles place this as a separate section, others within the box itself, and some omit the section altogether.

If we are only talking about the 'Infobox' and a single flag, I would agree that it is of little value and I don't particularly care if it is removed or retained.

If we are also talking about the long list of 'Users' that appear on many (though not all) firearm-related articles, I think there is value in retaining them. The comparison to the list of athletes mentioned by Andrwsc is a good comparison. These lists not only state the country name, but also often include information about the military units, police forces, militias/paramilitary, and other groups that use the weapon in the nation in question. A small flag icon is good way to group the relevant information in the list.Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Had people been able to agree which flag is the "correct" one to use, then the bulk of this discussion would have been moot; however as with the infobox, your argument about the user list unfortunately only holds when the particular choice of flag is not controversial. PS: We were heading for unanimous consensus with the simple logic that the flag the firearm has been in production under the longest is the best one, until this argument apparently backfired on the person who suggested it; I note with some disappointment that he has now changed his argument to a purely cosmetic one in order to secure the POV outcome he desires. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As to the 'Place or origin' business, I can understand the controversy to some extent. I also don't have any particular concern about the approach taken (flag as of the date production started, length of service, or just removing the flag altogether).

As to the 'users' section, having some kind of of visual representation is a nice touch and helps breakup particularly long lists (e.g. Glock pistol, M1 Garand, M1911 pistol, the various equipment lists of militaries, etc.). I don't think it would be the end of the world to remove them, but it is somewhat of a different topic than the originally reported issue.

Anyway, that's about all I have to say on it and will have to leave it to consensus which seems to favor the deletion method. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a consensus across the project that using flags on long lists can be useful and actually aid navigation. The use of singular flags on infoboxes is deprecated by most if not all wikiprojects, as they are not seen to add any value to the articles but instead overemphasize nationality and lead to stale edit wars about which flag to use etc etc. It's instructive that in all the many times this has come up no flag enthusiast has ever been able to give a better reason for using them like this than "because I like them". I like flags too, but I believe we need to use them judiciously and accurately where they add value and not just as decoration on infoboxes. --John (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like we are on the same page with infoboxes versus long lists. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

anti-reflective devices

I sell anti-reflective devices so I'm not the person to create the stub but I thought it would be good to have an anti-reflective devices page. (97.82.166.7 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

I am assuming that you are referring to the addition to firearm optics systems. I don't know if there would be enough material for a standalone topic or if it should be added to an existing article. What, specifically, do you think should be covered? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing firearms topics

I've updated my list of missing weapons topics, including the section about firearms - Skysmith (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I noticed a Colt Pocket .23 Automatic on your list. Being that, AFAIK, a .23-caliber Colt doesn't exist, could this be a typo (.25 Automatic) or the numbers transposed (.32 Automatic)? Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure. I have to recheck that - Skysmith (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarify nomenclature 30-30 should be 7.62x39mm

Clarify nomenclature 30-30 should be 7.62x39mm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.225.3 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

...huh? rdfox 76 (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

University Wikiproject: Saiga semi-automatic rifle

One of my students has created this article, Saiga semi-automatic rifle. We could use some help. I know nothing of firearms, and he needs a reviewer. Could someone please take a look and give him an assist? I think it needs to focus more on the distinct differences in the models (military versus civilian), and how the military one is changed. Also I'd like to see a section on its civilian uses. Is this just a pretty thing to hang on the wall, take down and clean once a week? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I can help out.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello. A question has come up concerning the gun held by Malcolm X in this photo, which appears in M1 carbine#Hunting and civilian use. A reader has suggested at Talk:Malcolm X#Ebony photograph - M2 not an M1? that it may be an M2 and not an M1. I was hoping that somebody who is familiar with firearms could take a moment and help. Thanks in advance. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Shotgun shot spread

Can someone familiar with firearms take a look at this article? I'm not sure if it warrants its own article. Even if it does, it's a poorly sourced essay at this point. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is already covered in Shotgun shell#Shotshells and patterning and Lead shot. Anything salvageable from Shotgun shot spread could be folded into those articles and then AfD it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 10:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Gun Laws

Was looking through Gunlaws by state. The site says that Missouri is not an Open Carry state. Missouri is an Open Carry state but not all the cities are. Here is a list of cities that are and are not Open Carry http://www.natesit.com/oc/mooc.htm . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.159.7.202 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

IMFDB

Seeing as you guys are the firearm project, why haven't you made an article for the IMFDB yet?Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Gun laws in the United States (by state)

Bringing it to the attention of the Project. There is a debate going on at this article about the suitability of summary maps produced by various groups and the appropriateness of having these maps on this page. Any opinions would be appreciated. Rapier (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

I have proposed that less-lethal weapon be moved to non-lethal weapon. The latter is much more common. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've also requested a move, on 2 mm Kolibri to 2.7mm Kolibri. The current name is incorrect, & the correct name is a redirect.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Rupertus

Request for improvement of article Jacob Rupertus. Data-collection is done in german article de:Jacob Rupertus: Thanks in advance. --Gruß Tom (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

infobox: scope

What should I request to include in infobox: scope? I think that optics deserve their own infobox. Really, I don't know enough about them to know what categories to request. If someone wants to just create the template right off the bat, that's fine too. Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of Gunpowder

I've opened a discussion about moving Gunpowder, which presently covers historical potassium nitrate gunpowder, to Black powder and making Gunpowder a disambiguation page for black powder and modern gunpowder. Any comments are welcome, and should be made at Talk:Gunpowder#Requested move. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as gunpowder prior to late 1880's was the only "powder". Now that threre are many differant propelents (black powder, black powder substitue and the 4 or so types of nitrocelluloce based powders), gunpowder is a vernacular term. Greg Glover (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

firearms articles.Keserman (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I, Keserman (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC), have left a question on the talk page of the ruger blackhawk article, which, at last check, had no response, so I bring it up here. And there is an editing oppertunity at the talk page of the remington arms article, the section "revolvers". The section does not cover two models not even listed on the page, let alone their own articles, and these models are notable and historical. Keserman (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ballistic tip bullet

Some expert opinion would be appreciated on Ballistic tip bullet, where a new editor--whose name is the name of the company that owns the trademark on "Ballistic Tip"--is making edits that in my opinion are not OK. Please weigh in at the Content noticeboard, Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Ballistic_tip_bullet. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New Articles list

Shouldn't we start trimming the "New Articles" section? It's starting to look like "Not so new articles" ;-) AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

.450/400 Nitro Express

The project page called for an article on the .450/400 NE cartridge. However, this can refer to 3 different cases and 7 cartridge loadings

• .450/400 2⅜ inch case
  • .450/400 2⅜ inch Black Powder Express
  • .450/400 2⅜ inch Nitro for Black powder
  • .450/400 2⅜ inch Nitro Express
• .450/400 3 inch Nitro Express (400 Jeffery Nitro Express)
• .450/400 3¼ inch case
  • .450/400 3¼ inch Black Powder Express
  • .450/400 3¼ inch Nitro for Black powder
  • .450/400 3¼ inch Nitro Express

I am unsure which of these are meant to be .450/400 Nitro Express. I think we should treat each case type as an article and discuss the loadings under a separate headings within the article. Any objections, ideas as how we should proceed with the treatment of this particular issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeusImperator (talk • contribs) 02:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears the most logical approach is a .450/400 NE "parent" page, with linkout pages for the variants. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Three totally separate cartridges that have little to do with each other. (?)DeusImperator (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Agree. After all the original request was for an article requesting a .450/400 NE and I could not know which one was being requested... DeusImperator (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Useful photos

Hello! I found this set of public domain photos: [1] These are pre-Garand, prototype semiauto rifles. I added one photo to M1922 Bang rifle, but don't have time now to do the rest -- if interested, go ahead and place the rest where they belong. Thanks! TeamZissou (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

.25 NAA & .32 NAA

Hi ! Someone here who can support the articles .25 NAA & .32 NAA with photos of the ammo? Thanks in advance :-)) --Gruß Tom (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Firearms articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Firearms articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines regarding structure for cartridges articles

Hi Guys, Could we draw up a document regarding the required structure & best practices for cartridge articles so that there might be some uniformity between each the articles? This document could service as a check list/ template for future articles on the subject. There is one for firearms on the project page. DeusImperator (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Perhaps the articles that are rated A or + could serve as guideline. (?) DeusImperator (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you thinking should be different than the basic layout given on the project page? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

30.06 Cal SAR (Search and Rescue) Rifle

I have added 30.06 Cal SAR (Search and Rescue) Rifle sub-section to the Ruger M77 rifle article. Does anyone have any more info on this rifle? I could only find one website with info. MFIreland (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Parker Hale M82 variants

There is 4 articles on different variants of the same rifle. They are the Parker Hale M82, C3A1, Parker Hale L81A1 and L81 A2 Cadet Target Rifle. Should they be merged? MFIreland (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2010

I think that's probably a good idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles merged. It still needs some tidying up. Parker Hale M82 --MFIreland (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability

I think it would be a good idea to have a discussion about what constitutes WP:Notability for a particular firearm and for a particular cartridge. It would be very help to people asking for or creating new articles, as well as help guide decisions on merges and AfD.

