Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

My addition to "history section"

I have repeatedly added a correctly quoted and reference very small section of a NY Times article into the history section only to have it deleted w/o explanation by three different editors. My addition is not vandalism, nor is it disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trblmkr1 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is a copyright violation as it directly quotes material when that material could easily be added in your own words. If you consider adding the text in your own words, I suggest you discuss whether or not it should be included here first (as I don't know whether all of the other reverts were based on the copyright issue or the content itself). Ryan Vesey 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Quotations, when properly marked as such, are not a copyright violation but count as fair use, unless they comprise substantial amounts of the original text (see WP:QUOTE for guidelines how to use quotations). As opposed to the IP, Trblmkr1 has now correctly applied quotation marks, so unless you guys have content issues with this text, I suggest that Eyesnore self-reverts this edit. To Trblmkr1, please do not restore this text yourself. We have a rule that "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." By inserting your text again and again you have already exceeded this limit. De728631 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the quotation did not meet our fair use requirement as it used an excessive amount of quoted information when no quotation was necessary. Furthermore, in text attribution was necessary. Ryan Vesey 21:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

From a formal point of view, in-text attribution would only be needed for a biased or contentious statements, but as this seems to be a fairly neutral report to me, citing NYT with a footnote was totally sufficient. And I think this is also not excessive use of original material. Of course quotations can always be rewritten and be portrayed with one's own words, but that is not the primary requirement for a chunk of this size since the quotation as such may still be useful. So what has to be determined is the need for it. De728631 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The only phrase that would require an in-text explanation of context or should completely left out when quoting directly from the source, is the "was introduced... last week" bit. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

According to MOS:QUOTE, if a large chunk of a source is placed into an article it needs at minimum in-text attribution, otherwise it's just a quote without context or explanation. Even with in-text attribution such a quote is unnecessary and probably not allowed per WP:NFCC since that exact wording is not critical to the content, and it can be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice. - SudoGhost 22:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the quoting issues, the content he added does not merit inclusion in this article, for reasons already established here on the talk page. See Talk:AR-15#Popular_Culture_Section above. ROG5728 (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the one of User:Trblmkr1/IP 24.188.182.55's edits not because of a copyright violation, but because the way the source was added seemed very non-neutral, and the editor seemed to have an attitude to match, especially since there has been much discussion here on the shooting subject, which as far as I can tell, Trblmkr1 did not take part in.

However I did notice that another editor did add something else into the current revision, again, cited from the NY times. Personally, I believe the way this was added was much more neutral.

There is a fine line here between a pro-gun agenda and an anti-gun agenda, and I have been reading the discussions above the and have seen both sides there. Personally, I'm not a fan of mentioning everytime somebody dies of a gunshot wound (and as someone suggested above, if everytime a crime is committed with it is notable, then so is every instance of self defense with one). However, I do believe that the gun has undeniably received notoriety from the Sandy Hook incident, and to ignore this would not be a good thing. However, I do not believe that it is lead material. As for the current revision which I was originally addressing, the source for it is the NY times, whose viewpoint I question, however I believe the way it was added is in a fairly neutral way. Just my thoughts.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, being it wasn't an AR-15 rifle that was used, there is no need to mention it here. It was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S, as shown here. Have removed the incorrect information in this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that you're splitting hairs - the Bushmaster rifle in question is a type of AR-15. It's like saying soda didn't make somebody fat, Pepsi (or another specific brand) did. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Furthermore, the media doesn't demonize only Bushmaster models specifically, they demonize the AR-15 in general.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Accuracy matters. If Pepsi accidentally released a batch of soda that was adulterated with some pollutant, would you include a warning in the Coca Cola article that "Cokes across America were accidentally released containing the pollutant"? Of course not. Being that AR-15 is a Colt registered trademark, we shouldn't claim that one of their products was used at Sandy Hook when it wasn't. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a trademark, but it's also colloquial term for any rifle using the action or appearing as such, to the average person. Joe Schmoe, who knows nothing about guns, isn't going to call it the "Bushmaster XM-15" he's gonna call it an AR-15 because that's how the media refers to them, because in spite of being a trademark, its a common term. Compare with Jello, or even Coke, for example. Furthermore, the article doesn't treat it as exclusively a Colt item (see the legal area and the "Manufacturer" sections especially). Besides, you might want to remove Bushmaster from the list of manufacturers from the infobox then...--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it might be a good idea to split the article, too. Have one titled "Colt AR-15 rifle" or something, and "AR-15 type rifle", the latter might also possibly be renamed from the "AR-15 variants" article. Just a thought, because you allege that this article is about the Colt-made AR-15, in many areas, it is more about the generic action in others. I cannot deny that I agree with you that Colt should not directly be associated with the incident, but the trademarked term "AR-15" really has become too colloquial to completely ignore.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just to let people know, Trblmkr restored his edit without the copyvio. Since I undid another of his edits, it's possible that you might miss it in the edit history, I'm not sure if anyone has a problem on this one. Ryan Vesey 15:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan. Nonetheless, even the completely factual, in my own words, devoid of opinion version was too much for some. Now my crime was: "(cur | prev) 16:28, 30 January 2013‎ Happysailor (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (43,146 bytes) (-218)‎ . . (Reverted addition of dubious unsourced content (HG)) (undo)"

I fully expect you and others to leap to my defense given your unfailing rectitude and verve for a completely accurate WP. Please revert for me so I don't break the 3RR again. Trblmkr1 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, Happy Sailor. Trblmkr1 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the accuracy of the addition by Trblmkr1, the content itself does not merit inclusion in this article for reasons already established here on the talk page. See Talk:AR-15#Popular_Culture_Section above. So far there has been no notable federal legislation resulting from this incident and the whole discussion seems to have largely died down already. In the meantime, the Colorado shooting trivia also being added is without a doubt not notable here, and its inclusion seems to be nothing more than a coatracking attempt. ROG5728 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The stated Rate of Twist need a Unit. 1:14 what? Meter (SI unit)? cm? inch? feet? Sugar cubes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.233.229 (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Assault Weapon

"Today's AR-15 rifles are often coined as an assault weapon, which is not technically true. In order for any rifle to be considered an assault weapon, it must have many specific features including fully automatic and/or burst fire capabilities, which the current production AR-15's do not have."-From the AR-15 page "In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain cosmetic, ergonomic, or construction features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without requiring the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but pistols or shotguns may also fall under the definition(s) or be specified by name. The exact definition of the term in this context varies among each of the various jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions. Governing and defining laws include the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban,[2] as well as state and local laws often derived from or including definitions verbatim from the expired Federal Law."-From the Assault Weapon page i just want to double check before: this should be deleted, right? Dudeaga (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? The AR-15 is based off the M-16, which is a military assault rifle. If anything this should be made clearer. Timteka (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the article is about both the military select-fire versions and the civilian semi-automatic versions. The former is an assault rifle, while the latter is not, it is a semi-automatic rifle which, depending on an arbitrary list of features that it may have, may deem it an "assault weapon" under law in certain jurisdictions. Please don't try to obscure the difference to push a political view.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Use in killing sprees

There has been an edit war about a section named "Weapon of Choice in US Massacres". Obviously, that section title was emotional, and the content of the section was not up to snuff, containing some WP:OR. So it is understandable that it raised objections. However, there can be no doubt that the topic is notable and highly relevant to the article, so we need to include it somehow. In an attempt to make this less susceptible to emotional wording, I am suggesting to use a table, and I will implement it as a starting point. I'm aware that that might seem cold-hearted, but I'd rather err on that side, given the edit war. Please feel free to edit the presentation, but please keep the pertinent information itself. As a section title, I feel that "Use in killing sprees" might be more neutral. — Sebastian 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, that would violate WP:GUNS and WP:NPOV. There is not a chance of a "use in killing sprees" table passing muster. This is Wikipedia, not CNN. Please join the current discussion on this above. ROG5728 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, I was not aware of such a discussion. I had checked this page, but found no headline referring to this, nor a recent discussion towards the bottom. Now that you brought it up, I presume you refer to #Popular Culture Section, correct? I am not familiar with WP:GUNS (to be honest, I am normally not that interested in assault rifles), but I am very familiar with WP:NPOV, at least as it was a couple years ago, and I do not see what part of this policy says that you can't have such an objective table in an article.

In the meantime I started editing the page. I went about filling the table from "what links here". One problem I noticed with such a table is that often more than one type of weapon was used. The AR-15 was also used, along with other weapons, in the 1991 Sacramento hostage crisis, the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, the 2009 Guanajuato and Hidalgo shootings, the 2009 Geneva County massacre, the 2011 Cupertino quarry shooting and the 2011 San Fernando massacre. I did not include these yet, since that would have required some more work. However, I think what I got so far is relevant and noteworthy information, and I don't want that effort to be in vain; I therefore saved it as it is. But I will not edit war; if it gets removed, it will at least remain part of the page history. — Sebastian 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP:GUNS guidelines are clear on pop culture/criminal use trivia. A "use in killing sprees" table would never pass muster. Criminal use is only documented if it results in legislation being passed or gives the weapon greatly increased notoriety. The incidents you listed didn't result in either happening. Now, it's possible that the recent shooting in Connecticut will result in either gun control legislation or greatly increased notoriety for the AR-15, but at this point it's too early to say. ROG5728 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the partial reply. Now, WP:GUNS is not a policy; in fact it isn't even a guideline:

This section contains advice about style. As such it contains the recommendations and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to present articles within their area of interest. This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style.

That said, I do regard the recommendations of WikiProjects highly; I've often fought for those recommendations, regardless of whether I was a member in the applicable WikiProject. However, in this case, there seems to be a clash with how I understand NPOV. The way I've always dealt with POV issues is to keep objective information out in the open, so readers can form their own impression. I hold this to be an essential part of NPOV. How do you see it differently? — Sebastian 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It may not be an official WP policy, but it was formed with consensus by the Firearms Wikiproject in order to retain article quality and neutrality. As for WP:NPOV, which is a policy, creating a "killing sprees table" would obviously advance an anti-gun agenda. Aside from that, it wouldn't serve to do much else because it's basically just trivia and WP:RECENTISM. By the way, we could try to list the many hundreds/thousands of cases over the years where citizens have used AR-15 rifles in self defense, but you'll notice we aren't doing that either. Like I said earlier -- this isn't an issue of factuality, it's an issue of relevance and neutrality. This kind of information is only worth noting when it actually has a significant impact on the weapon itself, and at this point it's too early to say that this incident will have any long term impact on the AR-15. ROG5728 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping up the civil discussion, and for your patience; I notice that you actually did answer this similarly above. Our main difference seems to me in how we understand WP:NPOV. You seem to be of the opinion that any information that advances a certain agenda is to be avoided. I don't see that in the policy. To the contrary, the policy says

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective [...]"

That is what I would like to achieve here.

You further mention WP:RECENTISM, but I don't see how that applies. WP:RECENTISM doesn't mean you can't write about recent events; all it does is express the opinion (which I share) that editors are are prone to the temptation to write about recent events and thereby "muddling or diffusi[ng] the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus." Each of the shootings has its own elaborate article on Wikipedia, and I don't think you would want to argue that the shootings will or should be forgotten in a few years. These shootings are an inextricable part of the subject. If you have information on how many lives have been saved by civilians using the AR-15, by all means, feel free to add it, along with reliable sources. That's how NPOV works. — Sebastian 23:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no way the information in this case could just be rewritten for a "more neutral tone." That has already been done. The tone is not the problem. Like I said, the only way you could hope to stay neutral with this kind of inclusion is to also document all of the cases where AR-15s have been used in self defense, which is only going to clutter up the article even more. That would inevitably distract from the real purpose of the article, which is to talk about the weapon itself and its technical characteristics. It would be much better to avoid the inevitable gun control debate altogether in this article and save it for something like the Assault Weapons Ban article. This article is for talking about how the AR-15 works, what type of caliber it uses, who designed it, who manufactures it, etc. The problem is not just that the information you're wanting to include advances an agenda; the problem is that it really does nothing aside from advancing an agenda. Unless this incident has some kind of long term impact on the AR-15, it's basically trivia. People associate the Intratec with the Columbine shooting, as WP:GUNS points out, but it remains to be seen if there will be that kind of strong link between Connecticut and the AR-15. ROG5728 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that add a long list of positive use cases would clutter the article. And besides, I can see that arguably there may also be cases in which the gun, without being used, already works as a deterrent, which of course is even harder to document. But I'm not suggesting such a mammoth task, this is not the only way to stay neutral. If there is a reliable main stream source (not a publication by the manufacturer) that summarizes these cases and ideally presents them in form of statistics, then you can easily include that without cluttering the article.

You write that for you the real purpose of the article are questions about its working, design etc. I understand that these questions are what motivates you, as a gun owner and gun enthusiast, to write about it here, and I'm grateful for that. Without dedicated enthusiast, Wikipedia would not be where it is today. However, the real purpose of the article is to serve the interested public. In that regard, a gun is different from most other areas of personal interest, such as model railroads, movies, or Pokemon. By its very nature, a gun interests a broader public than other hobby areas; it is very interesting to someone who might find himself at the other end of the barrel. I happen to be one of these readers. I didn't go to the article because I was intrigued by its technical features, but because of what people do with it. Admittedly, you may call this recentivism, since recent events obviously triggered my interest, but Connecticut was not the first time this happened. Even if, as we all hope, it were to be the last, and if people stop talking about it, the many lives lost are inextricably connected with this gun. — Sebastian 00:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear, Sebastian! This entire discussion is absolutely ridiculous! All that is being desired is to mention that this rifle has been used a lot in mass shootings. Period. There is no bias built into this, and since it has had a track record of such use more than any other gun, that fact ought to be noted in the article for people to know. It is not taking any sides on the issue one way or the other. Those who are opposed to the inclusion of this fact are basically squelching the free speech of others. It's absolutely pathetic the excuses and arguments they have used. Include a non-biased statement about the use of this weapon among mass murderers, and be done with it already. Enough argument! --Saukkomies ^talk 00:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, the problem is not just that the information you're wanting to include advances an agenda; the problem is that it really does nothing aside from advancing an agenda. Unless this incident has some kind of long term impact on the AR-15, it's basically trivia, which is exactly what WP:GUNS warns against (and for good reason). People associate the Intratec with the Columbine shooting, as WP:GUNS points out, but it remains to be seen if there will be that kind of strong link between Connecticut and the AR-15. For reasons of neutrality, the Firearms Wikiproject has decided that criminal use should not be noted in these articles unless there is a good reason to do so. On that note, I should point out that literally none of the incidents of mass murder that you listed earlier in your table are actually strongly associated with the AR-15 today, and there is certainly no indication that they led to "greatly increased notoriety" for the AR-15. It's too early to say whether this case will be any different. ROG5728 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Your insistance on preventing this information from being given to the public is advancing your own personal pro-NRA agenda. The fact that the AR-15 has been used repeatedly by mass murderers in recent years is noteworthy, and should be included in the article. It certainly is being discussed by many people in the media, and providing supportive evidence in Wikipedia for people to be able to verify the facts in this case is part of the mission of this public and freely-accessible encyclopedia. You are attempting to censor this information, which is vital to a relevant public discussion being done at this point in time, which is censorship, not proper editing. --Saukkomies ^talk 16:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sebastian asked me to comment here. It is probably a bit early to say whether the recent Newtown, Connecticut shootings will bring lasting notoriety to the AR-15. An encyclopedia does not need to rush to deal with this, though I definitely think we should see how things shape up over the next few weeks & see whether this becomes a case comparable to the Intratec TEC-DC9 and Columbine. Still, a couple of points:

• I didn't look through the history of the edit war on this, but if someone has several independent, prominent reliable sources that have written about the particular model of gun in terms of this history of use in massacres, it would seem that is exactly what would be needed to match that Intratec TEC-DC9 / Columbine model. ROG5728, do you agree, or do you think the bar is higher than that, and if so where do you think it would be set?
• With articles like How Walmart Helped Make the Newtown Shooter's AR-15 the Most Popular Assault Weapon in America in the current issue of The Nation, it seems to me like it will quite likely be so. As that article points out, the notoriety is already such that WalMart pulled this quite popular item from its website after the attack, which presumably they wouldn't have done if they didn't draw that sort of connection themselves. ROG5728, might that be notable in and of itself? WalMart doesn't do stuff like that a lot.

- Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait and see what comes of this. A brief public debate always follows these kinds of incidents, but we should be concerned with long lasting implications. If any kind of gun control legislation is passed as a result of this incident, it should certainly be noted. As for the weapon's history, no, I don't think the other past incidents should be mentioned unless they meet the notability criteria on a standalone basis. As for Wal Mart, they apparently only pulled the listing for the rifle from their website -- they still sell it. Anyway, it's obvious there is quite an uproar at the moment but I think we should wait and see what comes of it. ROG5728 (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

One more time: This is not just a "recent" event. The tragedy at Newtown last week is just the LATEST in a series of events where the AR-15 has been used repeatedly in mass shootings in the US in the past few years. Aren't you paying attention? This has been stated and restated in this discussion over and over again. It is quite clear that those who are opposed to mentioning the use of the AR-15 as the weapon used by a series of mass murderers in the US in recent years are deliberately trying to prevent this information from being available to the public, and are using whatever gimmicks and tricks they can find to try to prevent this information from being made public. Why? One must conclude that the reason is because they are NOT BEING NEUTRAL in this. They have a political axe to grind, and they refuse to honor the spirit of Wikipedia in which relevant and important information is given to people so that they can make up their own minds about something. In other words, this is pure and outright censorship by a group of right-wing fanatics here, nothing less. --Saukkomies ^talk 16:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The relevant "recent event" may very well cause changes in gun laws. But, until it does, this is still just a single point event, horrible though it was. Long guns in general are not used repeatedly in mass shootings. The actual number in terms of percentage is around 1-2%, depending on whose study you read, of mass shootings in which long guns were used. The Texas clock tower shooting was done with an M1 Carbine. But, no changes in gun laws relative to the M1 Carbine occurred due to that shooting. The existing article on the Sandy Hook shooting already identifies what firearms were used, as it should, with links to the relevant gun articles, as it should, one of which was a long gun that wasn't even an AR-15 (it was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S). It is still entirely too early to put in more detail of what is clearly an evolving impact, relative to the AR-15 article. Doing so would only clutter the article with gun politics viewpoints, better served by their inclusion (which are already there) in other articles. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia: the entry on the AR-15 should be succinct and contain information relevant to the rifle itself. The fact that this rifle has been used in several recent high profile mass-murders is not so relevant to the rifle as it would be the pages on spree killing, serial killing, or mass murdering. If this information is truly relevant, shouldn't it be included in those places rather than on the page about the rifle itself? People looking for information on the weapon are going to find this page, people looking for information about weapons of mass murder are not going to find this page.

Neither the pages for the Remington 870 Express shotgun or the Glock 22 pistol contain any mention that they were used in the Aurora, Colorado shooting, despite those weapons being much more lethal than the AR-15 also used.

Also, I fail to find objective evidence cited in this discussion that suggests this weapon is inordinately popular with mass murderers (which would be necessary to satisfy notoriety guidelines.) The NPR interview cited above is merely opinion and conjecture, and meanwhile it is true that this is a very popular rifle in America (which implies easy access). There are other sources(such as the FBI's Crime in the US report) that definitively show that rifles as a whole are not used frequently in crime (something like 300 homicides used rifles in comparison to 11,000 - 12,000 total homicides and 8000 total firearms homicides). 71.85.231.179 (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you just call the statements made by the former head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms "merely opinion and conjecture"? That's data from a documented expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.117.19 (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you so naive and/or delusional that you believe the politically charged statements of a political appointee are a "reliable source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.65.173 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Reindent All right. How is this for a compromise? Include a link under the "See Also" list of related Wikipedia articles that redirects readers to Mass Murder. You don't have to explain about it in the text of the article, just include the link at the bottom. --Saukkomies ^talk 22:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that any more appropriate than a table listing the mass murders the weapon has been used in? This whole discussion has been about whether it is appropriate to call out the AR-15 as a weapon that is particularly favored by mass murderers. If it is, your tables and links would be appropriate. If it is not, then it is inappropriate. This isn't a question of compromising your point of view versus my point of view, it's a question of what encylopedic content should be. 71.85.231.179 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. It's about you taking a hard-line, pro-NRA stance and me trying to find a compromise solution that is being rejected. --Saukkomies ^talk 01:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, it's a question of whether or not the proposed edits constitute good encyclopedic content. The proposed edits (by your own admission under the Popular Culture section) are to draw attention to the AR-15 as a notorious weapon of mass murder. A number of editors have contested this assessment for a variety of reasons. My main point is that the AR-15 page is not an appropriate location for the proposed content, because the use of this particular firearm in several high-profile shootings is not at this time especially significant. If it turns out to be significant (for example, if the use of this particular firearm ends up playing a major role in new gun control legislation) then it will warrant inclusion on this page, in the same vein as the discussion of the legality of civilian ownership of the AR-15 in Australia and the role of the AR-15 in the Port Arthur massacre. In my mind the only valid edit at this point would be to say something to the effect of "The use of the AR-15 in the Aurora, Clackamas, and Newtown shootings has motivated the discussion of a renewed federal Assault Weapons Ban." under the legality of civilian ownership in the US section. 71.85.231.179 (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A good encyclopedia would provide factual information to citizens to help them make decisions that effect their lives in a real and direct way. Right now US citizens are concerned about assault rifles being used in mass shootings, specifically the AR-15.

So, I would agree with what you are suggesting: include a mention of the weapon in the shootings in the way that you mention above.

The use that weapons are put to in society is just as relevant for encyclopedic inclusion as the manufacturing details. The use that such weapons as the Colt revolver, the Winchester rifle, the Kalashnikov assault rifle, or even the T-34 Soviet tank are all very integral to the encyclopedic information regarding them. Therefore, the precedence is already set for inclusion of information as to how the AR-15 is used. --Saukkomies ^talk 19:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate by precedent, so it doesn't matter what you've seen in other articles. What matters is the Wikipedia policies/guidelines, and the addition you're advocating would not be in keeping with them (as has been pointed out). ROG5728 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion, Rog. In other editors' opinions it is acceptable. You are not some kind of Wikipedia God, dictating your whims onto the rest of us. The fact that there is a precedent in other articles for this sort of thing indicates that this is not a black-and-white issue, regardless of whether you believe it to be or not. So quit trying to act like a jerk and give a little here - this is not going to go away, no matter whether you wish it to or not. Compromise. --Saukkomies ^talk 21:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I already did compromise at Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine and we added a fairly neutral mention there. Nothing is going to be added to this article, though, because this article is not even specific to the Bushmaster rifle. In other words, you're making your argument on the wrong page. ROG5728 (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The above passage I propose is not a compromise in the sense that we're agreeing on mutually acceptable language. As I said before, the question is whether a proposed edit constitutes valid encyclopedic content. Pointing out how the use of the weapon is influencing current events is at least passably encyclopedic (though not really, as per the recency guidelines previously mentioned). Trying to associate this particular weapon with mass murderers in general is most certainly not a valid statement, nor is it particularly encyclopedic for the AR-15. 71.85.231.179 (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Could the opponent(s) of adding such a phrase as "The use of the AR-15 in the Aurora, Clackamas, and Newtown shootings has motivated the discussion of a renewed federal Assault Weapons Ban" specify, for the record, what possible events would push such info beyond trivia, lest the goalposts be moved later on? Waiting for specific legislation to be 'passed' effectively gives the judgment of whether the AR-15 is notorious to one segment of one house of Congress -- the one courted and funded by the gun lobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.117.19 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Trivia is trivia. The fact that there has been "discussion" of a renewed Assault Weapons Ban is not relevant; not at this point. The gun control debate comes up all the time, you know. ROG5728 (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with ROG here. After every mass shooting there are always talks of renewed gun control, and of the three we've had to date this year only one has resulted in apparently "serious" talks (and by serious I mean that the president has formed a committee to investigate the issue.) The definite test for notoriety would be not just a renewed assault weapons ban, but a specific preamble, ban, or regulation that mentions the AR-15 by name, or a relevant lawmaker (meaning, someone who is crafting legislation) who calls out the AR-15 by name, or some objective source describing how the AR-15 can be shown to be particularly favored by mass murderers.

That is the issue: whether or not it's justifiable to call out the AR-15 as a mass murderer's weapon. If it is, then such information (listing the specific instances in which the AR-15 has been used to commit mass murder) deserves to be on the general page about the AR-15. If it is not, then it does not. As this is an encyclopedia, this assertion needs to be backed up by objective sources. As it stands, there are only three mass shooters that I'm aware of that have used the AR-15, all three of these have occurred in the last few months, there are many other mass shooters that have not used the AR-15, crime statistics show that rifles are very seldom used in crime (and gun violence in general), and the AR-15 rifle is particularly popular in the US. Given all that, it makse sense to say that their use in recent mass shootings is simply because they're currently popular in the US, and not because there's something intrinsically more desirable about this weapon than any other semiautomatic rifle that can accept large magazines. The easiest way to resolve this debate would be the citation of a verifiable and objective source indicating one way or the other. I know of several FBI publications (Crime in the US yearly report) and a US Dept. of Justice report (Guns Used In Crime, 1994) that show that rifles in general are not much used in crime, but these are silent on assault weapons and nothing I'm aware of specifically addresses spree killers or the AR-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.231.179 (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not trivia. This weapon has been used in the majority of mass shootings in the past recent years than any other. That is a singular important aspect of its use, and should be noted. --Saukkomies ^talk 14:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is what the article currently says:

As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5-3.7 million rifles from the AR-15 family in civilian use in the United States.[28] The rifles are favored for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection.[29]

Why is it such a big deal to also mention that it has been used repeatedly as the favored weapon for mass shooters in the US in recent years? This article is not supposed to be an advertisement for the AR-15 manufacturers, nor is it meant to be a brochure for the NRA, and the fact that this use of the AR-15 is not mentioned at all in the article indicates that the article is not objective, not encyclopedic, but rather a marketing brochure or NRA propaganda missif. This is patently obvious. --Saukkomies ^talk 16:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem, Saukkomies, is that your statement isn't true. The following http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead# claims there were sixteen mass shootings in the US this year and of all those, only the Aurora, Clackamas, and Newtown shooters used the AR-15. Your definition of "mass shooting" might not be the same as used in the article (mine isn't) but it still gives us a starting point for relative frequency. Unless you can come up with objective, verifiable sources that support your claim, this discussion is closed, because the weight of verifiable evidence suggests that your proposed edit is simply not factual. The three recent high-profile shootings using the AR-15 are, as far as I know, the ONLY three mass shootings that have used the AR-15, ever.

I will say that your insistence has been such that I have even tried to go out and find examples of crimes involving the AR-15, thinking that I must have missed something. But, try as I might, I'm unable to find any significant crimes committed with an AR-15 outside of the three recent mass shootings. 71.85.231.179 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I concede. I have not been able until today to find time to dig into this deeper (grading students' final papers and such), and was basing my conclusions on some reports I'd read and heard that were claiming this weapon was the top choice of mass shooters in the US in recent years. However, I have now found time to dig deep into this, and have discovered that indeed this is not the case. Here is one source I found to substantiate this: http://www.nycrimecommission.org/initiative1-shootings.php So I drop my case and apologize for the wasted bandwidth. I do wish, though, that those who used the ridiculous gimmicks of claiming this information (although erroneous) was "trivial" or "unencyclopedic" would have chosen another angle to respond to this, since neither of those claims were legitimate. User 71.85.231.179 (whomever he or she is) had the best response - it's always good to verify the information first. --Saukkomies ^talk 17:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

How long is this article going to be held hostage to NRA-member faNatics. This article's unwillingness to address the use of AR-15's in US massacres is like talking about the Atomic Bomb without mentioning Hiroshima or Nagasaki. FANATICS WITH GUNS ON THE BRAIN. [[user:kaneandhicks] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaneandhicks (talk • contribs) 01:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact is there is no compromise in either of these articles at all. Information on criminal use gets deleted from these articles regularly and systematically. Given this information is wished to be included by many independent contributors to Wikipedia, and reading above there is no Wikipedia rule as to why it should not be included in a normal way, this is censorship plain and simple. A section or at least a sentence in a appropriate section should be included. Timteka (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in the "Knife" article, we should include a section on "weapon of choice for mass murders" too. 71.96.26.57 (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Censorship.