Let's take the example of a firearm cartridge. There are some who suggest that the cartridge should existing in multiple non-self-published sources, such as Cartridges of the World, firearms-related magazines, etc. Not self-published, and not a forum or blog site. Some cartridges may not stand on their own but merit inclusion in a larger article, such as .30-06 Springfield Wildcat Cartridges.

Others suggest that if we have a reliable name and reliable dimensions, it warrants it's own article.

Probably there are other methods as well. Suggestions? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

update I've created a first-pass at a document specifically for firearms notability as well as for reliable firearms sources with an eye toward firearms specific sites frequently questioned. This is a work in progress and certainly needs input. Feel free to check it out, comment on it, edit, etc. At some point in the near future I'd like to do an RFC on it and maybe move it into the firearms project space. I've probably been a bit WP:BOLD but someone needed to do it. ;-) I'm sure I've missed things, been too strict in some areas, and too lenient in others. Please help. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As a first pass, I'd agree with both an app in CoTW or a major gun mag. (Which would then pass .41AE & .38/45 Clerke.) To which I'd add, what about rounds that might not have been covered, but were fairly widely used? Such as the early Newtons. (IDK if they ever got gun mag coverage, so they may pass on that basis, still.) Can (should) we also include use in fiction? AFAIK, the .357AMP didn't get magazine coverage, but it was the round of choise of at least on fictional series character I know of, & appeared therefore in at least a dozen novels. (No, it wasn't Mack the Bastard. ;p He used Big Thunder.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of the AK-47 and M16

FYI, Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Update sourcing was added and it was kept. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessments

I've been trying to clear the backlog of Category:Unassessed Firearms articles. At a bare minimum it would be nice to tag all of them as "stub" or "start" and whether or not they need images and infoboxes. You've probably noticed the open tasks list growing at the moment as a result of this. When I started there were over 1500 articles unassessed, it's less than 1000 now. If someone would like to help, I wouldn't complain. ;-) AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

New Deletion List

I took a page from the Military History project and copied their deletion list. It makes it very convenient to see all the AfD discussions at one time. Hopefully others will find it useful. If not, let me know and we can undo it. You'll see the link on the project page under the deletion section, also here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Firearms AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

5.7x28mm insight required

Can some of the contributors weight in on if FN factory for this cartridge are indeed variants of each other. Please see talk pages. DeusImperator (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is the following:

• What is the primary subject of the article. Is it the cartridge or the ammunition developed for this cartridge?
• What constitutes a variant. A variant would be a cartridge that does not meet the strict specification regarding the cartridge. For example a .38 Special +P+ would be a variant of the .38 Special. A variant can be treated a a cartridge in its own right at some point like the .38 Automatic and the .38 Super. or an improved cartridge. Would this opinion be correct? Or should variant be treated as types of ammunition such as for a 30-06 Remington 150 gr. Accupoint, Winchester 150 gr. XP3 and a Federal 180 gr. Fusion being variants of the 30-06?
• Is "Varieties" a clear and succinct header when discussing past and present ammunition made for this cartridge If it is ambiguous would a header such as Ammunition Varieties or Ammunition clarify the ambiguity if such an ambiguity exists?

Thanks DeusImperator (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I take a view unless you've got both a different loading & a different slug weight, & that combo is widely adopted on its own, you don't get a variant. So, frex, you'd need a .38 +P+ with a 100gr wadcutter to be a standard LAPD round. IMO, you're going to get a lot of argument over what is/isn't a variant, because the term itself allows for slug & loading changes to fall under it. Might be better to use "varieties" or "loadings". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Think I should clarify further. .38 Special +P+ (22000 PSI) would be a variant because it would not abide by the specification for the .38 Special, the specification here being pressure set at 17000 PSI so it can be considered a variant as it does not conform to the standard. Same with the .223 Remington and the 5.56 NATO. This also can mean dimensional minor dimensional changes say a 30-03 and a 30-06. The .458 Lott and .458 Watts cartridges can be variants. Those would be all variants. I would consider a 150 gr. Federal and a 180 Winchester load for the 30-06 just simply loadings or just different ammunition not variants. A variant (to me) would be a cartridge where the substance (what IS - in a Aristotelean metaphysical sense; essence - a 30-06 for ex.) has changed. Sorry if I did not clarify that earlier. DeusImperator (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Steyr HS .50 M1

Does anyone have anymore info on the Steyr HS .50 M1 .50 BMG rifle? I have added a sub-section to the Steyr HS .50 article for the HS .50 M1 rifle. There is very little info on the web about the rifle and it is not mentioned on the Steyr Mannlicher website but is for sale on UK gun dealer Sportsman Gun Centre website. MFIreland (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox could also include pressure

Can we add pressure to the cartridge info box. The CIP does consider this just as unimportant as the any other specification concerning the cartridge. It is alos what differentiates a (for example) a 5.56 NATO from a .223 Remington (chamber profile not included). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.177.87 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree - this would be cool. Someone know how to do it? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pressure varies with powder loads, primer and projectiles; it is difficult to determine, references are difficult to check, and the various ways of measuring produce similar-looking numbers that are apples and oranges different in meaning. Misuse of the information (especially when it is wrong, as is likely in Wikipedia) is likely to have bad consequences for the foolhardy, like the chumps who are busily rechambering 45/70 double rifles to 450 Nitro Express based on no adequate safety information. I suggest leave it out. 116.212.203.2 (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not pressure of a particular load, we're talkinga bout cartridge specification. That pressure does NOT vary. IE MAX pressure according to SAAMI or CIP. And it's in the infobox now. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please check this editor's contribs

Would someone from this project please take a look at the edits of User:80.212.228.243. I found two edits which removed most of the formatting from the articles and one case of obvious vandalism, but most of the rest of the edits are to firearms articles, and that is a subject about which I know almost nothing. Many of the edits changed dates, which is the kind of sneaky vandalism that often gets passed over. Someone with expertise should take a look. (I've also posted a notice on Wikiproject Military History for someone to look at the rest of the user's articles.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

They mostly look clueless rather than malicious, with the single exception of this nonsense, and the cluelessness I've reviewed seems mostly to have been reverted already, but I am looking at this. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was the one case of obvious vandalism. The two edits which munged the format (which I noted on the IP's talk page, happened on the same day and could be the result of some kind of transmission problem, which is why I was unsure about the editor's intent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at their contributions, and rolled back or modified a lot of wishful thinking about late uses of various arms that (importantly!) had no sources. Note that this editor is plainly the same as 83.108.24.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), active since October 7. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No doubt the same person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Its vandalism...intentionally changing that many facts while not having a clue and bungling it up that bad is vandalism. Those aren't good faith edits.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It does leave the impression of simple ignorance in my mind. If it is vandalism, it's more subtle than usual. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Glossary of firearms terminology

Quite some time ago a Glossary of firearms terminology was started. I've been pushing trying to add things to it. If you click "edit" on any individual letter, you'll see in the html comments a list of terms that could be defined, if you don't have any ideas of your own. I think it could be very useful. Feel free to join in the fun. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd add "underlug" but I have no idea what it means. -- œ^™ 19:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been added.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Needs-image" parameter of {{WikiProject Firearms}} used in various redirects

There are several redirect talk pages marked with {{WPGUNS}} where the "needs-image" -parameter is yes. These are old talk pages of merged articles, which now show up in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of firearms. For example, the various Glock pistol redirect talk pages Talk:Glock 24, Talk:Glock 25, Talk:Glock 28. Same for H&K weapons: Talk:Heckler & Koch HK 94 etc.