Alive and well on Wikipedia. Dozens of independent users have added legitimate, well referenced information to this entry, and it has been removed by a pro-gun cabal who deem this to be their personal territory. Wikipedia does not have a monopoly on knowledge, and many people coming to view this entry are well aware of when and where the AR-15 has been used to massacre Americans. When those same people see a paucity of such data on this page, they don't forget about it or change their mind, they assume that this is not a place where information can be freely disseminated in the face of agendas and private interests. And they would be right. You should seriously consider whether this is the correct forum to be promoting your agenda, at the risk of undermining the entire integrity of this project. Certain articles do not belong to certain people. For shame. --90.201.63.83 (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes indeed. And it's already started again. Properly referenced links to relevant data deleted for nonsense reasons such as "outside the scope of the article" when they are quite clearly notable. Fig (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Given that the Navy Yard shooter didn't actually have an AR-15, that item is pretty definitely "outside the scope of the article". As for the other incidents, there's already been a fair amount of discussion about whether to include them, you can see plenty if you scroll up. Call it "censorship" if you want, I think the preferred term hereabouts is "editing". -- Narsil (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The link in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#Variants to the CMMG Inc.-company is wrong. It is pointing to "9-Carboxymethoxymethylguanine" but not to the weapon manufacturer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.141.235 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AR-15. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060503175020/http://www.atf.gov:80/firearms/faq/faq2.htm to http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o2

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

M16 is military designation for an AR-15

I reverted an IP who is making a common mistake concerning the AR-15. M16 is a military designation for the AR-15, the latter being Armalite's original designation for the rifle regardless of it being select-fire or not. Please see the caption to the photo in this book.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a common mistake...unfortunately the article seems to do everything in power to confuse the reader. As it is constantly (and oftentimes inappropriately) referring to M16s, "Drop In Auto Sear", full-auto variants, etc. Perhaps, we should divide and rename the article. The new "COLT AR-15" page would focus only on the semi-auto models, with a Discretionary sanctions header on the talk page allowing editors to ruthlessly purge the machine-gun and assault rifle content. Then we can create a new "ARMALITE AR-15" page where we can focus on the early history of the ArmaLite and M16 rifles, while allowing discussion of machine gun conversions and assault rifle variants.--RAF910 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The "AR-15" model name is, as pointed out in the article, a copyrighted trademark belonging to Colt. It seems the article ignores this fact by almost immediately continuing to use it to describe clones from other manufacturers as AR-15s. You are contributing to the common misuse of the name by persons who insist on labeling it as an "assault weapon". Wikipedia is expected, I believe, to help dissuade such misuse instead of contributing to confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papabill1945 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

list of countries

This list is a back-handed and less-than-rational way of addressing "use in kiling sprees," by listing the resulting regulations. However, its apparently an arbitrary list, covering only a small fraction of the globe, and its reason for being is unclear and perhaps slightly dishonest.

But far be it from me to tangle with the awesome and dangerous Wiki-powers that I assume prevail here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.131.227.248 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Action Classification Contradiction

I just want to bring attention to the powers that be, that there is an apparent contradiction about the type of action used in the AR-15. At several points it is referred to as a direct impingement, while there is also a line in the Operating Mechanism section saying that the action "is often incorrectly referred to as direct gas impingement."

173.75.209.56 (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)ForceCSW

worked on the description of the action

My changes have been flagged as possible vandalism, so I thought I'd explain them here. I read most of the patent, and am using the terms "movable cylinder" and "stationary piston" from it, as well as continuing the use of the term "lugs". So if you think those terms are strange, I did get them from Stoner's patent. The previous text seemed to contradict itself, or was unclear, and had a lot of redundancy, as well. I'm not clear on the accuracy of the part describing the motion of the bolt back into firing position, but I'll take a look later.

I have removed the comment about the term "direct gas impingement" being incorrect, since I could not find a source with a firm definition of the term. Instead, I added a comment about how the AR-15 action is different from prior systems. This viewpoint is taken from the patent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.234.1.91 (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What is the intended topic of this article

I am assuming from the text that this article was intended to refer to the original AR-15 design (that became the M16) and all its variants, rather than just the civilian versions of the original design. I have changed the introductory paragraph to make that clear. I don't care what this article covers, but a choice needs to be made.

PrivateThoughts (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems obvious that most people would expect this to be about the entirety of the line of weapons sold under the AR-15 designation. The bulk of this would be the AR 15 as opposed to the M16 and M4 versions. 220.122.184.152 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that view is that the article begins with the discussion of the Armalite version, which was made into the M16. PrivateThoughts (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A history of use section is required about mass shootings

Not the "controversy due to mass shootings". The heading as such is unacceptable.

Legally obtainable assault-style rifles now have a history of being utilized for mass murder, and as such, a history should be written about it. There is no controversy (as currently stated), no one is arguing (i.e., having a controversy) about the use of this weapon in mass murder. Anyone looking to learn about this weapon should be aware of it's devastating history on civilian life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.43.213 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• All weapons through history, from stone-age axes and spears to the AR-15, have a "history of being utilized for mass murder". And no, there's no reason to add a separate "History of mass murder" section in this article, no more than there is to add it in any other article about individual weapons. Discuss it on the talk pages of gun control articles and articles about individual mass murderers instead, not here. Kitchen knives are the most common murder tools, BTW, are you going to add a "History of mass murder" section to Knife too? Thomas.W ^talk 15:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Knives also give you a heart transplant and cut my bread. Knives do a lot of things. Guns do one thing, and this particular gun is particularly known for doing a particular thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.26.240 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Judging by the latest news reports it wasn't even this particular gun, but a Sig-Sauer... Thomas.W ^talk 18:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Do one thing? Which is that? Put meat on my table? Enable me to defend my home? Allow me to engage in popular sport shooting competitions? Your bias is showing. Make sure is does not enter the article.

The AR-15 is not an Assault rifle. The media and politians using the wrong terminology for something, does not justify using said wrong terminology on Wikipedia. 76.22.43.213 has a very clear and present bias on this topic. 76.22.43.213 has only edited one thing in the past, and that was in 2010. This should not be included, not only due to this clear bias, but if we include these horrible things on this page, we also need to add them to every other firearm page, as well as every time a specific model of a car is used by a drunk driver to kill someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MordeKyle (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This whole section is clearly about politics and propaganda. I have deleted it. This discussion is a good example of why it needs to go. People tried to keep it factual and even that was controversial. PrivateThoughts (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

If you guys really think that reliable sources haven't repeatedly discussed the AR-15 in the context of mass shootings then you haven't been doing your research. There's a huge difference between the topics and articles you list above, such as "knife", and specific brands or types of weapons. This is a systemic problem with firearms articles. For some reason, facts like the color and weight are considered vital detaisl relative to notability, but scores of articles about their use in massacres are considdered irrelevant trivia. That's POV editing, plain and simple. Felsic2 (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Norway (largest western world shooting by an individual -- Mini-14, not an Ar-15 or variant. Paris mass shootings, largest mass shooting in western world by multiple shooters -- AK-47s, not an AR-15 or variant. Va Tech, until last month largest US mass shooting -- pistols, no AR-15 or variant. Shootingtracker list of mass shootings less than 2% with AR-15.Nistep89 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This is disingenuous. Many people edited the article to try to make that paragraph more accurate, including me, and even that was undone. The only purpose of the section was to spread propaganda. You are welcome to pretend that the brand of a knife or a gun makes something newsworthy, but there was never any content to the paragraph other than a list of events that somehow never managed to stay accurate for any period of time. PrivateThoughts (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not disingenuous and I don't appreciate the expression of bad faith.

The issue of mass shootings involving AR-15 type weapons is a significant topic. It is newsworthy because it's often in the news. If there are problems with accuracy then let's fix those. Please explain what "propaganda" is being spread. Felsic2 (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I stand by "disingenuous". You ignore the facts of the matter. The content of the section (and other parts of this article) were repeatedly vandalized and never had any content beyond a list of events, excepting a few pure lies. "Newsworthy" and "in the news" are not synonyms. Check the dictionary. Your inaccurate editing of the lead sentence under the guise of fixing a "weird lead" is a bit suspicious, as well.

PrivateThoughts (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead is still weird. Maybe we oughta discuss it rather than endlessly revising it.

I'm not addressing any specific content, but rather the general topic of mass shootings and AR-15s. Let's find a consensus on how to address this topic, which is covered in numerous reliable sources. Is there a problem with a heading like, "Criminal use"? Felsic2 (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in endless revisions, either, but I wouldn't have needed to fix it if you would limit your changes to issues that you understand, assuming your problem was lack of knowledge. And no, I'm tired of propaganda sections. You can start a whole article of your own that addresses any issue you wish. The AR-15 page should be about the AR-15. PrivateThoughts (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That ain't helpful. Don't throw around charges of "propaganda", etc., especially if you're not interested in productive discussions abou improving this article. Felsic2 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Norway (largest western world shooting by an individual -- Mini-14, not an Ar-15 or variant. Paris mass shootings, largest mass shooting in western world by multiple shooters -- AK-47s, not an AR-15 or variant. Va Tech, until last month largest US mass shooting -- pistols, no AR-15 or variant. Shootingtracker list of mass shootings -- less than 2% with AR-15.Nistep89 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

comparison with M16 and M4 should be more upfront

we should probably frontload the similarities and differences from the M16/M4. Something to the effect of "The AR-15 is a civilian variant of the M16/M4 rifle featuring compatibility with components of the military versions but lacking a selective fire function (full automatic for M16A1, 3 round burst for later variants)" I leave the exact wording to others as i know this is probably going to be a touchy page for a few weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.122.184.152 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Manufacturers list

This question was asked a long time ago and the material was removed: Do we really need the manufacturers list? Does it really serve to help people understand the AR15 to know that out of all the firearms Remington makes, one happens to be an AR? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Since these rifles are so generic, it's not clear to me why we have any articles about specific models. We don't have articles about individuals brands of washing machines. Safir T-15, Carbon 15, almost every entry in Category:AR-platform firearms... Why bother devoting space to non-notable variants? They can be covered iether in this article or in their manufacturers. Felsic2 (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Generic in your opinion, perhaps, but "notable" does not mean "of interest to one specific editor." By the same standard I assume airliner, an article about a particular supertype of aircraft sharing a few particular features, should not have a manufacturer list either, and we shouldn't have articles about specific types of airliners? Also, we do have articles about specific brands of washing machines, see the manufacturer list here and also Reason washing machine, Thor washing machine, Xeros Washing Machine, etc. For something more directly comparable, check out our list of vacuum cleaners or list of stoves, or for imaginary guns try our fully-linked List of first-person shooter engines with a full set of sub-articles for your bemusement. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The list is incomplete and it's also useless, in my opinion, but this article is attracting a lot of vandalism now, and I am paying more attention to that. PrivateThoughts (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't call good-faith editing "vandalism". As for the topic of this thread, the M1911 pistol article is similar - a now-generic weapon with a lot of coverage of manufacturers. So the question remains - what value do discussion of these makers brong to articles? Felsic2 (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't call good-faith editing "vandalism". If you look at many of the recent changes to the article, you will see a lot of vandalism, plain and simple PrivateThoughts (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are you talking about vandalism in a thread about manufacturers? Felsic2 (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That's already been made clear in what I said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivateThoughts (talk • contribs) 06:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing you've said is clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Is there anyone making a case to keep the section? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's worth having somewhere, but maybe as a separate "List of AR-10 variants" or just in that little bottom template thing. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't support a template at all. If you want to do a separate article, have at it. It was adding nothing to this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Since this page is about the Trademarked AR-15 then this page can ONLY logically be about the Colt Patent Firearms model AR-15. This is the model that became the M-16, the design of which is now properly of the US Government and is produced for the US by FN of Belgium. The use of AR-15 is a copyright violation.Digitallymade (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• 1) You obviously don't know what this page is about. 2) You obviously don't know what a copyright violation is. Try learning both. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What "AR" stands for

To put and end to the reverts and slo-mo edit-war over what "AR" stands for I've added a reference for it ( https://armalite.com/about-us/history/ ) where Armalite clearly state that "All rifles were designated AR, short for Armalite Rifle.". Thomas.W ^talk 18:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't call that a very useful reference because the Armalite company that actually created the firearm is long gone, and had absolutely nothing in common with the new company except the name. I have left the reference, although it won't do any good. The people changing it to "assault" are not interested in accuracy. PrivateThoughts (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

:AR stands for Armalite Rifle. They sold the naming rights to Colt Patent Firearms. Armalite still makes rifles. They sold the name so they use a different name for their AR type rifles.Digitallymade (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with you about Armalite having been long gone in the formal sense since it never went bankrupt and ceased to exist, it only ceased operations. It was then AFAIK kept alive for many years as a dormant company in order to keep the company name alive. The new Armalite is also currently the best source we have, even if you feel it's questionable as a source (a view I don't share), and having a source is always better than not having one, especially in a case like this where the only real purpose for the source is to make random passers-by think twice before changing "Armalite Rifle" to "Assault Rifle". Thomas.W ^talk 20:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas.W. MordeKyle (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• If you don't like the Armalite site, try Time magazine [1] or Rolling Stone [2]. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The first article doesn't claim that "AR" stands for "Armalite rifle", nor did I see any references for the source for either article's data. The last people I'd trust would be journalists. PrivateThoughts (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• The Time article most certainly does. It says "According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, “AR” does not stand for “automatic” or “assault” rifle. It stands for “ArmaLite” — the company that created the AR in the 1950s.". The RS reports it and attributes it. This is no different than Time saying "According to Gallup Polls...". Rolling Stone doesn't have to say where they got it. We report what the reliable source says, not how they did their homework. It's not a question of whether or not you personally trust journalists. Both sources easily pass RS. Your reasons for objecting are contrary to police and guidelines. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether the company was bankrupt or was "dormant", it had no personnel and I haven't seen any evidence that the new "Armalite" did anything but buy the name and start selling products. If anyone can find a paper trail or a source that's contemporary with the invention of the AR-15, that'd be interesting, but as it is, I see no reason to believe that anyone involved in writing that web page was even alive when the rifle was designed.PrivateThoughts (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why are you still fighting about whether Armalite is a valid source or not. Time magazine and Rolling Stone most certainly are reliable sources. They say it. Done. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The first article most certainly does not state that AR represents "Armalite Rifle: "According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, “AR” does not stand for “automatic” or “assault” rifle. It stands for “ArmaLite” — the company that created the AR in the 1950s. And failed 2015 legislation that would have banned some semi-automatic guns did not classify the AR-15 as an assault weapon." So your two trusted sources give contradictory information. One of them lists the size of a .223 Remington bullet as .223 inches in diameter. Wrong again. We have different standards for "reliable". PrivateThoughts (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• The sources report it. You're simply wrong on this. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought the thing was that it stands for ARmalite? Herr Gruber (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• It does stand for Armalite. The reliable sources and editors not named PrivateThoughts agree on that. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think he's splitting hairs, rather than saying it stands for ArmaLite Rifle the Time article is parsing it as standing for ARmaLite, which still doesn't equate to it standing for "Assault Rifle." Herr Gruber (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The source are contradictory. PrivateThoughts (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Time and Rolling Stone don't contradict each other. Both say is stands for Armalite Rifle. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Lying won't change what's in the articles. PrivateThoughts (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• There's no lying on my part sunshine, but there's a boatload of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on yours. You're the only person opposing it and your sole "contribution" to Wikipedia for the past 5 days he been to disrupt this article and engage in unproductive discussions. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How about showing the quotes you (both) want to adduce for your evidence. Lfstevens (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I provided links to both. You can scroll up just a bit for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

'Legal status of civilian ownership' section

The "Legal status of civilian ownership" section section needs to be out-merged for the countries that don't distinguish AR-15s from other semi-automatic weapons. One of the various "gun politics" pages may be a good target. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I don't personally feel it is necessary to have this page be filled with the "legal status" of this firearm, but if it must, the page should only reference laws that specifically target the AR-15. MordeKyle (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I also agree. It's worth noting that the majority of the content is unsourced as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Why was "rate of fire" taken off the article?