Redirects should not be marked as requiring picture. Are there any bots that could be used to strip the pointless parameter from these? MKFI (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Underlugs

I noticed this word being used in many firearms-realted articles, particularly Smith & Wesson guns, but being a layman and unfamiliar with gun terms I have no idea what this word means. Could not find it on Wiktionary either. Someone here with knowledge may want to create a redirect from that word to an appropriate article that can help readers learn what it means. -- œ^™ 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a kind of counter weight to lessen the effects of recoil. --MoRsE (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In the hunt

I just came across a conundrum. This edit has made changes I don't know how to address. He's correct in principle, but what he's saying isn't supported by the source, which may indeed be wrong. Suggestions? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have the source, I would quote it exactly. If the source is wrong (and it sounds like it might be) then you could find other sources which could be written in also for contrasting balance of opinions.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I do have it, but it's no longer handy to make the edit with an exact quote. To avoid future complaint of cite not matching info, I'm copying this to the talk page in question. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding "introduction date" category when possible

Just wanted to pass along a little thing I've been watching for: when there's a given set intro date associated with a firearm (e.g. Bodeo Model 1889), I like to go and add something like Category:1889 introductions. I think this is a neat way to put the guns into a category of historical context, and makes it easier for folks looking for a general idea of the state of tech/culture in a given period. I'd suggest others consider adding that to the list of things you look for as you upgrade firearms articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Made a Beretta template

Template:Beretta firearms

I've been busy. Can I get help distributing it? --Phil1988 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of external linking

A user keeps adding a certain site which is questionably spam and other users have been reverting but the links also exist in many articles. The site seems basically clean to me except a "Wanted list".
See this user's contribs and the number of articles affected: 50ae.net (*|search current)

Is this a something we want in the external links of articles? Request for comments.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This link just seems redundant. However, I don't see any harm in retaining the link. SCΛRECROW 07:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it questionably spam? the wanted list was more of for my own record keeping on what I planned to add to the collection, and the pages linked have no ads and just detail the workings of the particular firearms with a great deal of photos. i've removed the link from the front page to the wanted list as it's more for my purposes anyway. Fugi187 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

European Firearms Pass

European Firearms Pass started; please add and comment. Are there any articles on it in other European languages?Red Hurley (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

see de:Europäischer_Feuerwaffenpass related articles see:

• de::Kategorie:Waffenrecht
• de::Kategorie:Waffenrecht (Europäische Union)
• de::Kategorie:Waffenrecht (Deutschland)
• de::Kategorie:Waffenrecht (Österreich)

Questions in: de:Portal Diskussion:Waffen or other intl. firearms projects.

Regards --Gruß Tom (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mauser 98K

I have two retrieved from Italy (?) c. 1945. Sent to my father via Railway Express. He unpacked and cleaned the cosomeline. One is receiver dated 1934; the other 1943. Very close except for rough machining vs. careful work on '43 vs. '34. Other details. The '34 is earlier than referenced ones in the article but has the Nazi eagle receiver stamp. Suspect both are reference items. Numbers matching. And a bayonet, scabbard complete. Pix avalible. Discussion to add to 98k article. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77ray (talk • contribs) 06:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Colt Trooper Wiki

I just wanted to point out the Colt Trooper page, especially the initial summary, leads one to think that the Trooper may have never actually been a .357 Magnum. Admittedly there are places on the page that hint at a .357 Magnum version of the gun, but the wording within the summary and parts of the article seem to overlook, if not deny the model.

Just pointing that out. I am not interested in trying to edit the article. I'll leave that to someone more saavy than myself. Thanks! Dave

(I would have posted this to the discussion page of the Trooper article, but there wasn't one. It lead me here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.164.194 (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that the initial offering was in .357 Mag. The article notes that the later versions were.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Chamelot Delvigne French 1873

The article entitled Chamelot Delvigne French 1873, needs to be merged with the MAS 1873 revolver article.

Parts of the one sentence in the incomplete article(Chamelot Delvigne) should be put as the third sentence in the opening paragraph.

Both reverences are correct, but the MAS 1873 name for the pistol is generally more accepted as a description of the weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchall (talk • contribs) 14:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Colt Diamondback picture is actually an Anaconda.

The gigantic rollmark on the barrel even says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.47.47 (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Laumman Pistol

This article (entitled Laumman Pistol), needs to be named as Schönberger-Laumann 1892.--91.153.26.148 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Nashhar (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done A few weeks back, by me. Forgot to check back in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Todo list broken?

Does the Todo list appear borked for anyone else? -Deathsythe (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed now...thank you for bringing it up here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Call for nominations for project coordinator

The project has been running without an active coordinator for over a year.

(borrowed from MILHIST Coordinators and revised to fit our project)

• The coordinator's main role is performing the maintenance and housekeeping tasks required to keep the project and its internal processes running smoothly. This includes keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is little that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—the coordinator has an explicit role in only a few processes—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, the most efficient route has proven to be to delegate formal responsibility for this administrative work to a specified individual.

• The coordinator also has several other roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as the individual to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, the coordinator has the highly informal role in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to informally resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive. The coordinator is not, however, an authority for formal dispute resolution; serious disputes should be addressed through the normal dispute resolution process.

• Coordinators are elected by a simple approval vote of the membership, normally held every twelve months. Any project member in good standing may nominate himself or herself, including the current coordinator, who may serve as many times as they wish. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes becomes the coordinator, and bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project.

• If, between elections, the project has more work than the current coordinator can handle, and no election is imminent, the coordinator may co-opt additional coordinators, to serve until the next election.

To get the ball rolling, I would like to ask for nominations (including self-nominations) to begin today (April 26) and remain open for one week (ending May 3). Who would you like to see coordinating WP:Firearms? Alternatively, we can continue to run as is.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Self-Nom I'm pretty active on the project, I'm handy with sourcing and have a large reference library. I can keep a good eye on AfD, etc. I currently coordinate the Cutlery project, but could help out here as well in a larger role.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I second Mike's nomination. As he would run unopposed, I suggest that we dispense with the formalities unless anyone has an objection. In the spirit of being bold, it appears that we have our new coordinator. Congratulations, Mike. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to me that this wasn't much of an election, mostly due to 90% of the users listed as active really being inactive. Don't get me wrong though, Mike is definitely qualified. Perhaps we should do some recruiting for the project.Pigoutultra (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, frankly, I'm surprised nobody else ran. I'm a bonafide gun nut, so I can definitely put a lot into the project.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I updated the active members list today and I was surprised to find that more of them are active (within 3 months guideline) than I thought but they aren't what you call daily editors. I agree that a membership increase would be good. MILHIST guys are prime targets.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can float it out to the guys on the knives project, too, but I think most of them came from here. More activity would be great, I think a lot of the guys who do edit here work on bigger and better things on here for most of their time.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Gun violence in the United States

We have been trying to reach a solution on the talk page, but I fear a consensus is not going to be reached without the input of more WP:GUNS project members. Note - I am not, in any way/shape/form, calling for meat puppets or sock puppets to come in just to further my point, but rather to try to reach an amiable solution as this is an important article for our project.

My proposed solution is as follows:

Greatly improve the Gun culture article. Expand Gun Culture in the United States to its own article Stress safety, licensing, training, hunting, etc... Provide a See Also link to Gun violence in the United States in both articles. Keep Gun violence in the United States to pertain to illegal use of firearms, suicide, school shootings, etc. This needs to be done with extreme caution to adhear to WP:NPOV, facts and figures need to be cited explicitly, while noting that correlation does not imply causation. Avoid linking Gun Culture in the US to Gun Violence. We cannot stress enough the true face of US gun culture - safety, training, tradition.

Thoughts? -Deathsythe (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:Milhistory

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Regarding_the_naming_convention_for_cartridges may be of interest to members of this wkiproject.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel. I meant to post that up here for input as well. -Deathsythe (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Splitting up US Gun Laws by State

There is currently a discussion which is leading to compartmentalizing the US gun laws by state article into individual state articles. If any members are interested in voicing opinions on the matter please do so. It seems like a resounding support at the moment. If we do decide to do this, it will be a fairly large undertaking that would require the assistance of WP:GUNS to complete, that is for sure. -Deathsythe (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshall & Sanow

I propose that we clean Marshall & Sanow data from cartridge pages. Their methodology is extremely flawed and could not possibly be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a certain cartridge. The model itself is flawed in that it is incapable of predicting effectiveness for cartridges it was not based on. The tables in certain cartridge pages are confusing at best, misleading at worst. They are not self explanatory at all and don't give much information that can be understood by itself. Data like velocity, bullet weight, penetration, and permanent cavity should stay, but the data on Ballistic Pressure Waves, One-Stop-Shot, and Average Incapacitation Time should be removed due to the lack of evidence to support the models they are based on. Pigoutultra (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A simple sentence summarizing the views of "hydrostatic shock" proponents is sufficient. The table currently projects "hydrostatic shock" and "OSS" as fact, when many (or most) in the field of terminal ballistics actually would not lend it any relevance. The current table is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, which isn't surprising because all of it was added en masse by User:Michael Courtney. ROG5728 (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. For the record, I'm gunsmith, cartridge builder and terminal ballistics researcher. I'm totally unaffiliated with Evan Marshall or Ed Sanow--I know neither them or Martin Fackler, personally.

Marshall & Sanow's studies (there have been 3 published books) have only the IWBA (Martin Fackler, et. al.) as the vocal critics. http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm Is the most common site criticizing them. This site, and the parent IWBA articles are replete with ad hominem attacks. Also, the criticism focuses only on the first book, and some things printed in the second, such as the Strausbourg Tests. The Strausbourg Tests were published in the book as an interest for the reader, but NOT as part of Marshall & Sanow's data. More on the Strausbourg Tests below.

As for their credibility and "hydrostatic shock," contrary to the above author statement that hydrostatic shock has no relevance, it does have a place in ballistics. Hydrostatic/Hydraulic shock is damaged caused by the cavitation created by a projectile and the associate wounds. All high-velocity rifle bullets are dependent upon this effect for their wounding! Pistol calibers, however, are dependent upon both permanent crush and hydrostatic shock (temporary cavitation.) The only group NOT giving credence to it is the now defunct IWBA headed by Martin Fackler. This effect can easily be witnessed by anyone performing gelatin tests, or, in human victims, in autopsy, it can be seen as areas damaged although untouched by the bullet. Fackler, himself, acknowledges hydraulic shock as it pertains to rifle bullets. If hydraulic/hydrostatic shock were non-existent, and Marhall & Sanow's critics were accurate in their assumptions of permanent crush only and deep penetration, the FBI and majority of LE Agencies would still be utilizing 9mm's derived from the Olin Super Match (subsonic 9mm JHPs at 147 gr), or the 10mm-derived .40 S&W 180 gr JHP @ 950 fps. However, they are NOT. The FBI abandoned those rounds in favor of higher velocity rounds with more "hydrostatic shock" potential. Many departments opted for cartridges with more velocity and hydrostatic shock potential than even the +P+ 9mm: the .357 SIG.

Moreover, Marshall and Sanow 9mm, advocated the 115gr +P+ JHPs, and secondarily the 124gr/127 gr +P(+). Many LE Agencies carrying 9mms are either still carrying the 9mm 115gr +P+ or the 124/127gr +P(+), and many migrated BACK to these loads after the abysmal failure of the 147 gr subsonic 9mm JHPs. In reality, the IWBA, Fackler, et. al.'s recommended pistol cartridges in all calibers except .45 ACP, turned out in actual shootings to be dismally poor performers. Many of those shootings were highly publicized because of the sheer number of rounds required to cause a subject to collapse or cease hostilities. When the ammunition was changed to M&S-supported rounds, these instances disappeared. (See NYC Multiple Shot Victims: research 9mm 147gr JHP Subsonic.)

The basic physics premise is energy is the ability to do "work." With a human body, the depth of a direct shot is approximately 12", with the heart and other vital organs being at more shallow depths. Marshall & Sanow advocate the use of bullets in each caliber that both maximize energy transfer within the first 12" of gelatin/human tissue. Marshall & Sanow recommend rounds that are capable of transferring the majority of their energy within this area, and the more rapid the energy transfer, the more violent the "hydrostatic shock." They never recommend so-called "deep penetrator"/late energy transfer rounds. Actual shooting results, independent of Marshall & Sanow bear this out.

There are instances in many pages of Average Incapacitation Time, credited to M&S. This is from the Strausbourg Tests, alone. To discredit Marshall & Sanow on the basis of the Strausbourg Tests is invalid. They CLEARLY stated the results from the Strausbourg Tests were just that, and not theirs'.

Unfortunately, I'm a Wiki "programming" and citing novice. I can validate everything I claim, and cite sources, but I am still unfamiliar with the methodology for citing print data. If someone can help me with this, my talk page and user page is now created. I look forward to comments and being able to contribute further. Thank you so much.Lmt 7816 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The "data" in all of the Marshall & Sanow books was thoroughly debunked by a variety of different wound ballistics authors, both inside and outside the IWBA. For example, this book review by the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) or this article by Maarten van Maanen of the former IWBA:

Quote: Dr. Mary Case, a board-certified neuropathologist and forensic pathologist with the St. Louis County Medical Examiner’s Office and the St. Louis University School of Medicine, Dr. Michael Graham, a forensic pathologist with the St. Louis County Medical Examiner’s Office and the St. Louis University School of Medicine, COL. Charles Van Way, a general surgeon with the U.S. Army 325th General Hospital, and Dr. Thomas Helling, the Director of Trauma Surgery at St. Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City, reviewed Chapter 2, "A Neurologist’s View of ‘Stopping Power’". These well qualified scientists are unanimous in their condemnation of this material.

The absurd claims made in this chapter, as well as the similar remarks on pages 6, 7, and 176, regarding the ability of a bullet to remotely stress and shock the central nervous system (CNS) are grossly inaccurate and completely unsupported by any accepted scientific evidence according to Dr. Case. This pseudoscientific speculation is presented as verified scientific fact, yet allusion to Göransson’s discredited data is the only scientific reference the authors cite to support their unjustified claims.1 Dr. Helling remarks that this material: "...relates to anecdotal experience and pure hypothesis," while Dr. Van Way states that it: "...would seem not only to be without supporting evidence, but to contradict common sense."

Quote: Mr. Wolberg, an author of this review, testified that only the third and fifth incidents described are fully documented and verifiable cases.

Quote: Mr. Wolberg denies all knowledge of the first two shooting reports Marshall and Sanow attribute to him.

Quote: Mr. Wolberg never provided Marshall or Sanow any of the reports, test results, photos or evidence which they insist the inspect prior to including a shooting in their data base. As a result, the veracity of their entire data base is questionable.

Quote: After extensive testing to determine the best 9mm JHP ammunition for personal defense use in the XM-11 9mm compact pistol designated for military criminal investigators, military police, Department of Defense security personnel, and military intelligence agencies, ordnance engineers selected the 9mm 147gr JHP, citing its "outstanding performance" compared to 9mm 124gr and 115gr ammunition.13 The test report makes special note that the various 9mm 115gr +P+ and 124gr +P+ JHP cartridges offered the worst performance of any ammunition tested. The 9mm 147gr JHP is also in current operational use by some U.S. military special operations forces and, despite Marshall’s and Sanow’s opinion, it has proven quite effective when fired from pistols such as the SIG P226 and Beretta M9/10 (92F/92FS).

Quote: Marshall and Sanow write on page 35: "The 9mm Silvertip has an excellent street record. The single instance of underpenetration in the FBI/Miami shootout is not grounds for withdrawal from service."

This statement is incorrect. Numerous failures due to insufficient penetration have been documented with the 9mm Winchester Silvertip 115gr JHP. One infamous incident occurred on Easter Sunday in 1989, when San Diego Sheriff’s Department Tactical Unit officers were forced to shoot a criminal 27 times over several minutes because their 9mm Silvertips failed to penetrate deeply enough to damage any vital organs and cause physiologic incapacitation, despite solid torso hits. A bullet finally severed the relatively superficially placed carotid artery and jugular vein in the neck, resulting in fatal hemorrhage which ended the encounter. The San Diego Police Department switched to the 9mm Winchester 147gr JHP after several documented underpenetration failures with the 9mm Winchester Silvertip 115gr JHP.

Quote: What cannot be explained is the fact that another 16 caliber/load combinations show either a greater than 100% stopping power percentage or negative numbers. These negative numbers mean that fewer cases are reported in a later Reference, which is in total contradiction to everything that Marshall & Sanow have claimed in developing their "data base." If this "data base" is real, why were cases dropped and what was the criteria for selecting which ones to drop? Even more importantly from the standpoint of integrity, why has no mention of this manipulation of the "data base" ever been mentioned? Any kind of secret reevaluation of the results is a clear-cut violation of any form of doing research because it is one form of "fudging" the data.