If you google AR-15 the first hit is this wikipedia page, with a rate of fire listed as "depends on operator's..." - my only conclusion is that someone thought that the rate of fire was either insignificant, or could be used politically against the person who removed the information. Why not allow people to make up their own minds, with wikipedia as a good source of true comprehensive facts? Oathed (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm does depend on the skill/training of the operator, with a very wide variation between operators, unlike the rate of fire of a fully automatic firearm where anyone, by just keeping the trigger pulled, gets the same rate of fire, regardless of skill/training. Thomas.W ^talk 22:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't accuracy depend on the skill of the marksman and the quality of the ammunition? That trivia is included in some articles. Putting the maximum possible accuracy and the maximum possible firing rate seems standard. Same for artillery as for firearms. Felsic2 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no point in adding rate of fire for semi-automatic firearms. Rate of fire for artillery pieces is that given by each manufacturer, but I've never seen a manufacturer of semi-automatic firearms give a rate of fire for the rifles or pistols they make. And all such figures I've seen in the media were the rate of fire achieved with customised weapons, and valid only for that specific weapon. Meaning that any such number for standard AR-15s would be WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Thomas.W ^talk 23:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Depends on the operator" tells us absolutely nothing. It's like asking the annual rainfall and saying "depends on how much it rains". Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-automatic rate of fire is not an exact measurement because it depends entirely on how fast the operator can pull the trigger, whereas cyclic rate of fire is an exact figure that is based on how many times per minute the weapon can complete its mechanical cycle of function. One is a practical rate (much like practical automatic fire rate, which varies greatly depending on the training of the operator, quality of the ammo, condition of the weapon, etc and is very rarely listed for anything smaller than a mortar) while the other is the mechanical upper limit the gun is physically unable to exceed.

Accuracy, when speaking of a firearm, does not depend on the operator; it is the weapon's ability to place shots in the precise direction it is pointed, not the operator's ability to point the gun at a particular thing; the accuracy of the gun and the accuracy of the operator are two separate measurements, and the former is determined by placing the weapon in a machine rest to eliminate the latter. Think of it as like a car's braking distance; the distance figure cited will not be correct if the operator skids or hits a wall before that distance, but that's just because that isn't what the figure is supposed to refer to; it is the vehicle's ability to stop from a certain speed on a certain surface. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, using your car analogy, how about the common spec, "0 to 60 mph". That depends on how quickly a driver can shift gears at precisely the right moments. For guns, "MOA" depends on the skill of the operator and the quality of the ammunition. For rate-of-fire, there will be a maximum value based on ideal conditions, just like MOA and "0 to 60".

...a precision firearm's accuracy will be measured in MOA. This simply means that under ideal conditions i.e. no wind, match-grade ammo, clean barrel, and a vise or a benchrest used to eliminate shooter error, the gun is capable of producing a group of shots whose center points (center-to-center) fit into a circle, the average diameter of circles in several groups can be subtended by that amount of arc. For example, a 1 MOA rifle should be capable, under ideal conditions, of shooting an average 1-inch groups at 100 yards. Most higher-end rifles are warrantied by their manufacturer to shoot under a given MOA threshold (typically 1 MOA or better) with specific ammunition and no error on the shooter's part.

Sounds like the same issue as rate-of-fire. Felsic2 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, minutes of angle have nothing to do with the operator (that's why they're measured in a bench rest) and depend entirely on the weapon itself; the things you list are called controlled variables and any form of testing to generate a specific figure will list and make efforts to mitigate such variables to produce figures that can actually be compared to one another. This is how you generate a baseline figure for how accurate the rifle is, independent of any other variables. The accuracy of a given shooter depends on both the accuracy of their weapon and the accuracy of the person themselves, and MOA accuracy is used to ensure the first variable is properly measured so people like snipers and marksmen are equipped with the most accurate weapons possible.

0 to 60 figures will be calculated in a similar way, controlling variables of changing gears and such (usually by using professional test drivers with negligible differences in how fast they can shift gears, which effectively eliminates the variable), otherwise the figure derived will be useless; it's used to show how fast the car accelerates in an ideal scenario.

Semi rate-of-fire, though, is entirely operator-dependant and has nothing to do with the mechanical operations of the firearm, since the firearm can always cycle faster than an operator can manipulate it; this is as opposed to the car, where the limiting factors in acceleration are primarily based around the vehicle's engine power overcoming its inertia and gear changes only have to happen at the right times to maximise performance. Thus, you can't control it in the same way; it's a straight-up matter of operator dexterity. You will be able to fire virtually any semi-auto firearm with the same trigger pull at the same rate. Since it has almost nothing to do with a specific firearm, very few firearms manufacturers actually bother with controlled testing of semi-auto RoF; even if they did it's pointless, since the mechanical upper limit for semi-auto fire would be the same as the cyclic rate of fire anyway and that isn't achievable for any human being in the majority of cases (it would require an operator be able to tense their finger over 10 times a second on an AR).

The only place you'll find such figures is military sources re: what they expect of trained troops. The US Army, for example, regards the practical rate of fire of an AR-derived M16 in semi as 45 rpm (source, question 26), which IIRC is based on the number of aimed shots a soldier can reasonably be expected to fire in that time. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That last source looks good. Let's use it. Felsic2 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's not a RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, it isn't a useful figure: British Sergeant Major Jesse Wallingford did the "mad minute" drill and fired 36 aimed shots in one minute with a bolt-action rifle he had to reload after every 5 rounds. Meanwhile, this is a video of Pat Flanigan firing 12 rounds from a semi-auto Winchester SX3 Shotgun at 499 rpm. So that 45rpm doesn't really tell you much about how fast the weapon is capable of being fired. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There are two ratings for rate of fire, one is the cyclic rate of the firearm and the other is the rate of effective aimed fire a soldier can produce with a specific firearm. The cyclic rate of an AR type rifle is dependant on it's construction, specifically how the gas mechanism and buffer system have been built. In order for the rifle to cycle, at all, there are limits to what can be done. Since MOST of the AR type rifles being built are using Mil-Spec they will be similar.

The Cyclic rate of the original AR-15 (colt Trademark purchased from Armalite), 20" barrel, 1:14 rifling, 6 pounds with 20 rounds in the magazine was:

• 750 Rounds per minute

The Military production M16 was changed by changing powder

• 950 Round per minute

The shooters effective RATE OF FIRE:

Is listed as from 80 to 100 RPM based on the skill level of the shooter. It's not important for this page. It would be more appropriate discussing military deployment and use.Digitallymade (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sources. Sources. Sources. What we know means nothing without sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Cartridges

There's a big unsourced list of cartridges, some of them so obscure we don't even have articles about them. I propose we just say, "AR-15 variants are produced to accomodate a wide variety of cartridges." Or just delete it as unsourced trivia. Felsic2 (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have removed it. A great many of those listed are obscure calibers or very niche. I suspect the number of AR's actually chambered for the 223 Remington Ackley Improved or the 45 Super are pretty low. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Much as the current list is perhaps excessive, it is necessary to note that the AR15 platform is used for weapons of multiple classes (ie pistol, rifle, battle rifle and shotgun, and a few other things) since it's common for the media to act like it's a single type of weapon. A lot of these could easily be referenced (eg the Colt SMGs, the AR57 that shoots FN 5.7, etc). Herr Gruber (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• What can be referenced and what should be referenced aren't the same thing. I can put 18 inch wheels on a Crown Victoria. Or 20's. Or 22's, 24, even make it a monster. I can paint it rainbow, or fluorescent green, dayglow orange or some other non-factory color. And quite likely, someone has done all of those. Do you see those wheels in the Crown Victoria article? Or those paint colors? Why not? Because they're niche. Just because some guy can assemble an AR in 45 Super doesn't mean it should get listed. Why can't you say what you just said above, in prose, without listing every cartridge someone decided to do it in?

Can you find a reference that's a thing a manufacturer does with a Crown Victoria? Herr Gruber (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• You seem to have the mistaken belief that just because something is referenced, it belongs in the article. A big chunk of your list includes a product like the War Lock [3]. It's a lot of kits/parts/modular systems. What's the difference between that and listing a parts maker that makes custom gauges [4] or headlights [5]. Some of those things you use it to reference aren't even actually a thing. For example, you use the War Lock as a reference that AR's are in 7.62×25mm Tokarev. But you reference actually says "This cartridge has not been tested with the War Lock™. It SHOULD work with our adapter. We will be testing this cartridge to be used with the War Lock". Somewhat amusingly, you use the same source for the 9X21mm, but the source says "This cartridge has not been tested with the War Lock™. We have not found enough currently available components to support the common use of this cartridge through the AR-15 platform. The 9×21 (or 9mm IMI) was designed for markets (primarily outside of the U.S.), where civilians are restricted from purchasing “military” cartridges. Significant sources for 9×21 AR-15 components are highly uncommon." It pretty much says what I said above. That's just 2. I bet I can find more. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, if you actually read the page it's a list of existing calibres that have been used in the AR15 series, with the bullet icon showing if they're compatible with the War Lock kit, which is a multicalibre adaptor, not a load of separate kits. It's not saying the kit makes them compatible with the AR15, it's saying the kit is compatible with them.

• Um, yeah I read it. Apparently you didn't read what I said. I know what it is. I said kits/parts/modular system so you didn't become pedantic about the example about the parts makers for the Crown Vic. In the first cartridge example, you're using a company as a source that hasn't actually used it. So you have a primary source making a claim that someone else (who they don't list) makes a product. Do you not see the issue with that? In the second example, not only do we still have the primary source making a second hand claim, but it says that the caliber to too uncommon. That was part of my initial point.... that most of these aren't common enough to bother listing. So you want to put it in Wiki-ese? Your primary source is essentially a commercial, not a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

How is either one a primary source? Neither makes the cartridges they're talking about, and the "commercial" source has nothing to gain by pointing out the existence of calibres their product does not support. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Using the car metaphor, it's more like if there was one car that could use dozens of different things as fuel with variant engines, and using a multifuel engine site which listed every single one of those as a source regardless of the fact that the multifuel engine itself couldn't run on the weirder ones. It would be at least interesting to learn that versions of that car had been designed that ran on wood, coal, chicken dung and uranium, wouldn't it? Herr Gruber (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Except that I can take a Crown Vic and put in a 4.6L V-8 in it. Or I could put a 426 Hemi in it. Or shove a supercharged, fuel-injected nitromethane-burning engine in it. It's a different fuel, isn't it? Or make one into a top alcohol funny car. Instead of getting bogged down in possibilities, go back to what I originally said.... just because some wildcatter or gunsmith made one doesn't mean we should list it. It would be no different than listing every color a car has been painted by a customizer. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you can do that, but does anyone manufacture a Crown Vic chassis specifically designed to do that? Wouldn't it be pretty notable if they had? Remember, we're talking about something that involves changing about half of the physical components of the gun here in many cases; these all require dedicated barrels, and most at very least their own lower to accept whatever oddball magazine they used since there weren't multicalibre kits back then. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wow are you missing the point. Some niche gunsmith making a couple of dozen AR's in 45 Super simply isn't notable enough to mention. Now you can try to make it sound better by calling him a "manufacturer", but the guy who turns Ford truck into swamp buggies is a "manufacturer" too, but we're in not running to put that in the Ford truck article. So far, you haven't really given much reason beyond "I have a source" and "it's interesting to me". Niteshift36 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No, wouldn't be notable enough to give its own page, but mentioned on a list of calibres? Sure, why not. Also bad example, you can shoot .45 Super out of a Macon AR45, or just about any other .45ACP AR. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's not a bad example. How many 45 Super AR's would you imagine are made in a year and by how many "manufacturers"? And you've completely ignored the point that you're using a commercial as a source for a big part of this list.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, every .45ACP AR can shoot .45 Super (it might not really like it, but it can) so, um, quite a few given there's multiple .45 AR manfacturers and suppliers (Macon Armory, Olympic Arms, CNC Gunsmithing, Bazooka Brothers, etc), even if .45ACP isn't a hugely popular AR calibre. The phrase "so what?" comes to mind with the latter. A commercial source has nothing to gain by making up a list of calibres their product does not support, and given what said source does, they'd be a reasonable authority on what chamberings exist for the platform (ie, a secondary source that has studied multiple primary sources to make their list). Herr Gruber (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't ask which ones can shoot it. When I said every Crown Vic CAN get 22" wheels put on it, you wanted to know which ones manufactured it with 22" wheels. Which ones manufacture one as a 45 Super? So what? Well this is so what.... it's not a reliable source. That company website doesn't have a reputation for editorial oversight and it doesn't fit the exception for vendor sources "Although the content guidelines for External links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times." That page exists solely to sell the War Lock system. On that basis alone, the source should be removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Really? What about listing every single unsupported calibre "sells" the War-Lock system? Why should we doubt a manufacturer of multicalibre kits is a reliable source about calibres? That's kind of the type of information required for them to do their job, you know? Also, that's for external links (ones that appear in their own section at the bottom), not sources.

"This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. This specifically includes e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links but allowed in footnoted citations."

Also given the link is not to a sales page but an article about an aspect of the system hosted on a site which also contains a sales page, that doesn't actually apply; if it worked like that we wouldn't, say, be able to use one of Colt's sales brochures as a reference for figures about their product, despite that truth-in-advertising laws would require that brochure to contain accurate information about those figures. You're missing the point of that policy, which is to prevent Wikipedia being used to advertise commercial services.