Quote: An even more miraculous jump to perfection can be seen with the .380 ACP Federal 90-grain JHP, which has a sudden jump from 65% to 100% between the second and third data sets and a 41% difference between the first and third data sets. Anyone who has ever tested any of the .380 ACP JHP-types of ammo in gelatin will know how unimpressive the performance of these rounds is. So, if this unimpressive performance is good for 100% one-stop shots, then why are rounds like the .357 Magnum, .45 ACP or .44 Magnum not showing the same results?

But this is not all. Look at the .45 ACP CCI 200-grain JHP ammo. From 74% in 1988, the 1988 to 1992 data set shows 19 stops in 16 cases, a 119% effectiveness. This, of course, is simply impossible. Yet, Table 2 shows there are eight caliber/load combinations in which such impossible greater than 100% ratings have been produced by Marshall & Sanow during one of the data taking intervals.

That the IWBA is/was one of "the only vocal critics" against Marshall & Sanow is hardly an argument in your favor. The IWBA, or International Wound Ballistics Association, was a collection of wound ballistics experts, and Dr. Fackler is easily the best-known and most influential wound ballistics expert/author in the nation. Fackler is a former Army surgeon with extensive experience treating gunshot wounds, and all of his publications make it clear that pistol bullets cannot "remotely wound" structures in a human body. Dr. Vincent Di Maio is another of the nation's leading authorities on gunshot wounds, and his book (Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques) corroborates Fackler's work:

Quote: To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insignificant to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

Furthermore, this is supported by the FBI's article on the subject (Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness):

Quote: There is no valid, scientific analysis of actual shooting results in existence, or being pursued to date.

Quote: There are some well publicized, so called analyses of shooting incidents being promoted, however, they are greatly flawed.

Quote: The numbers of cases cited are statistically meaningless, and the underlying assumptions upon which the collection of information and its interpretation are based are themselves based on myths such as knockdown power, energy transfer, hydrostatic shock, or the temporary cavity methodology of flawed work such as RII.

Your own statements regarding the FBI and their ammunition choices are absolutely false. The FBI switched from the 115-grain 9mm cartridge to the 180-grain .40 S&W cartridge, due to the failure of the 115-grain bullet in the 1986 FBI Miami shootout. This is very thoroughly documented by Dr. French Anderson's complete book on the subject (Forensic Analysis Of The April 11, 1986, FBI Firefight). The FBI still uses the 180-grain .40 S&W cartridge; they have not "abandoned those rounds in favor of higher velocity rounds" as you incorrectly stated in your comment.

Regardless, Wikipedia content must adhere to WP:NPOV. The current tables (and in some cases, text) are a clear violation of this policy because they project "hydrostatic shock" and "OSS" as fact, when many (or most) in the field of terminal ballistics actually do not lend these ideas any relevance. For that reason, they should be (and will be) removed or reworded for neutrality, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. ROG5728 (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My main problem with the charts are that the numbers given for BPW aren't given a meaning. How is a reader supposed to interpret the data to mean? Are greater numbers "better", or are smaller numbers "better"? The charts give no explanation.Pigoutultra (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't know how to indent, excuse me. However, with respect to my statement, I made a clarification error, nothing more. A misstatement, at worst, but that's why this is the Talk Page. My statement should have read "10mm-derived," as the FBI's .40 S&W 180 gr Winchester Bonded bullet (as of 2009 contract award) has a muzzle velocity in excess of the original .40 S&W 180gr. The FBI DID abandon the 147 gr 9mm, and only retains the 10mm 180 gr "reduced velocity" for the MP5/10, but not as a duty round. The .40 S&W that was contracted to Winchester in 2009 that the FBI uses is a bonded 180 gr .40 S&W, but velocity is increased from the earlier loading. (Also worth noting, in their latest work, Marshall and Sanow do note the improvement of this round over the 9mm 147gr

As I am new to Wikipedia, at least in attempting to contribute, I was probably not as specific as necessary, but, again, this is the Discussion. I am NOT, nor are Marhsall and Sanow advocating Hydrostatic Shock as a primary wounding mechanism. Evan Marshall recognized the possibility that it exists. He, in all three books, recognizes the possibility of a neurological shock/collapse; this is not stated as fact, especially in the more recent editions. Also, his data was derived from actual shootings AND from gelatin testing. (I've personally replicated his gelatin methodology. BB Calibrated 10%, and can speak to its repeatability) Their OSS data, as THEY presented, does not pose the values you purport. Also, from the page numbers quoted above, I cannot reference Marshall and Sanow's work, because you do not specify which book you are quoting, as there are three. I cannot address that which I cannot find.

If you want anecdotal evidence as the to the 147gr 9mm failure to stop, resulting in multiple torso strikes, I can present these, but I personally think that these episodes are just that, anecdotal. If anecdotal evidence is acceptable, then look at what ammunition is commercially produced and sold for self-defense applications. The Federal BPLE is one of the longest lived, longest continuously produced cartridges available in its original form. The 147, however, has undergone many a revamp to bring its stopping power to its current level.

Specifically addressing the FBI 1986 Miami Shootout consider this: Platt's wound created by the 115 Silvertip WERE fatal, and rested only mm's from the heart. To quote an analysis of the French Anderson report you referenced:

At autopsy, Platt’s right lung was completely collapsed and his chest cavity contained 1300 ml of blood, suggesting damage to the main blood vessels of the right lung. Dr. Anderson believes that Platt’s first wound (right upper arm/chest wound B) was unsurvivable, and was the primary injury responsible for Platt’s death.

[Anderson, W. French, M.D.: Forensic Analysis of the April 11, 1986, FBI Firefight. W. French Anderson, M.D., 1996 (127 pages)]

In addressing the anecdotal 1986 Miami FBI Shootout as the basis for the need of the 147gr, let's assume for one moment that that Dove had possessed the 147 grain JHP available at the. Here's one possibility, with 25%- LESS energy than the 115, it may have NOT re-entered Platt's body after traveling through his bicep, and had it done so, it may have been easily stopped by tissues in the pleural cavity. Another possibility is that it would have penetrated his heart. Since we're already being hypothetical, let us make the assumption it penetrated his heart. Platt, as shown by his ability to remain active while 1300 cc's filled his pleural cavity, can be assumed to have a strong, physical constitution. Had his heart been pierced, he could have had brain function for quite some time, and still have done what he did. In all likelihood, the 9mm 147 gr, if it expanded, would have expended most of its energy en route to the heart, and would have had little energy to make nothing but a piercing wound, which would result in slower exsanguination, possibly lasting as long as he did in actuality. Another possibility here is, too, that due to the smaller TSC, the 147 gr may not have damaged pulmonary vessels, save ones in which it directly contacted. Again, however, this is academic, at best. The Shootout, as tragic as it is, (and not to be dismissive of Dove and Grogan's sacrifice) is anecdotal. There are many 147 gr failures. There are failures in all calibers that can be listed, it's just that this one spurred dramatic consequences.

One problem Evan and Ed have had, and continue to have, is that they're not lettered and they're outside the medical and military community. However, this doesn't make their work invalid. He has been so viciously, and personally, attacked by the same community that is supposed to maintain a modicum of decorum. I hope that Wikipedia users will be more fair in their review. Lmt 7816 (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your clarification of the FBI comment is noted, but regardless of the FBI's ammunition choices, they have definitely made it clear that "hydrostatic shock" is not one of the considerations involved in their ammo choices (as quoted earlier). The Marshall & Sanow data is not based on "actual shootings" per se; rather, it is based on hearsay about said shootings. As pointed out earlier, one of Marshall & Sanow's supposed sources (Eugene Wolberg) subsequently co-authored a review of their books in which he made it clear that a number of the accounts attributed to him by M&S were not factual and/or the incidents did not even occur. Furthermore, the sources I quoted do list the specific M&S references that they discuss.

Temporary cavitation is obvious (and can look impressive) in ballistic gelatin, but you can't extrapolate from gelatin to elastic human tissue in such a manner. There are countless verifiable cases of bullets passing within inches (or even millimeters) of human organs without the bullet's temporary cavity actually damaging said organs in any way.

Platt's wound was indeed fatal, but only after several minutes, during which time he was able to continue killing and wounding FBI agents. You should know (despite the energy differences between the 115-grain load and the 147-grain 9mm loads) that the 147-grain loads penetrate several inches deeper in ballistic gelatin and they would have done the same in Platt's body. Before you raise the issue of ballistic gelatin not being a perfect simulant of a bullet's effects in human tissue, note that ballistic gelatin does closely approximate a bullet's penetration depth in human tissue.

That said, the 147-grain 9mm load most certainly would have penetrated Platt's heart; for that reason, the 147-grain 9mm load most certainly would have caused much more damage to Platt's body than did the 115-grain 9mm load. It's possible that the bullet might not have immediately incapacitated Platt, but it's still very likely that it would have; more importantly, it is worth restating that the damage caused by the bullet would have been undeniably greater if it had penetrated Platt's heart. The TSC of either load is essentially a non-factor unless the bullet happens to strike a non-elastic organ such as the liver (which, in this case, it did not).

Marshall & Sanow are indeed outside the medical and military community, and that affects their credibility, but the real problem with their work is that it is riddled with errors, inconsistencies, hearsay, and fabrications (some of which have been pointed out here). ROG5728 (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my question as to which book you're quoting. Yes, the Glaser shooting and Wolberg's claims are only applicable to their first work. The subsequent two are much improved work. Also, from your writing, I get the implication (please correct me if I am wrong, as this is my feeling only) that you think Marshall and Sanow attribute stops to Hydrostatic Shock; they do not. Period. They merely note the possibility of existence of a hydrostatic/neurological shock where stops are made that are inexplicable by a bullet's either crushing and/or stretching, subsequently ripping, tissue. Their latter books rely only on shootings, gelatin testing, and the Fuller Index. Again, no instances of hydrostatic shock is presented in their results. This would preclude you argument there. Also, I do like ballistic gelatin and have shot numerous blocks of BB-Calibrated 10% gelatin, personally. I do think it's a good tissue simulant, and currently have about 50 lbs of it on hand; VYSE is my supplier (http://www.gelatininnovations.com/pages/ballistic.html). Also, to preclude any criticism of the "Strausbourg Tests" in the second book, this is clearly labeled as being included for the reader's perusal only. Models are made from the results, but they are also clearly labeled as such.

As for the 9mm 147 gr and Platt. Yes, I'm familiar (very) with the 147 grain and gelatin, as I've shot it with varying barriers into gelatin, and I've witnessed its penetration. I also know that this is penetration in plain gelatin. When the 147 gr encounters a barrier like bone or skin, it is easily stopped. Once the 147 gr had penetrated Platt's arm, it most likely would have lacked the sufficient energy to carry on to the heart. Once it's in gelatin, its penetration is excessive, however, once it encounters a barrier, its penetration drastically decreases. If you wish to see this, place 2 blocks of gelatin each representing the respective densities of the human arm and the a block representing the human torso. Place these adjacent, but not touching. While the surface tension of gelatin is definitely not as strong as human skin, it is sufficient to cause marked resistance. I go back to my statement: had Dove had a 147gr, it would have at least partially expanded in the arm, as the bicep traversed diagonally, then on into the chest. When viewing the wound path, as shown on pgs 38-39 of French Anderson's Forensic Analysis of the April 11, 1986 FBI Firefight you can see that the bullet traversed, diagonally, through the right bicep and, according to Anderson, it proceeded in an arc after tumbling. Two things should be considered here. The 147gr subs have less energy and it is quite probable that, after piercing both sides of Platt's arm, and traveling through the bicep diagonally, it may well have lacked the energy the penetrate the third layer of skin, as it wasn't traveling through contiguous tissue where its 18"+ gelatin penetration is not perfectly replicated. Point two to be considered is that the bullet trajectory was not linear. After penetrating intercostal space, it arced upward through the right lung. The bullet wasn't found "pointing" toward Platt's heart, meaning that if the trajectory were lengthened by 3" or more, it may have possibly contacted the aorta, but then, as you pointed out, it may only have been affected by stretching activity and missed the aorta and heart altogether.

Also to be considered is this: if penetration is all that matters, than FMJ would be the dominant bullet, but as the U.S. military has discovered with 9mm 124gr NATO FMJ, the .38 Spl 158 gr RNL, .30 Carbine 110 FMJ-RN; Detroit PD with it's FMJ 9mm, and NYPD and their 9mm FMJ failures to stop (not to mention multiple bystander woundings caused by overpenetration), deep penetration alone does not a stop make. If this were true, hollowpoints wouldn't be the dominant

Your argument against Marhsall's data is that there is no hydrostatic shock doesn't apply, as Marshall's data isn't based on hydrostatic shock, period. For the second time, please tell me the books from which you cite page numbers. So far, all I see is quotes firearmstactical.com and other websites in which you are quoting others' work, not citing the original. Every book you've mentioned I own, and have read, and none address the third and the second only briefly, and primarily focus on the 1st. When you say they're "riddled with errors, inconsistencies, hearsay, and fabrications," you quote another rather than the original work and point out factual errors. Show me, in the second and third work, an error as it relates to OSS data (which would preclude the Strausbourg Tests, as they are not being referenced, anyway.)

The field of terminal ballistics is not cut and dried as some people would like to believe. I think the more information people have, the better served they are. Jim Cirillo was probably the most prolific gunfighter of the modern era, and prior to his death, he was working with Roscoe Stoker to create what became the RBCD Platinum Plus rounds; light and very, very fast rounds are what he preferred. Here's another premise, they basic physics premise of energy, the ability to do work. When discussing handgun rounds, and realistic handgun distances, more energy capable of being transferred within the human body, will yield more stops. Marshall makes this statement, with only semantic differences, repeatedly.

I personally think you're being inflexible and excluding a valuable source on information based on excerpted criticisms of one work. Lmt 7816 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually never mentioned "hydrostatic shock" anywhere in my last comment. Rather, the Marshall & Sanow works should be exluded from Wikipedia on the basis that they (as authors) are provably not a reliable source. Again, you can look at the reference lists in the articles I quoted. The book names and page numbers are provided, and the article by Maarten van Maanen actually references several different works by Marshall & Sanow. Aside from that, any prior or subsequent publications by M&S go out the window anyway because it has already been thoroughly established that (as authors) they are not a reliable source, based on their errors, inconsistencies, and fabrications that were pointed out by Eugene Wolberg, Maarten van Maanen, and many others.

Your claim that "when the 147 gr encounters a barrier like bone or skin, it is easily stopped" is absolutely false, as demonstrated by the Wolberg study I already linked in my last comment. Despite the energy differences between the 115-grain 9mm load and the 147-grain loads, the 147-grain loads penetrate several inches deeper in ballistic gelatin and they would have done the same in Platt's body. As the Wolberg study shows, the 147-grain load's performance characteristics (including penetration) in ballistic gelatin closely resemble its performance characteristics in the human body. In fact, shot #22 in Wolberg's study was a 147-grain bullet that passed through an intervening arm before entering the subject's torso. Was the bullet "easily" stopped? No, it penetrated a total of 14.5 inches in the subject's body, just like it does in ballistic gelatin.

As for the Platt wound, Dr. French Anderson's illustration of the wound makes it quite clear that a deeper-penetrating bullet would have struck the heart regardless of whether or not it decided to travel in an arc after entry. Your argument regarding FMJ bullets is also invalid. After a certain point, additional penetration is wasted because the human body (intervening arm included) can only be so thick. A good 147-grain 9mm JHP loading is already capable of passing through an intervening arm and still reaching vital organs in a human torso, so the additional penetration of an FMJ load is wasted and only increases the risk of collateral damage. ROG5728 (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, let me clarify, and for the last time. (Since I work 80+ hours a week, these comments are usually written over quite some time, and late hours.) The 147gr has "legendary" penetration in a contiguous block of gelatin. This is exactly what I meant: The 147gr after traversing a substantial distance, such as the bicep, and judging from the entrance wound in Platt's chest, it would be fair to say that the bullet was expanded, thus requiring more energy to penetrated a secondary barrier. The barrier tests the FBI, Wolberg, etc (myself included) have performed all place barriers in front of the gelatin block. (I.e. Plywood, Glass, Heavy Clothes, etc) This is not what occurred with Platt's shooting. To simulate this, as I said earlier, place a gelatin block of comparable length to Platt's arm, diagonally oriented, then place an airspace, then set another block after the airspace. If you've ever seen adjacent blocks of gelatin shot you'll notice that, immediately following the point of entry in the 2nd block, there is small, but present, "temporary stretch-like" cavity. (notice I say like, not exact, as it's much smaller) This indicates an energy transfer more significant than the prior wound path (which can be attributable to surface tension). Couple these factors with less energy to start and lower velocity, upon encountering intermediate barriers, it can be stopped. It penetrates well the FBI's multiple barrier tests, yes. In my own gelatin tests, I've had various 147 gr designs penetrate 17-24" in monolithic gelatin blocks. I know it penetrates unobstructed, solid gelatin well, and I've never disputed this (nor anyone else, of whom I know).