Anyway, I do plan to rewrite the list in prose form since at present it breaks up the article and doesn't really say anything about which calibres are popular or why, but omitting it entirely is just as bad as it including some oddities nobody would really have heard of. At very least including that the AR15 is chambered for pistol, intermediate, rifle, heavy rifle and shotgun cartridges is necessary to give a proper overview about just how broad a category of weapons "AR-15" represents; omitting the list entirely is worse than it being too large. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• That ad is solely to tell you about the War Lock system, ie sell it. It's a commercial. Every single entry about the calibers is to tell you about the War Lock. It's pure commercial. I'll leave the info (for now), but I'm removing the source. If you'd like to open a discussion about it at RSN, feel free. As for the re-write, if you gave a couple of examples each for the pistol, intermediate etc, that would be informative. An exhaustive list of every round you can find is not. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, I took care of RSN for you [6]. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I added that as a source because there was a ref needed tag for all of those being calibres the AR platform had been chambered in, which that list (which the list in this article appears to be copied from anyway) is decent proof of, being by a firearm manufacturing company which makes its entire business working with different calibres, ie an industry source. You keep harping on about it being an ad, but it is not an ad for those calibres and the company gains nothing by generating a large list of things it doesn't do, so there's little reason to doubt it's accurate, particularly given marketers have very little leeway within the law to outright make things up. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Where did I say it was an ad for those calibers? Nowhere. I said it's an ad for the War Lock. So stop making crap up. We'll see what RSN says. And BTW, keep your personal attacks out of the edit summaries. No, I didn't look for another source for crossbow bolts. I don't really need to. The source wasn't valid, so it got removed. Sorry you had to work to put some more obscure nonsense into the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason I noted that is that you keep saying it's an ad for the War-Lock system, which has nothing whatsoever to do with what it's being cited for, which is as an industry source on firearm calibres from a company that works with conversions for the firearm in question which modify them for multiple calibres. And I'm sorry you're lazy, so we're both sorry. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Lazy is sourcing 56 entries with a single source. Copy, paste, repeat. Then 18 with the other source.....copy, paste repeat. No, not feeling the need to go find a source for some niche use of the AR platform isn't lazy. It goes with what I've been saying all along.... most of this junk doesn't belong in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's because the same source lists all of them. Should I have found a different source for each, would that meet your majesty's requirements to get off his imperial ass long enough to fire up archive.org for three seconds? Herr Gruber (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe if you actually understood what a reliable source was, you wouldn't say foolish things. Like that. So riddle me this genius... why are you forcing all this bullshit into this article when List of AR platform calibers has existed for a year and a half? Why not a line or two about the versatility and then a hatnote to the extensive list (that needs sourced)? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Because it takes a fair bit more time to write things than it does to highlight text and hit delete, you should try it sometime. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, it takes sooooo long to write a sentence and a hatnote. I wish I could just highlight and delete..... but I had to do that 56 times to correct your lazy-ass copy-paste festival. I actually think you never bothered to look and see that the list exists elsewhere and now you're just trying to attack me to divert attention from the fact that you didn't actually answer the question. Just my opinion. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so now it's spamming to reference things that require references? You're just making this up as you go along. And I guess it was lazy to check each one individually to ensure it was actually on their list. And I guess you didn't think to just pull up an earlier version of the article and copy-paste the list before the refs were added? Herr Gruber (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• You mean an earlier version of some online "encyclopedia" with no demonstrated reputation for accuracy or editorial oversight? Yeah, you're right, I didn't add a trash source back into the article. Instead, I went and got you an actual reliable source. I bet I can do it again too. You know why? Because I know what a reliable source actually looks like? In all the time it took you to type that response, you could type the two sentences, put in a hatnote and be done. It's called time management. You're welcome.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, your magical superpower of doing half of what I've done for you today and screwing up the formatting, big round of applause for you there. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• The formatting wasn't screwed up. Continue avoiding the actual question I asked you. The answer becomes more obvious every time you do. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What actual question? Did you not notice I'd changed the link to that old encyclopedia article because you were too busy with your He-Man, Mighter Doer of Precisely One Thing act? Also it was screwed up, you forgot to include the Imperial conversion and we have a symbol for "metres" and "approximately" in this universe. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well since you want to be pedantic about it, I fixed it for you with the actual format from the infobox template. So it's better now. And no, I did't forget the ~. It's not a requirement. The actual question of why should we list the entire list here when that list already exists? Why not a couple of sentences and a hatnote?Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, it is a requirement because your source says "approximately" and that's what that symbol means, otherwise you're misquoting the source by giving it as an exact figure when that isn't what the guy said; for someone who's so hung up about sources I'd have thought you'd have realised that. And what I'm working on is notes on common calibres, which means I need to find sources for at least one weapon from each category, and some on the history of adoption / sale of particular calibres to produce a fleshed-out section. I'm using AK-47#Cartridge as a guideline in terms of scale, so no, it's not just one sentence and a hatnote. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Also should I add that AR mags go as low as one shot? At present we're saying the minimum is 5. Just checked and the upper limit is wrong too, Armatec SAW-MAG, 150 rounds (and the first "reliable and efficient" AR drum, I guess all those military forces using Beta-C mags were imagining it). If you want to get really silly there's also an American 180 mag adaptor (not pretending that's RS) based on a kit made by Bazooka Brothers for .22LR ARs that can fire 203 rounds out of a 220-rounder, but that shouldn't be in the main infobox since it's an actual backyard gunsmith deal. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Herr Gruber: It's odd that there is unlimited space in this article for details of the dozens of different cartridges that can be used with AR-type action firearms, that are so obscure that decent sources can't be found, but not an inch of room can be spared to mention the highly notable controversies over criminal use that are covered in mainstream news and even academic/scholarly sources. Something's topsy-turvey here if we're using advertisements instead high quality sources to reference firearms articles. Felsic2 (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and that might even apply if it had anything to do with any of my arguments. Being compatible with multiple calibres means the AR15 series spans multiple classes of firearm, which is important to knowing precisely what the series actually is. Being able to use them to shoot people is not, since that's kind of what guns are for, and it is UNDUE to single out one part of one series of rifles not actually disproportionately involved in gun crime for a list of crimes committed subsection on the basis that the American anti-gun lobby is scared of them.

The claim that ARs fire multiple types of ammunition is not contentious, therefore does not require an exceptional source to demonstrate this fact. The claim that criminal use of the AR series is as fundamental a part of them as what they're made of or how much they weigh, on the other hand, is. Hence, you require an exceptional source for this exceptional claim. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Just curious if there is a projected timetable on when there will be some changes made to this section? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, next week when I've got a week off. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Since this list is RIDICULOUS I would remove all the cartridges that cannot show a reference to their use in an AR-15 (A Colt Model) rifle. The Sig MCP for example is an AR type rifle with piston operation so it is SHOULD NOT BE MENTIONED ON THIS COLT SPECIFIC PAGE.. It's NOT a Colt AR-15 and therefore cannot be an AR-15 which is out of the scope of this page. The Ruger, Smith & Wesson guns have their own trademarked names. Unless you invoke their names correctly they should not be mentioned. The page title here is functionally inappropriate. The ONLY cartridges that should be here are those COLT uses for the AR-15. On the other hand, if the page name were changed to Armalite type riflesItalic text or something like that with a referral link from AR-15 that would allow a lot more leeway. This page should NOT be using Colt Trademarks as a page name or in the article. Because the page title uses a Trademarked name, this page must be reverted to information about the trademarked product mentioned solely.Digitallymade (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• So you've gone on about "it's a trademark" for about half an hour now, spamming it into several sections, but not actually responding back in the section you started. Calm down and focus. Stop with the shouting and lots of bolding. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

AR-15 should be Colt AR-15 and nothing else should be mentioned

This page is name incorrectly. The topic of AR-15 (a Colt Patent Firearms Model) is not adhered to starting from the History section. The Trademark AR-15 should not be used anywhere in this article. AR-15 refers ONLY to Colt made rifles NO OTHERS. This page should be renamed to something like AR Style Rifles, which would heal most of the errors on here.Digitallymade (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:COMMONNAME Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let me just flip over my Guns & Ammo Book of the AR15...ah, here we are, ""In addition to the most high tech AR15 available on the market today..." says an ad for the CA-15 from Christensen Arms, which is notably not Colt. Seems they disagree with you. Wow, that was easy, I thought I'd at least have to open it. :D Herr Gruber (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

New Page Title

We need to fix this. I suggest Armalite Type Rifles, which is how most of us talk about AR type rifles when we are trying to educate others.Digitallymade (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Also no. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Specifications

The specification section of the infobox if largely unsourced and totally pointless. AR-15s are simply rifles that use a certain action. They are made in an array of barrel lengths, cartridges, weights, muzzle velocities, etc. To say that there is one single muzzle velocity, or even a known range of velocities, is crazy. Unless someone can find a suitable secondary source for this info, I'm gonna delete it. Felsic2 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. To say there's a certain range is called acknowledging reality; there are no ARs that weigh 25 millgrams or six tons, for example. You should perhaps stick to editing articles on subjects you actually understand. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions. You're doing it in every response to me.

"975 m/s (3,200 ft/s)" is not a range. It's a precise value. It's crazy to think that all AR-15 style rifles, in all barrel lengths and all calibers, have the exact same muzzle velocity. As for weight, what are the sources for "2.27 kg–3.9 kg (5.5–8.5 lb)"? And so on.

This is an article about a general type of weapon, not specific models. So giving specific values is inappropriate, like giving the muzzle velocity for "Cannon" or "Revolver". And, of course, whatever we write should be sourced. Felsic2 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• It is a fair point. If we were using reliable sources to show a range, that's one thing. But at this point, we're either not showing a range or not sourcing the ranges we show. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Should section "Controversy due to use in mass shootings" be removed?

YES - I believe this section is irrelevant to this article. This is not added to other firearm pages. I feel if we retain this section, it would need to be added to every other firearm page, as well as every car model used by a drunk driver, every hammer used in a crime, every baseball bat, etc. This is just my opinion. I feel with an already VERY lengthy section on the legality of this rifle, that this is just not necessary to the article and gives just another point of contention in an already hot article. MordeKyle (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Are other RS making this specific connection? If so, then it should stay. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

None that I have seen. MordeKyle (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done as per PrivateThoughts above. MordeKyle (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

If individual brands of baseball bats were routinely linked to murders, then of course we'd mention that in the articles about them. This is a crazy and totally invalid argument. Do you guys really beleive there is no controversy about this weapon beyond whether it jams tool frequently? Felsic2 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

AR-15 is not an individual brand, for one thing, it is a rather generic design at this point. You not understanding why it is different from any other gun, doesn't make it any different from any other gun. The AR-15 is no different than any other firearm. The Ruger Mini-14 is literally the exact same firearm, it just looks "less scary". It even uses the same magazine that the AR-15 does, fires the same rounds, at the same frequency. Besides any of this, the AR-15 is used less in crime than A LOT of other firearms. It is even used less in crime than other tools such as hammers and baseball bats. You don't even understand what you are talking about, yet you are on this page trying to add controversy to it. There are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of these "evil assault rifles" in the united states, if the firearms and their owners were as dangerous as you are making them out to be, everyone would be dead. MordeKyle (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14 are "literally the exact same firearm", then why do we have articles on both of them? Felsic2 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well that's because they are different guns. In terms of functions, and in relation to your argument, they are no different, I'm just pointing out that the Mini-14 has the exact same capacity to be used by an evil person to kill people as the AR-15 does. As I also stated above, which you clearly ignored or have no response to, the AR-15 is used less to commit murder than many other firearms. It is not more deadly or less deadly than any other firearm. It is a tool, and nothing more. Just as a hammer was designed to drive a nail, the AR-15 was designed to protect freedom. Sometimes the hammer is used to do something other than drive a nail, it is not a fault of the hammer or people who use their hammers within the scope of it's design. You are blaming an object for something that evil people have done, while millions upon millions of good people who own AR-15's, will never do any evil with them, and will only use them to defend themselves and to defend freedom. MordeKyle (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

After review of your contributions to Wikipedia, it seems that your forte on Wikipedia is to vandalize (WP:VD) firearm related pages, so I won't feed into your attempts. Please adhere to WP:POLICY. MordeKyle (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

That posting fits the definition of "assuming bad faith", and violates other behavior policies and guidelines. If there is a specific policy you think is being violated, then say so and do not cast empty aspersions. And please read WP:VANDAL before you cite it again. Felsic2 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, the AR15 and the Mini14 are, in many ways, essentially the same firearm, but they are not literally the same firearm. Call it semantics if you like, but words are important. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input @Niteshift36: I used the word "literally" incorrectly. This doesn't change the message, and anyone reading that knew what I was saying. Thanks MordeKyle (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• I get it and I've used the illustration between the AR and Mini14 probably a hundred times myself. But Felsic was hanging part of his argument on the semantics and he quoted that incorrect use, so when you answered with "because they are different guns", I felt someone should just step in and state the obvious to Felsic because you didn't seem to be inclined to clarify it on your own. Let's not act like I'm the enemy here. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: I'm not acting like you're the enemy, nor did I imply that. I actually thanked you in my reply, twice. I was just saying that Felsic is a troll, and we should feed the troll. Thanks again, MordeKyle (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• I apologize. I read it wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This talk section continues to prove to me that the section had no purpose other than propaganda. PrivateThoughts (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC) PrivateThoughts (talk)

PrivateThoughts, what propaganda are you talking about?

Andy Dingley wrote: Are other RS making this specific connection? If so, then it should stay. MordeKyle replied that he hand't seen any reliable sources making the connection between AR-15 type rifles and mass shootings. If so, then MordeKyle has not been reading the mainstream US newspapers, many of which have been publishing articles on that exact topic. If 10 or 20 sources talk about something, even if we disagree with it, then we shouldn't brush it aside, epecially not when we are including lots of thinly sourced material. For more information, see my new essay, User:Felsic2/Gun use‎. Felsic2 (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The media are very often wrong when claiming that an AR-15 has been used in this or that shooting, as could be seen after the Orlando shootings when all media sources claimed that it was an AR-15, and many continued to do so even after the police had said that it was a Sig_Sauer MCX, a totally unrelated rifle, and not an AR-15. Thomas.W ^talk 23:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If a source has wrong info then that wrong info shouldn't be used. See User:Felsic2/Gun_use#Newspaper_reporters_often_make_mistakes_about_guns. Since the MCX can accept AR-15 parts, it is not exactly 'totally unrelated'. That doesn't address the general issue of the RS coverage of AR-15 type weapons in mass shootings. Felsic2 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking about the same and being able to use the same magazines doesn't count, the action, which is what counts in firearms, is totally different (the AR-15 uses direct gas impingement and a recoil buffer in the lower receiver, the MCX uses a gas piston and twin recoil springs in the upper receiver), making the MCX and the AR-15 unrelated. Thomas.W ^talk 07:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. They're totaly different while the Ruger Mini-14 is exactly the same. Whatever. The point is that on Wikipedia we oughta report what the RSes say, not censor stuff that we don't like. If you're claiming that the mainstream media is wrong about the use of AR-15 weapons, or weapons with AR-15 type actions, in mass shootings then please say that. Felsic2 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, being sourced isn't by itself reason enough to include anything here, per a number of rules, from not giving undue weight to fringe opinions to not including things that are obviously wrong, even if sourced to what is normally a reliable source. Thomas.W ^talk 15:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So tell me how we're gonna determine "due weight". That's a core issue. See User:Felsic2/Gun_use#Undue_weight. Felsic2 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any response from Thomas. Felsic2 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Thomas, please tell me how we should determine "due weight" for topics in this article. Felsic2 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the treatment the rifle receives in mainstream media (one doesn't have to look far) outright removal creates a certain editorial bias by omission. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There are enough RSes that correct the error, the controversy is largely manufactured. Orlando is the latest example. I don't think we even have a reliable source for caliber (.300AAC is the default MCX caliber). "AR15" becomes a catchall for all NATO compatible rifles regardless of function. It's like reporting "collisions involving 4-door sedans" as "collisions involving the Ford Taurus", then arguing that they really are Ford Taurus' because they all run unleaded gasoline through them and finally concluding that there is a Ford Taurus collision controversy. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that a Ford Taurus has ever been in a collision because there are no studies with peer review that single it out. The firearm category of "semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazine" is what's controversial and is how virtually all regulations are written but employing it in this article is feeding a non-NPOV agenda that is attempting to simplify a message to a soundbite. "Ban Ford Taurus'" is an easy sell with the catchall phrasing - it looks dangerous if one attributes every collision to Ford Taurus. "Ban 4-door sedans" makes thinking people ask "Wait. All of them?" --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this article solely about the brand-name AR-15, or about generic weapons using the firearms action covered by the expired AR-15 patents? TThe intro makes clear that this is about the generic weapon. There's no comparable topic in automotive articles. If Model-T style cars were being made then that would be similar.

While there may have been an initial mistake in identifying the weapon used in Orlando, that doesn't negate the fact that the AR-15, and copies, have been the subject of many discussions regarding use in mass shootings. You don't give any policy reason for censoring all mention of that controversy from this article. Please see WP:GUNUSE before repeating commonly used arguments. Felsic2 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an article about the gun, not politics surrounding features of it. New York and Connecticut ban "AR-15s" and that is politics. The New York SAFE Act compliant guns (see image here) that are no longer considered "assault style weapons" or "AR-15s" as a matter of law and politics is not relevant here and is an AR-15 for our article. The controversy that would appear in this article would necessarily have to be a lot WP:SYNTH to cover exactly what is controversial and if the controversy is actually over anything in the "expired patents" you mentioned. The controversy is obviously not just "AR-15"'s and doesn't cover every variant but rather, the controversy extends to features that are lumped under the "AR-15" as a political talking point. Detachable magazine, large capacity magazine, flash hider, pistol grip and bayonet lug have nothing to do with "AR-15" but are the main points of controversy and are lumped with "AR-15" when discussed in political terms. It's why mistakes such as what happened in Orlando happen all the time. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles that debunk the claim that ARs are not murder weapons just add to our imperative to cover it. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This article should be about all parts of the AR-15. If the text is too long we could spin out the boring parts. The use of the AR-15s in crime is not a primarily a political issue. Neither are the questions about its reliability. Both are simple matters of history. We include some of the history of the AR-15, we should include all of it. We should follow WP:DUE and devote space to the aspects of the AR-15's existence which have gotten the most attention in reliable sources. Nobody here can seriously argue that there is no attention given to the use of AR-15s in mass shootings. The article has plenty of space for every possible amunition which some AR-15 knock-off can fire. So it should have space for covering the most controversial part of its existence. Felsic2 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

While it might be worth a paragraph noting that there is controversy about the AR15 being a scary black gun which is the target of scary gun laws, that's all the article should note. Any more would be like if Toyota Hilux covered not just the fact that Hiluxes are often used as bases for technicals, but also included every atrocity committed with technicals. One is covering that something happens, the other is blaming the thing for those things happening, clear POV pushing. Throwing out links to a set of guidelines you yourself wrote is not a particularly convincing rebuttal, either.

What you're doing here is trying to tie the AR15 to criminal use, but in actuality criminal use of the AR-15 platform is minimal; by the stats I'm aware of, about 3% of mass shootings involve "assault weapons" and shootings with AR15s are only a percentage of that percentage. Nevermind that these shootings are not tied to the whole AR15 platform; they do not, for example, involve DMR, battle rifle, pistol, shotgun or fullauto variants of it, only the semi-auto sporting rifles. So you're trying to add something which is some percentage of 3% of shootings based on focus by media sources which are trying to advance a specific political agenda, which is true of some variants of the platform and not of the platform as a whole. Adding "facts" to an article can create a POV if the facts are advanced in such a way as to avoid their own significance (ie, WP: UNDUE): for example, medical malpractice lawsuits involving dentists are a thing that exists, but if I tried to list every medical malpractice suit involving a dentist on dentist or dentistry it should be clear to any observer that I am trying to advance the POV that dentistry is somehow fundamentally dangerous. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You keep accusing me of doing things. I am not "trying to tie the AR15 to criminal use". I am trying to add material that reflects what dozens of reliable sources note: that the AR-15 (and clones) has been associated with high-profile shootings. We can ask at the appropriate noticeboard whether TIME magazine or American Rifleman have specific political agendas that are so severe that they are rendered inaccuate and unreliable. A lot of sources in this article have political agendas. And most of the rest are crap sources, so if you want to talk about quality sources we need to gut this article first. Do you think that all of these are great sources with no political or commercial agenda? [7][8][http://www.opticsplanet.com/howto/how-to-how-to-build-an-ar15-upper-receiver.html][9], etc, etc. To refuse good sources while keeping bad sources - that ain't good editing. Also - read WP:UNDUE before citing it again - it doesn't say what you think it says. Felsic2 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you are trying to shoehorn in US "scary black rifle" gun politics to a place where they have no relevance. And your conspiracy theories are preposterous: alleged political agendas have nothing to do with whether a source is reliable on the specifics of a piece of technology or whether a particular configuration of weapon exists. You appear to be subscribing to the idea that anything that fails to actively promote a political agenda is arguing the complete opposite agenda, which is not how reality works. "Teach the controversy" is not how the NPOV rules work.

Re: WP: UNDUE, I suggest YOU read it, particularly:

"For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

The cited BBC News quote also notes the difference between quoting an opinion and quoting a fact; it is a fact that these shootings occurred, but an opinion that this represents something so fundamental to the AR15 that coverage of the device is incomplete without it.

As for TIME magazine as a reliable source on firearms, this is the same magazine that illustrated a fact about AR-15s with a silhouette of an AK and in the same issue claimed there were "600 round magazines for as low as $25.95" (research from people making fun of TIME discovered the $25.95 magazine they were referencing is for Airsoft guns).

We have actual guidelines on what should be in firearm articles and what is true for the AR-15 is true for virtually any other Scary Black Gun, so it's not really notably attached to this specific firearm series more than, say, the AK / AKM series (which has been used in far worse massacres eg 2008 Mumbai attacks, Westgate shopping mall attack, 2015 Sousse attacks and November 2015 Paris attacks, but I don't see you editing those pages; your edits are in fact entirely US-centric and reflect the current agenda of US anti-gun advocacy to the letter). It's also only attached to US civilian carbines, whereas this page is about all variants. This simply isn't something that has anything to do with the entire family of weaponry except in the minds of a handful of political commentators campaigning for a particular law that's irrelevant to anyone who doesn't live in the United States. The statistics for US gun crime (based on FBI statistics rifles of any sort were only used in 2% of homicides in the USA in 2014, which is actually 1% lower than in 2003 when the Assault Weapons Ban was still in effect; in the same 2014 stats it's revealed you're six times more likely to be murdered with a knife than a rifle and nearly three times more likely to be murdered with someone's fists or feet) make it clear that it would be UNDUE to list specific crimes here. Keep that stuff to the pages for the crimes in question and the politics to pages on US firearm politics, and here for a description of the weapon itself, not how people use it.

Using the precise same arguments you're using but with right-wing news "sources," we should add a "list of crimes" section to immigrant and add all of these to Islam. It's nonsense. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You're citing http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/ as a reliable critic of TIME magazine? I don't see any identifying info about the date or title of that article. It looks to me like they were using the silhouette of an AK-47 as a graphic element, not an illustration, but without more info I can't tell.

I'm not going to argue with you over FBI statistics. That'd be original research. DUE and UNDUE have to do with what's published, not what isn't published. If there are a bunch of articles about AR-15 use in crime, then it is DUE weight to mention that here, even if some other weapon is used more. Felsic2 (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Little secret for you, the rules on sources don't apply to discussions on talk pages. The article is the same one as in the YouTube link. And as noted, DUE and UNDUE also apply to not over-emphasising material just because it's covered in the news, which is basically your entire argument. As said, if Wikipedia actually worked like that we should have a "crimes" list on articles like immigrant and Islam, since I could find you plenty of articles in the right-wing press that made that connection. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources about the AR-15 have an equivalent section or chapter, then it should be included, with appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Unless and until we see that, then it's WP:UNDUE. Per WP:PROVEIT, editors wishing to add or restore the content are responsible for providing suitable sources for the content they wish to add. No one here is denying that the AR-15 has been used in mass shootings. But it's not Wikipedia editors' place to draw their own connections unless and until reliable sources have done so. Ditto for use in self-defense - while I'm sure gun rights advocates would love to see particular news stories of people using AR-15s in self-defense on this page, they simply don't belong unless and until enough reliable sources have made the same connection to meet the existing standards for WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise this article will devolve into a "list of incidents in which an AR-15 was mentioned somewhere, either positively or negatively." That doesn't help anyone. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Your stringent requirement that only sources that are "about the AR-15" can be used might make sense if 1) the article already relied on such sources and 2) if it relied on high quality sources. However, the opposite is true. Most of the citations currently in the article aren't "about the AR-15". And most of them are low quality commercial websites. So the effect is setting a double standard, where certain material needs to meet dratically higher standards than other material. Until the rest of the poor citations are cleaned up, claiming that mainstream news sources aren't good enough for this article is just plain silly. Felsic2 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That would only apply if the claims being made with those sources were in some way controversial. Like, say, yours are. Hence them being held to higher standards. Also, the article using poor sources doesn't magically mean your inclusions are justified. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the controvery in question? DO you dispute that AR-15 weapons have been described in mainstream and academic sources as having been used in mass shootings? Is there a special exemption to the WP:RS olicy which allows crappy sources to be used for mundane information? I don't see it so please tell me where to find that. Felsic2 (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Information that is not controversial does not require an exceptional source, just one that might reasonably be expected to know the things in question. Including highly politically-slanted information against UNDUE would require an exceptionally good source, not just an editorial by a journalist with no expertise in either firearms or criminology. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussing the association of AR-15s with mass shootings isn't "highly politically-slanted information". It's part of what the AR-15 is known for. WP:V says we oughta use the best sources:

• If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources,..
• Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks, Books published by respected publishing houses, Magazines, Journals, Mainstream newspapers

When AR-15s are discussed in academic publications, it seems to often be in the context of mass shootings or other civilian crimes.

To the extent that we can call criminal use of AR-15s "controversial", these essays offer suggestions on how to handle the material: Wikipedia:Criticism and Wikipedia:Be neutral in form.

But discussing this in the abstract is ultimately pointless. I'll make a draft and we can all work on it together. Felsic2 (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

So, ignoring the reply and repeating the same claims yet again, I see. When AR-15s are discussed in academic publications, ie publications about firearms written and reviewed by experts on firearms, none of what you claim here is mentioned. For the latter, I've already pointed out that the WP:RS section on newspapers states that their appropriateness as sources must be assessed on a per-case basis, so good job trying to play policies off against each other again there.

It's not part of "what the AR-15 is known for," the claim that there is an association between the AR15 and mass shootings is part of American gun politics and is a highly contentious claim. Adding a list of shootings serves an obvious political agenda, and is not in line with what other articles on firearms do or what expert sources on firearms do. The fact that you consider this page's failure to actively assist your cause to be "censorship" (your words) rather than the information simply not being relevant to an article about a piece of machinery shows you to be hopelessly partisan on this issue. Give it a rest, "we" have already rejected your idea and posting it over and over isn't going to get you a new answer.

While I have previously stated a section on political controversy and legislation related to AR-pattern rifles might be appropriate (which could potentially mention certain shootings as examples of issues bought up by one side, along with legislation like the Clinton ban mentioning ARs by name, while skipping over the "is governed by the same rules as any other centrefire semi-auto rifle" stuff the old legislation section was full of), a blank list is not, as it does not adequately represent the contrary and very easily sourced POV that these shootings are not specifically connected to a particular firearm or type of firearm (as a casual example, I'd normally doubt FOX News as a source on whether FOX News itself exists, but I knew I'd find this there, also this, this, this (written by a professional risk analyst, ie someone with actually relevant qualifications), this, or for that matter this from a gun control advocate). Herr Gruber (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"[P]ublications about firearms written and reviewed by experts on firearms" is not the stadard for sourcing. See WP:V for the site-wide standards, which I quoted above. WP:RS is a guideline that appears to be intended to help interpret the WP:V policy. The issue of crime is not something that "firearms experts" necessarily know anything about. As you imply, firearms publications studiously avoid talking about the criminal use of guns. The sourcing for this article is so poor that arguments stating that other, mainstream sources aren't "good enough" don't seem even-handed.

I never wrote that I wanted to add a list of shootings. I've written that I think the issue of AR-15 use in mass shootings is a significant POV which needs to be included in this article. Since it is a topic discussed in multiple reliable and prominent publications, it is not a "fringe POV".

"We", the editors of Wikipedia, have a policy which requires the inclusion of all significant points of view. That policy may not be overridden by local consensus. So the fact that a few editors on this page disagree with including any controversy about the weapon does not make that the final or governing "answer".

The sources you list show that this is a active controversy surrounding the AR-15. I haven't had a chance to start work on the draft, but it could be inclusive of those views. For example, "Publications such as X, Y, and Z have described AR-15s as a common factor in many mass shootings, while R, S, and T deny the connection." Anyway, I'll start a new thread to discuss specific draft language. Felsic2 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is how we decide how policies apply in a specific case, since nobody can write a set of rules that encompass all possibilities. In this case, consensus does not support your interpretation of how the rules should apply in this instance (for example, because your assertion that it is related to the firearm is contentious, and because you're ignoring the rules specifically stating that news articles are evaluated as sources on a case-by-case basis and not simply by who hosts them). You said academic sources, academic sources on firearms are those written by experts on the subject matter and reviewed by experts on the subject matter, just as academic sources on science are those written and reviewed by experts on science. And you certainly haven't linked to any sources from journals on criminalogy that I've seen, so I don't know where you're going with that assertion.

You originally posted in support of a section called "controversy due to use in mass shootings" and your essay is specifically about presenting "notable uses" in the form of a list of events. If you've recanted that idea, fine, but say that. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Assault rifle, semi-automatic rifle, or both?

About this edit:Removed incorrect "types" Is every version of AR-15 merely a semi-automatic rifle? Or are there select-fire versions as well? Aren't there pistol and carbine versions? Here's an ATF letter referring to an "AR-type pistol".[10] I guess "AR-type" isn't the same as "AR-15-type". Even so, we should determine what kind of firearm(s) this article is about. Felsic2 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The AR-15 isn't an assault rifle, carbine, semi-automatic rifle, submachine gun, shotgun, designated marksman rifle, sniper rifle, light machine gun, AND a pistol. That would be ridiculous. 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The XM8 rifle also isn't an assault rifle, automatic rifle, light machine gun, sniper rifle/designated marksman rifle and personal defense weapon all at the same time. The type box is for all categories the weapon can be in, and there are AR15 variants for every one of those categories. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Those are variants. The basic and most common version is that of a semiautomatic rifle. It meets none of the characteristics of a DMR, Sniper Rifle or LMG. If you can not determine what type of firearm a certain rifle is, maybe you should edit topics with which you are more familiar.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The original AR-15 was selective fire, wasn't it?