Also, the Wolberg #22 shooting isn't descriptive of the orientation of the arm, only the combined penetration. What would also be of value would be the same measurements taken with 9mm BPLE or Winchester RA115.

You remove the Marshall & Sanow data if you like, as I have no further time to debate you.Lmt 7816 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you were saying. The fact remains that the 147-grain load is not "easily stopped" by skin, as you incorrectly stated, even if it happens to pass through an intervening arm beforehand. As for the 115-grain load, we already know what it does when it encounters an intervening arm. The 115-grain bullet that stopped short of Platt's heart only penetrated a total of about 9 inches of tissue, compared to the 14.5 inches of penetration achieved by the 147-grain load in the Wolberg #22 shooting. ROG5728 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this spam? realguns.com

• realguns.com (*|search current)

The realguns.com site seem to have good articles but also a fair amount of advertising. I was wondering what other project members thought of these links/articles? I know of one new editor placing these in our articles.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I see this fellow adding them to the external links section. I cannot really delve into detail at the moment because the filter is picking it up at work, however from a quick peek through the google cache of the website it seems legit enough. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a real concern over the amount of advertising & the fact it's acting as a sales site (or appears to be). It might be OK, but I wouldn't add it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy's contribs are strictly adding it to articles. I call BS to his response to me that he isn't affiliated with the site. I'm going to remove them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That assessment seems to be correct. At some of these articles (e.g. Ruger Mini-14) he inserted as many as three realguns external links. ROG5728 (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reduced it from 101 links to about 20...when it was used as a ref, I usually left it. Here are the socks that I've seen so far:

• User:Joe4570
• User:Ck1959ne
• User:Markm84

If they keep going, we'll look at blacklisting.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Real Guns guys are attempting to promote there projects for quite a while on the Wiki. These are more akin to pet projects and would like to garner some attention. Several submissions and articles have been deleted but they keep cropping up now and again. These are merely projects and the Wiki is not a place to tell everyone about you pet weekend project you might undertake in you garage however great and well documented it might be. Analogous to writing about a weekend deck building project on the wiki. DeusImperator (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Weatherby Mark V

Hey Guys,

I would appreciate some assistance with this article particularly on some of the discontinued models and in writing the article in general. What I have up for the moment is on the article page.

DeusImperator (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Browning BDA

Hi guys,

The article on the Browning BDA (Browning Double Action) talks about a single pistol. In fact there were three pistols that were marketed as the Browning BDM by FN-Herstal.

• Beretta 380 made in Italy (BDA 380)http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/be/fn-browning-bda380-e.html
• Sigarms P220 with the magazine well mag release a la P210 (BDA) http://forum.pafoa.org/pistols-41/36564-browning-sig-sauer-bda-history.html
• Browning Hi-Power variant - double Action (BDA.9) (the one the Browning BDA article talks about)

We need to keep that Browning BDA page to list the three Browning BDA firearms and then have links on that page to talk about the specific Browning BDAs.

Also due to the confusion the article provides some history which actually pertains to the sig version rather than to the Browning MADE BDA. DeusImperator (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

P230 Sig Pistols

I have all three of the Sig Arms P230 Pistols and the weight of the three is different.

P230 7.65mm w/safety is 20ozs w/magazine and 18ozs without. Alum frame and steel receiver. P230 9mm Kurz is 19.0 ozs w/magazine and 17.6 without. Alum frame and steel receiver P230 9mm Police is 28 ozs w/magazine and 26 ozs with out. Steel frame and steel reciever. The 9mm Police has a little different double action as when you pull the trigger if you go half way it drops into the safety notch and the other two don't. All other dimensions seem to be the same. I have the pistols here for verfication if needed. Fknipfer1 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

New Ruger Firearms

• Ruger SR1911
  • http://www.ruger.com/products/sr1911/models.html
  • http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SR1911.htm
• Ruger Single Ten
  • http://www.ruger.com/products/newModelSingleSixSingleTen/models.html

I haven't gotten a chance to make the pages yet, though it is on my personal todo list. Its just hard because Ruger's site, as well as most firearms sites, are blocked at work so I can't really edit and reference properly.

-Deathsythe (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Single Ten should be a subsection to the Ruger Single Six page. Dunno about the "SR1911" - is it really that different from normal 1911s? I don't recall any design changes. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Who rates articles?

Hi, Is there a particular group that rates articles? There are several articles that can should be rated so that editors add content etc as required to improve the articles. If some of you can go through and rate these articles and add information in the discussion pages as to what is required to move these articles to B rating would be ideal.

DeusImperator (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Intermedia Outdoors (Petersen's Publishing)

As many of you already may know that Intermedia Outdoors (IMO), the publishers of Rifle Shooter, Guns & Ammo, Petersen's Hunting, Shooting Times etc etc has reorganized their website. A large part of the articles on the Wikipedia reference these IMO pages but due to the redesign of their website all previous links to their site have been lost. So while the cite hyperlinks may take one to the site (a redirect) they will only manage to get to the IMO main page. Are we going to have to go through and remove these cites? These articles were actually published in magazines so while an article's hyperlink may not work, if the month and year exist or a volume number exists these may not have to be deleted. What should be the procedure here?DeusImperator (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think if a link is truly dead (and is not available as a repost, archive, wayback, etc) and we have the correct publisher information, (volume, issue, date, pages, author) we should use that. I would prefer more print to online sources anyway. This is one of the reasons why I hate a single link as a source with no citation formats.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Links associated with cites should not be deleted if at least there is information regarding month and year and nome of the magazine in which the article appeared, even if the hyperlink itself is dead. However, some editors have used a simple link and there is no way to trackback and fix these links unless there xists a db somewhat which can provide the relevant details. DeusImperator (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cartridge Naming Convention

Several articles are named incorrectly within the Firearms Project scope. This issue is most prevalent with cartridges which carry a metric designation. Remington, Weatherby and Winchester and most cartridges which have originated within the United States or Canada do not have a space between the number and the metric designator.

• correct 6.5mm Remington Magnum not 6.5 mm Remington Magnum
• correct 7mm Remington Magnum not 7 mm Remington Magnum
• correct 8mm Remington Magnum not 8 mm Remington Magnum

Even outside the United States some cartridges follow a similar convention 8x57mm IS. Although this is is not universal. Articles should be named correctly. If a redirect is required we should not be redirecting from a correctly named page to the incorrectly named article. Rather move the page to the page with the correct name or if that is not possible request an administrator to provide assistance.

Furthermore, the article name page should be in full. Rather than having a article page named 7mm STW it should read 7mm Shooting Times Westerner. Subsequently a redirect can be provided for the short form of the cartridge name to the correctly named article page. Also rather than .270 WSM it should be .270 Winchester Short Magnum which is what the cartridge is "officially" called. A redirect on a page named .270 WSM would suffice.

For those who believe that there should exist a space between the number and the metric designator, sure that is correct in most instances. However, in the firearm cartridges world that is not the true in many/most cases. The Wiki should not be engineering the correct use of designators rather the Wiki is an encyclopedia which follows what already exists. I know some continental Europeans refer to the cartridges with a space between when in written form. OK but there exists a correct naming convention initiated by those who designed or created a cartridge and it is that designator that should be followed, even if it is incorrect by general convention. Just because the we figure out a cartridge is incorrectly name my the manufacturer does not mean that we should be changing it to "what really is correct". Else we will end up with cartridges called the .357 Special or .35 Special instead of the .38 Special.

I have created a template for these cartridge which require name changes. Having an admin or sysops do some of these will solve some issue.

This should be a clean-up project for those who are taking part in the project. DeusImperator (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved 7 mm Remington Magnum to 7mm Remington Magnum, and 6.5 mm Remington Magnum to 6.5mm Remington Magnum. The 7mm Remington Magnum pages are now error-free, but the talk page at 6.5mm Remington Magnum still has the unnecessary space due to an interfering redirect. ROG5728 (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Guns guidelines being challenged at Village pump

Resolved

and the link below has been adjusted to the now-archived thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a current challenge at the Village Pump (policy) board concerning the Criminal use guidelines cited by this project. The cited example pertains to the H&K MP5.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Link?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I found it...good job for stepping up like that. Looks like some anonymous troll got the panty wadding machine backed up.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

His user account was re-blocked although he stated his intent to sock so we may see him again. Archived thread at ANI for reference.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

AL-7

Hello. There are some unrealistic numbers given for the experimental AL-7 assault rifle. I tried to fix the page but the code breaks. 70.27.64.158 (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Firearms in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Firearms for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. MER-C 03:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Glock pistol article name

There's currently a discussion about what the Glock pistol article name should be. Feel free to join in, at Talk:Glock pistol#Article name. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

M734 Fuze

• A Class B rating is requested.