Yes.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, so how is the AR-15 not an assault rifle, as well as the other descriptions of newer models, clones, and variants? Felsic2 (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Basically, Armalite sold the design to Colt. Colt sold it to the military as the M16. Later, Colt released a semiautomatic version to the civilian market and called it the AR-15. In time, all semiauto AR pattern rifles followed that naming convention. I believe Colt has the name trademarked, though, which is why some models use slightly different names.

The "original" AR-15 made by ArmaLite was a prototype, never manufactured or sold in any significant number. This prototype was developed into the military M-16 and non-select-fire versions sold on the civilian market by Colt as AR-15s. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This article seems to include that prototype within its scope. Felsic2 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, this article does cover variants, so I don't see why we'd exclude them from the infobox. If we exclude variants from the article, then we're back to having an article just about the original Armalite rifle. That'd be a different article than what we have now.

Well, 6000 Steyr M95 rifles were made as sniper rifles, that does not mean that the Steyr M95 was a sniper rifle, only that some of those rifles were adapted for such use. Putting that information in the infobox is a disservice. We typically list variants under VARIANTS in the infobox, if there are a lot as you would have in this case we would put "See article". --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The infobox should cover the whole article, not just parts. Felsic2 (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I put them under variants, in the infobox. Do you seriously want to put every conceivabnle caliber in the infobox, too?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Third, what data do we have on the "most common" AR-15 version? Felsic2 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking that or are you gaming the system again?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the questions in this section are serious. I don't understand what game you're asking about. Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Felsic2 (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Cartridge Section

This should be removed. It serves no purpose. This should not be an advertisement of how many obscure and probably false tidbits can be found.Digitallymade (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That isn't a helpful talk page contribution. We're not voting "yes" or "no". If you have a policy-based argument in defense of this material then make it. Felsic2 (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not for wikilawyering, either. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is unsourced info getting put back? [11] If we can't find sources for this material then it doesn't belong in the article. Felsic2 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It was sourced, can be sourced again if you want. I've already stated why this section is relevant (and that I intend to rewrite it, which I'm working on) and you haven't actually addressed that. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Source the entries you want to keep. I'll delete unsourced entries again soon. That's how Wikipedia works. Felsic2 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I can source all of them, as you've already seen. Stop playing games, you can add those citations back yourself if you feel they need to be there. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "playing games". I haven't followed every single edit to this article. Is there a diff for the sourced version? Why were the citations removed? Felsic2 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This diff. You complained about it being a "commercial source" above, if you recall. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I made a general complaint about the quality of sources in this article, including many commercial sources. If the source you want to use isn't up to WP standards then don't put it back. I do recall writing that it'd be sufficient to say that AR-15 pattern firearms are available in a wide variety of calibers, rather than listing every single one. But if the spirit here is to include as much information as possible, then I'm all for that so long as we're not excluding controversial material as well. Felsic2 (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The source is a company that produces a magazine well system called WAR-LOCK which is multicalibre-compliant, which I regard as a suitable primary source since their entire business involves knowing what calibres people have used in ARs and it makes no sense for them to invent a large list of things their product does not actually do. I need to get around to rewriting the list and will probably remove most of them when I do, but that involves finding sources which assert which ones are the most popular in each class, which takes a while. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

While you're working on that project I'm going to remove the redlinked cartridges. If they are so obscure that we don't have an article on them yet, they probably aren't worth mentioning, source or no source. Felsic2 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I'm going to delete redlinked cartridges because they are not notable. Also, they are unsourced. Felsic2 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's remember that we already have an entire list-article devoted to this topic: List of AR platform calibers. The list here just needs to point to that and maybe provide a summary. Or, we can merge that (unsourced) list in here. Felsic2 (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

What is an AR-15?

How different can a firearm be and still qualify as an AR-15 pattern firearm? It seems to me that the action of the weapon is what defines it. The action of an AR-15 is "direct gas impingement". Some manufacturers use short or long piston actions instead. Can those really be considered to be AR-15 pattern firearms, or just lookalike semi-automatic weapons? Even farther afield, there's a single-shot pump action rifle from Troy included in the article. So is it an AR-15 if it looks like an AR-15, or can accept AR-15 parts? Where do we draw the line? Felsic2 (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I will try as best I can in layman's terms without getting too technical. The lower receiver is what makes it an AR-15. This contains the fire control group, magazine well and receiver extension. For gun control purposes it is the serial numbered part which must be transferred through an FFL (Federal Firearms License) aka it's the "gun". Piston type systems on AR-15s are variants. They use a different upper receiver and are modified to use the buffer system in the stock for the most part (a true piston system does not need a buffer). There are also blowback action AR-15s for pistol and rimfire calibers and I believe someone manufactured a slide action variant for California and those places with laws prohibiting semiautomatic rifles. If you want to really split hairs, Colt owns the trademark to AR-15, which is why you see variants called "LR-15", "X-15", "CAI-15"m etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That material should be in the article. So a pump-action rifle would count?

Well, if a pump action variant were actually made that used the existing lower receiver but removed the actual gas system I would think it would be designed for persons who were not allowed to own AR-15s and the manufacturer would be smart enough to call it something else. I drew up a design for a rifle in the early 90s, I do not know if someone else actually made one for certain, though. I know Remington makes pump action rifles that take AR-15 magazines, but that action and receiver have zero similarity to an AR-15.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the firearm in question: TROY Pump Action Rifle They don't talk about the upper and lower receivers specifically. Felsic2 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I did not know that rifle even existed! Well it looks like it has all the major components except for the gas system and semiautomatic rate of fire. I would really like to look under the hood of that one, because a closed back receiver would eliminate the thing I hate most about running an AR with a silencer: gas in the face and allows for a side folding stock. It has the potential for a great hunting gun. At thew end of the day I think you have a manually operated rifle that superficially resembles an AR-15 and uses at least 70% of its parts, but is not technically an AR due to the lack of a gas system. Thanks for sharing that, I am always looking for new article ideas and that has a ton of potential to my readers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's apparently popular in New York. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Anyway, if it's not an AR-15 pattern weapon it really doesn't belong in this article. Is there a source which calls it one? Felsic2 (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup, there is ("An AR-15 pattern rifle with a pump-action instead of a semi-auto action? How odd they say"). Impactguns calls it one on their sales page, and there's plenty of other sources like this that do the same (that site also shows an interesting change, they quote "The TROY Pump Action Rifle takes the ergonomics and versatility of the country’s most popular rifle design, the AR-15, and employs them in a new type of manually operated rifle" while TROY's site now says "The TROY Pump Action Rifle takes the ergonomics and versatility of the modern sporting rifle and deploys them in a new, manually operated, integrated pump action for sporting and defense applications"). It's a little odd for one since it's deliberately designed to not be compatible with standard AR uppers and lowers (and some sources thus say it's not a true AR), but there's also plenty of sources saying it's still an AR15. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Only the first of those actually calls the Troy pump rifle an "AR-15 pattern rifle". The others use euphemisms or irrevelant issues, like "ergonomics" and "versatility", or aren't reliable sources. But one source is probably sufficient. However it is interesting that the gun is apparently defined by its accessories rather than its action. I guess the NRA knows better than we do. Felsic2 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The second maybe, but the third is plenty RS even if it's self-published, guy's also written for the gun press and so his opinion on whether or not something is an AR-15 carries some weight. You really need to start clicking the "about" tab and looking to see if the author has some relevant qualifications. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This article really needs to start getting some decent sources. I'm not terribly impressed by gun enthusiast's blogs.

As for what counts as an AR-15, above I was told that an MCX is "totally different" from an AR-15. Yet now it appears that it is no more different than a pump action, single shot rifle, which apparently does come under the heading. So I'll repeat my question below: what's a good source, or even the best source, for a definition of an AR-15 pattern rifle which we can use to define the scope of this article? Felsic2 (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, reliable sources say the MCX isn't an AR-15, so it isn't one. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In general, I think this is the right approach: follow what sources say rather than make our own independent determination.

Still leaves unanswered the issue of how to define "AR-15" for the purposes of this article. What's the best source on this topic? Felsic2 (talk)

I'm looking. Does seem to be a bit of an "I know it when I see it" term, but that's not really much of a surprise since it's like defining precisely what a car is. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this edit correct? no such thting as blow back ar15 Felsic2 (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. It is basic physics. There is not enough energy in a rimfire round to reliably cycle an AR using the existing gas and buffer system.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted it. What's a good source for the definition of an AR-15? FWIW, I know that the lower receiver is what has the serial number, and it's what the ATF tracks. I'm talking about the usual definition of an AR-15, one that we can use to define the scope of this article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, no good deed goes unpunished.[12] Felsic2 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of controversy

Time magazine ran a recent article about the AR-15. It includes this paragraph:

• The AR-15 has become the centerpiece of a national debate over assault weapons and gun control, after attackers have used them and similar guns in mass shootings. Proponents of stricter gun control say that assault weapons like the AR-15 should be banned, arguing they are not intended for civilian use. Gun rights activists say that banning the gun would infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. The National Rifle Association has taken to calling the AR-15 “America’s rifle.” AR-15 Inventor’s Family: This Was Meant to Be a Military Weapon June 16, 2016

That summary could be further supported by numerous citations. While we shouldn't use it verbatim, I think a paragraph similar to this would be sufficient to cover the current controvery surrounding the AR-15. Felsic2 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Added.[13] Felsic2 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of a silly source since the AR-15 was sold to civilians by Colt before it was ever issued to the US military and Stoner actually designed weapons specifically for the civilian market, but hey. Probably that needs to go in a longer section on legal issues when I have time to write one (80% AR receivers, assault weapons and post-ban AR configurations, specific bans of ARs, general controversy). Also I don't think "by 2016" is very accurate, this argument's been going on since at least the 90s with the first Assault Weapon Ban. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Time magazine's reporting is incorrect? Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit dubious in what it's asserting, but not in a way that means I'd remove it. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Changing project assessments.

This article would no longer seem to fall in mil history's portfolio, and for firearms it seems like it would be maybe a C-rated low importance article. It would also fall out of the wikipedia 0.8/1.0 portfolio.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A modest proposal

OK, there is a lot of reverting, contradicting and soon to be hurt feelings flying around over this article. There are two basic definitions of an AR-15: The original select fire version manufactured by Armalite to the tune of 4000 pieces and the more commonly used reference to a semiautomatic only version of the M16/M4 military rifle. This one article needs to be split into two. I say keep this one as the "Semiautomatic or civilian variant of a military rifle" and create a second one called "Armalite AR-15" denoting the original version which was actually issued to the US Air Force Security Forces in the 1960s and still in use as late as the 1991 Persian Gulf War. This should eliminate confusion and frustration.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom, but am open to other names for the two articles if it comes up in the course of the discussion. - BilCat (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think that may be needed. Technically an AR-15 would either be the original Armalite select fire military rifle or the civilian clone manufactured by Colt and the more accurate term for the bulk of what this article is about would be "AR-15 type rifle" or "AR-15 pattern rifle" as legally none of the variants can be called an AR-15. Colloquially it is a different story as most people in an outside the firearms industry just say "AR" or "AR-15" when speaking of the semiauto type, regadless of manufacturer and certainly not necesarrily the original Armalite rifle. My vision would be that the bulk of this article pertains to the "Type" as opposed to the more specialized and far fewer in number "AR-15 proper". Thus the "AR-15" article would become a dual redirect to either the "Armalite AR-15" or the "AR-15 pattern" rifle.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. - BilCat (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Suggestion name the new article "AR-15 Semiautomatic or civilian variants" and add Not to be confused with "Armalite AR-15" military rifle. CuriousMind01 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There's the AR-15 design, a modification of the AR-10 design created in ~'56 to suit pentagon requirements. The first guns manufactured to this design were sold to the malay government presumably as AR-15s. The design is select fire, the guns are select fire. Guns of this design were presented to the air force in ~'66 and accepted. Guns made based on this design, such as the colt sporter, or the eagle ea-15, and other such guns fall under the general category of "AR-15 derived" guns. Colloquially they can be called AR-15 pattern rifles, AR-15 type rifles, rifles in the AR-15 "family", and so on. This has been a very active area in the firearm domain, so a lot of things have been said and written about it, and it should be covered on wikipedia. A problem I have is that there's a lot of intermixing. Civilian ar-15s adopt parts of the military hk-416, military AR types adopt stuff from civilian AR types. I don't know, maybe it would be best to have an article something like "developments of the civilian rifles of the extended ar-15 family" At least that would cover AR-15 compatibles and so on.