Months ago, editors indicated referencing style and format were Start Class.

All other criteria for Class B were met.

The referencing has accordingly been completely overhauled and validated.

The site (aka M734) receives several thousand hits anually.

Luceyg (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is good. I think the article has potential Good Article Status. My only objection to it is the formatting. Too many lists, referencing photos (while its great in print, I always find that distracting on wiki), and some information in the lede (particularly the Doppler information) should be moved into the body with the lede as a summary of what is in the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• An effort will be made to improve the formatting to achieve the Good Article Status, but since the referencing has been fixed what must I do to have it raised now to Class B? Also, what is a lede and what language is Μολὼν λαβέ ?

Luceyg (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Vortex Ring Gun

• Could a Class B rating or above be assigned to the Vortex Ring Gun article? During the complete re-write the last 2 1/2 months, it received 5K visits.

Luceyg (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please check Frederic Remington

I gave it a B for all the other projects as it seemed like there was a lot of info and well laid out. If you think it is lower, than reduce all project grades. If you think it passes your project B, please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.147.40 (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Light machine gun

Hi, I'm no expert in the matter, but thought I'd flag this with those who know better. A newly registered user is editing the page Light machine gun and is removing a number of the guns listed. Those being removed are classified as LMGs on their linked pages, but the user is deleting them based on their own definition. Ive reverted them twice, but don't want to get RRR on a topic I know nothing about - It just seems weird that the FM 24/29 light machine gun is now not listed as a LMG. Anyone who knows better might want to check the changes.. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of those are plain silly. Frex, I'd more readily call the Johnson an automatic rifle, in a class with the BAR. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I havent got a clue about guns, but something didn't seem right even to me (I patrol recent changes). I thought I'd defer to the experts, cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please check a new article about a firearms manufacturer

I have created Truvelo Armoury. I would appreciate it if knowlegable editors from this project could check it for any errors or ommissions as well as layout, templates, categories, etc. (It is a South African company so please don't "Americanize" the spelling or grammar.) Roger (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Beowulf 50 cal

may i ask where is this assault rifle? I couldn't find it anywhere 69.233.27.235 (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

.50 Beowulf is an article about the cartridge. Roger (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Penetration images

I would be cool to have some images similar to File:Beowulf Penetration 1.JPG that show side by side comparison of different bullets. That image isn't great in my opinion, because there is not hole to compare it to. It could be like out images that show several bullets in decreasing order. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately "coolness" is not a valid criterion for including material in Wikipedia articles. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Roger (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That was rude. I've been doing this for six years, and I meant it would be cool, like it was cool when I made Jackie Robinson a Featured Article, but whatev. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Some gun law changes including importation of shotguns and some protections becoming permanent

As of the 18th of November 2011, information regarding imported shotguns (those considered non-sport types) was signed into law. Some previously illegal shotguns are now legal in the United States (such as the SPAS) along with protections for gun owners. The article is here: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7180

Those of you whom maintain pages on the 2nd amendment, firearms, legality, and protections should visit the link and also search the government website to read up on these changes, along with an additional citation for the pages you work on. Thank you all whom work on our freedoms and firearm pages. 98.252.19.20 (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I've been plugging away at the "person" infoboxes and we're down to about a dozen, I can't find much on the few who are left...anyone care to lend a hand? thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What page lists them? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In the project "to do" list:[2] .--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

National Background Check System

How do I make a hatnote or inclusion at the National Background Check System page to clear up user confusion that the National Background Check System terminology is not to be confused with Background Checks Systems (domain was registered in 2002 before government named their product) which is a private company providing background checks to business consumers. The National Background Checks System is part of the USA federal government and relies on fingerprints from the national crime information center and is more commonly used by firearms dealers and/or official government agencies. We get quite a bit of email and phone traffic from anxious firearm buyers asking us about delays in their background checks when in reality they should be contacting either the firearms dealer or the National Background Check System.

Joeg524 (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gun Control Items have a Bias... should they be removed from the Firearms Project?

I am finding lots of biased information on gun-control related pages. It is understandable that those who have an interest in guns would contribute the most, but from my progressive standpoint I can see that Wikipedia's gun control pages have become greatly biased by rhetoric perpetuated by the gun industry. Looking at some of the user names and profiles it seems that WikiProject Firearms project contributors generally have a personal or financial interest in the gun industry. Cooldavid (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

How about assuming good faith and not making sweeping accusations against an entire project for starters. Technically you just levelled a personal attack on an entire group. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone propose an alternative "home" for gun control/policy/politics items that is more academic with an inherently Neutral POV? If nobody is interested, perhaps we need a new project group? Cooldavid (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You can create a progressive project, or gun control project or whatever else you wish if you feel you can get people to contribute and help you out. There will be some crossover with this project on some articles. There's no need to be snarky.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. I have re-framed my point so that it states it as my observation, hopefully it won't come across as snarky Cooldavid (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No prob. Debates like this can get heated, even if we disagree it pays to be polite and remain cool--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Some Examples of Bias on articles with Wiki Firearms Project

Gun control

Pretty much every section here has bias towards casting doubt on the effectiveness of gun policy. When data varies so much and there is so much data it is easy to pick two points and claim correlation. For example, your page states: "In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977." While this may be a true statement, it is merely a random factoid that has no relevance or importance especially regarding the claimed correlation. See how the murder rate of Hawaii greatly varies: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/hicrime.htm

The Wiki Firearms project is filled with such "facts", which are popularized and perpetuated by the gun industry's propaganda machine.

Gun Politics

United States: "Incidents of gun violence in 'gun-free' school zones have ignited debate[54] involving gun politics in the United States." This is tired gun lobby rhetoric. For example the most recent big debate was the Tucson Massacre was committed in an area where armed individuals were permitted to carry guns, and during the shooting, an armed individual was in the vicinity.

Brady Campaign

Efforts and actions: Map coloring (green indicates weak gun laws while red indicates strong gun laws) Stated mission: seems setup to cast doubt on the credibility of the organization History: In January 2010 the Better Business Bureau published its Charity Review on the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stating that it failed to meet six (of twenty) standards for charity accountability. (Should be listed as criticism, not history)

National Rifle Association

"This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links." Enough said

Cooldavid (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

How about specific examples of your allegations rather than a half-assed smear job? Any jerk can throw a tag on a page and then cite it as "proof". You have no proof that editors from this project made any of those edits. Stop trolling.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why raising valid points about bias on wikipedia comes across as "trolling". I didn't need to slap on any tags. The content speaks for itself, and It would probably take me a whole year to exhaustively list all of the biases and incompleteness of all the various pages. I'm not accusing this group of writing the content, but since the Firearms group is listed as a responsible party for these pages, I am pointing out that there is a serious bias issue on these gun control pages and it could be tackled better. Cooldavid (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Gun control has 2 other projects attached to it: Milhistory and politics, yet you brought it here. Projects don't mean "governance", just that a particular group of editors feels it is in their sphere and they can help improve it. For instance, in the "Brady" article, someone put in that the Brady's think Armor piercing and hollow point bullets are both cop killers and refer to them as such. Well there's plenty of evidence that they believe the former, but I could find no source backing up the latter. So half that sentence was bullshit. When the bullshit was deleted, the rest didn't make any sense, so I deleted the whole thing here: [3]. I improved an article as I found incorrect information in there and removed it. Had I found a reliable source stating otherwise, the source would have been placed there and the article improved by confirming the information. You don't need a project for that, you just need to know how to edit and source. My advice would be to work on what you can and ask for help if you need it. Don't think, though that a new project will get you a flurry of volunteer helpers. You'll see what I mean by Monday.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Input requested on page moves

See Talk:9×19 mm Parabellum#Move.

Which is correct 9x19mm or 9x19 mm?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Help requested for recent changes to Cartridge (firearms)

Hi, guys, I recently reverted a bunch of changes to this article by a new and unexperienced user. I've tried to go back and redo some of the changes that seemed reasonable, but I don't know all that mcuh about the subject; can someone else more familiar than me take a look and see if there's anything else salvageable? Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)