• SUPPORT. I made a similar suggestion in the above "M16 is military designation for an AR-15" section on 2 October 2015. As I stated then..."Yes, it is a common mistake...unfortunately the article seems to do everything in power to confuse the reader. As it is constantly (and oftentimes inappropriately) referring to M16s, "Drop In Auto Sear", full-auto variants, etc. Perhaps, we should divide and rename the article. The new "COLT AR-15" page would focus only on the semi-auto models, with a Discretionary sanctions header on the talk page allowing editors to ruthlessly purge the machine-gun and assault rifle content. Then we can create a new "ARMALITE AR-15" page where we can focus on the early history of the ArmaLite and M16 rifles, while allowing discussion of machine gun conversions and assault rifle variants."--RAF910 (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think that would be a good forking of this page. The splash would contain words to the effect of, "The AR-15 can refer to several types of rifles..." and links to: Colt AR-15 (referencing the civilian semi auto rifle made by Colt), Armalite AR-15 (the full auto rifle made by Armalite for the USAF and other militaries) and AR-15 pattern rifle (discussing the semi auto clones made by DPMS, Bushmaster, S&W, Ruger, Noveske, etc).--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

RAF910, you seem to be talking about the colt sporter line starting with the colt SP-1 which could accept a drop in auto sear. It seems like colt for years wasn't eager, for whatever, to promote their sporter line's relationship with the M-16 or AR-15 and, in fact, chose a name seemingly designed specifically to differentiate itself from the military, select-fire AR-15.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. May I suggest the articles be named as follows: Armalite AR-15 for the original select fire rifles, Colt AR-15 for the basic Colt civilian model (semi-automatic, only) rifles, AR-15 rifle for all the myriad "me too" AR-15 pattern rifle clones, AR-15 pistol for all the pistol variants that are missing a buttstock and have an arm brace, and AR-15 for a disambiguation link page, containing pointers to all the sub-pages. Otherwise, we will continue to confuse readers who do not know that all these variants exist, and confuse readers into believing (mistakenly) that an AR-15 that they can go to any retail store and buy is a fully-automatic machine gun, which it is clearly not. As for piston vs. gas variants, these should all probably go into the AR-15 rifle article. Some of these articles already exist, incidentally, as re-directs to AR-15. My $0.02. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we have a consensus. Create Armalite AR-15 for the original select-fire rifles. Rename this page Colt AR-15 for Colt semi-auto rifles only. As for the last the last page, most of these firearms already have their own Wiki pages. A short paragraph and a simple list of said firearms on a disambiguation page should be more than enough. -RAF910 (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I respectfully disagree on your last point, sir. A few of those firearms have wiki pages, but certainly not most (deletionists took care of some of them within the past 30 days). Part of the problem is that at least in the US, there are hundreds of thousands of rifles made by a laundry list of manufacturers that are called AR-15's that are neither select fire nor made by Colt and not even marked "AR-15" as a make/model.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough...lets create Armalite AR-15 for the original select-fire rifles. Rename this page Colt AR-15 for Colt semi-auto rifles only. As for the last page/pages I'm good with whatever consensus we come up with. As long as we take all the irrelevant assault rifle/machingun/full-auto info that's confusing everyone out of this article.--RAF910 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment How are we planning on covering the fact that from the first release of the colt SP-1 colt did virtually everything they could to distance it from the AR-15 for whatever reasons for possibly decades?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment please clarify, your sentence does not make any sense.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Colt introduced their civilian AR-15 pattern rifle product line in ~1964 under the Sporter SP-1 product line. For I'm guessing more than the balance of half a century that, for whatever reason, is how colt marketed their civilian AR-15 pattern rifle. With a name it seems specifically chosen to distance the rifle from it's military select-fire heritage. For roughly the last decade though, since around 2005, although possibly starting as a cause celebe in ~1994, after ~40-50 years, colt changed the name of it's sporter SP line of rifles to AR-15. So how do we plan on covering the fact that for the first 40-50 years it was the colt SP-1, and only in the last decade or two was it the colt AR-15. Ironically it seems as though it's the 16" barrel that colt first started marketing as "Colt AR-15"s. By the preponderance of history, there doesn't really seem to be any fair way of presenting the colt sporter line as anything other than the colt sporter line, particularly not as the colt ar-15. It would only be a mistake of recentism that would label the colt sporter line as the colt ar-15.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Not to be ignorant, but have you ever actually seen a Colt SP-1? California banned them by name in 1989 under Roberti-Roos. The left side of the mag well says "Colt AR-15". They were called that for decades. Check out the pics of the different models here [14]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Nope. Haven't seen one in person. How did colt market it in the '60s-'90s? Did they focus more on the sporter, more on the ar-15, or did they give them equal weight? Looking at google it looks like they got equal weight. Maybe Colt AR-15 Sporter would be a good article name for a colt specific article and maybe an article on the civilian ar-15 in general.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, the Sporter name as opposed to "AR-15" or "SP-1" emerged in the early 90s and it was an attempt at rebranding the rifle as states and eventually the federal government began passing legislation to ban "Colt AR-15" or "Colt SP-1" by name. In general these rifles have a fixed butt stock similar to the trapdoor variant on an A2 configuration, sometimes with integrated cheek rests or toes at the rear of the stock and lack barrel threads.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to create the new Armalite AR-15 page and renamed this page to Colt AR-15.--RAF910 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/06/21/potd-sporting-colt-ar-15-ad/ you can probably narrow down the years by some details, particularly the price. By my eye that certainly looks like an early '60s-'70s SP-1. Was the SP line ever anything other than the sporter line?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

"AR-15 variants" is the wrong name for the new generic article. First, nobody calls them that. Second, it's supposed to be singular. Third, it's a weird term. Last, there doesn't seem to be a consensus or much discussion for that term. Felsic2 (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I see the word "variants" used in multiple sources for example: The Gun Small Arms Smithsonian firearms CuriousMind01 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's going to be hard to write a whole article from those sources, but OK.(Now that I looked I don't see the term "AR-15 variants" in any of those) We still need an article on the generic AR-15, to which hundred or thousands of sources refer. It should probably be the summary article with an overview of the whole AR-15 family. Felsic2 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

What should the lede contain?

Looking at other AR-15 product pages like bushmaster xm-15 page, or the barrett rec7 page, or the adcore a556 page it looks like the lede does not need to go into detail about the AR-15 stoner design. The colt AR-15 sporterline is just another indistinguishable civilian AR-15. The article on the chinese norinco AK-47 doesn't need to explain what the AK-47 is. The XM-15 page doesn't need to explain what an ar-15 is. There seems to be no reason why this page should explain what an ar-15 is. The colt sporter line comes in 5.56, 7.62x39, and 9mm. Colt introduced it in '63 and led the company into bankruptcy. Over time the marketing for the line has changed. They've added new models. So on, and so forth. As this article seems to be a blanket article for all colt AR-15 products, presumably it would include law enforcement and military select fire models. It should also include things like colt's attempted car-15 re-branding. Colt's sale of select fire AR-15s to malay, and, presumably other military customers from '59 onwards.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Colt AR-15 sources

Now that this article is just about the Colt AR-15, the sources all need to be about the Colt AR-15 (aside from some necessary history). I deleted a couple of citations. One referred to generic AR-15s and one referred to an Alexader Arms model. Felsic2 (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The entire "Numbered Colt civilian models" section, with several tables, is unsourced. Felsic2 (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That section duplicates List of Colt AR-15 variants. Why not just add a link to that article instead of including the same material in two articles? Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there's no complaints, I'll replace the long list with a link. Felsic2 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colt AR-15. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001234245/http://www.armalite.com/images/Library/AL%20HISTORY%20COPY%202.pdf to http://www.armalite.com/images/Library/AL%20HISTORY%20COPY%202.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Why the Fairchild Aircraft in the "See Also" section?

I jsut checked out the article, and it is only about some aviation company. I see no link between the two articles. Nothing colt or armalite related in the Fairchild article. All they made were Aircraft (some of them military) and a few missiles, but no firearms. Should I remove the link? -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 12:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It's probably a leftover from when this article as titled AR-15. Felsic2 (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:AR-15 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Port Arthur massacre (Australia)

I added one sentences about the Port Arthur massacre (Australia), committed with a Colt AR-15 SP12. The shooting resulted in legislation being passed, so it meets the recommendation for inclusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms# Criminal use :"...legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage". Felsic2 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there consensus that the Australian National Firearms Agreement, created after the use of this firearm at Port Arthur, meets the Criminal Use standard for inclusion in this article? I have been accused of edit warring (something I do not appreciate!) after restoring this information to this article exactly once. It appears to me that this information clearly meets that standard. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It does meet the text you cited and you have not edit warred indeed. However the text you cited is (just) the opinion of the members of the firearms wikiproject, and the addition can be contested. I for one do not believe the text you cited is a good recommendation, and that in the case of this article it's almost a trivia. I believe an addition to the "marketplace" subsection (which can easily be renamed for a more fitting term) would suffice, though I wouldn't go as far as to oppose to the addition of the Criminal Use sub-section. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

OPPOSE INCLUSION As Saturnalia0 stated above the information is trivial and more importantly it was not neutrally worded. Also, the information was not deleted. It was turned into a very simple and very neutral "See also" link.--Limpscash (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

OPPOSE. A See also link is enough.--RAF910 (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Agree that the see also link is sufficient. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Colt ArmaLite AR-15

The ArmaLite AR-15 article states that Colt branded its first AR-15 rifles the 'Colt ArmaLite AR-15'. So it seems to me that it is appropriate to note this on the Colt AR-15 page unless somebody has a valid objection. I would appreciate any comments. You might like to read an article by Jeff W. Zimba about such a rifle (serial number #000106) titled 'Colt ArmaLite AR-15 Rifle #000106 The Coconut Rifle' - http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=254 CodeBadger (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this was introduced twice and reverted twice, most recently here. Reading the other editor's comment in the edit summary, the objection is correctly made that these are not the same rifle (while both were made by Colt, the key difference is that the Colt ArmaLite AR-15 was select-fire while the Colt AR-15 is semi-automatic only) and that it is essentially trivia. I did notice, however, that while the ArmaLite AR-15 article explains the history of how the rifle came into being, the Colt AR-15 article history section just says it was "introduced in 1963" and is the "semi-automatic version" of the U.S. M16 rifle. Thus, it might be worthwhile to instead provide some of that history here, of how Colt came to acquire the AR-15 rights from ArmaLite. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• The history of the ArmaLite AR-15, Colt ArmaLite AR-15, M16 and Colt AR-15 is simply too confusing for those with little or no firearms knowledge to understand (see all discussions on this page, the Talk:ArmaLite AR-15 and Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation) page). As a result, most people end up believing that they are the same gun. That they are ALL machineguns. That is why the original, AR-15 page was divided into the ArmaLite AR-15 and Colt AR-15 pages in the first place. Also, it's not necessary. The Chevrolet Corvette page does not discuss the complete history of the Chevrolet sports cars, it only discusses the Chevrolet Corvette.--RAF910 (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"..is simply too confusing for those with little or no firearms knowledge to understand" - I disagree and this is a poor call to make in terms of transparency of the page. Shaded0 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Transparency? What does that have to do with transparency? I know my limitations, which is why I don't go edit article about astronomy or genetic engineering. Everyone can't specialize in everything. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• I am not the only one to make that observation (please read "Armalite AR-15 and Colt Pages M-16" section on the Talk:ArmaLite AR-15 page. In this very section User:CodeBadger does not know the difference. And, he knows about the ArmaLite AR-15 page, because he has attempted to add Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory info to that page. Also, this is not a book. This is only encyclopedia article. It is meant to be a summery of the subject matter. It simply does not need an in depth history section--RAF910 (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"It simply does not need an in depth history section" -- explain why please? Is this per your above argument that its confusing to the reader? Shaded0 (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Mass shootings

@Niteshift36: There is currently no generic article on AR-15 and AR-15 redirects here. Thus I stand by that mass shootings deserve attention and meet WP:NOTABLE for this page.

Otherwise I would argue that the redirect should be removed since there is also ArmaLite AR-15 and creating a generic page for AR-15. Shaded0 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, there has been plenty of discussion about the inclusion of criminal use and the consensus is not to include it. In keeping with the consensus, I'm removing it again and would suggest you try to gain a new consensus before adding it in a third time. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Alright, I've reviewed more over the previous removal of content over this and agree it needs consensus on adding. It appears that the previous discussion didn't arrive at much consensus so I'll keep this topic linked in case others have two-cents to add. Talk:Colt_AR-15/Archive_2#Should_section_.22Controversy_due_to_use_in_mass_shootings.22_be_removed.3F Shaded0 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Second question - since you are familiar with the previous content User:Niteshift36, is the preference (in your opinion) towards restoring the previous content - or is this mostly highly biased and unsalvagable? In which case, I can start accumulating some WP:RS list below for consideration of addition.

• How the AR-15 Became Mass Shooters' Weapon of Choice

Regards, Shaded0 (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

First, you only linked to a single discussion. There have been more, as well as discussions at the Firearms project, NPOVN and other locations. Second, the Rolling Stone piece is flawed. The AR-15 is a trademark of Colt Firearms. There is no "Bushmaster AR-15" that the article claims. There is no "Smith & Wesson AR15". There are other firearms made by other companies that are variants of the AR15 design, but they aren't Colts and they aren't AR15's. There was once a separate article for AR15 variants. Personally, I had no issue with it, but other editors didn't want the article. If you'd like to start another article, go for it. But using the lack of another article to shoehorn in information about something that is not a Colt AR15 isn't the right way to proceed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ok - fair points.

Separate question but the above comments on the legitimacy of the Rolling Stone article (which I suppose doesn't surprise me that they have some facts wrong) - there is other similar articles making the same claims against Bushmaster. See the linked here. Per editorial standards, I would be interested in seeing why Rolling Stone magazine makes these claims - but am interested also in the points you raised. Per the nytimes article it looks to be Bushmaster ACR not AR-15. Is it worth delving into misconceptions on the AR-15 in the article as well? By itself it doesn't seem immediately apparent without doing gathering the sources. But regardless, it might be worth mention of the Colt AR-15 influences on other rifles, etc. Possibly even in the lede to be up-front about the distinction on Colt vs other brands/manufacturers as Colt being most commonly associated.. Shaded0 (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that the NYT is very careful to say "AR-15-style" most of the time. I concede that it's a commonly used phrase, even when used improperly. Perhaps a good illustration would be how people commonly call adhesive bandages a "band-aid", or a facial tissue a "Kleenex", but those are trademarks of particular companies. So if CVS recalled their adhesive bandages, we wouldn't list that in the article about Band-aid. Make sense? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's also what I am finding. I reorganized some of the content on this page to reflect that, although the main existing detail asserting this doesn't seem to have a source supporting it. I've added the CN tag for now, and will see if I can find something supporting the statement.

Update: Found a source

Shaded0 (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're talking about or what that source allegedly suppoprts. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I came to this article last night and saw that it had virtually no discussion of the weapon's use in mass shootings; I added a section that discussed this, including a reference to support the information I had provided; the section has been removed. If the logic for removing it was that the reference I used discussed only AR-15s in general and not this specific Colt model, then the redirect needs to be changed. The reading public is going to be coming to THIS ARTICLE (via the redirect) today, tomorrow, and the next day, and they deserve to be informed about the AR-15's mass shooting track record. Removing it feels like whitewashing, and runs counter to a long Wikipedia history of including negative information in articles that are not biographies. Whatever the technical reason for removing the paragraph/ section, I get the sense from the above that I am not the only person coming here and finding it odd to see no discussion about this. I understand the difference between bandaids and adhesive bandages. If the redirect is pointing here, then something on mass shootings seems absolutely warranted. Or else change the redirect and place the information about the mass shootings there instead. KDS4444 ^(talk) 01:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just because you aren't the only person coming to an article about a specific firearm and expecting to find information about different firearms, doesn't make your coming here correct. The Mustang is a car, but if I go to that article, expecting to find information about the Nova, another car, I won't find it either. The redirect is a topic of discussion for that redirect, not the COLT AR15. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha! Good luck with that. Several years ago I spent a few days arguing that case with the disciples here and nothing has changed or will change. There is a critical mass of removalists on gun pages in Wikipedia, and the only way this whitewashing of pages will stop is a policy change at the top of Wikipedia that notable uses of gun varieties (so mass-shootings would count) are legitimate to be added to the wiki page of the guns used. This is normal practice in wiki pages of other types of weapons and armaments (e.g. the pages of tanks/planes/howitzers etc will note which wars and major engagements they were used in), but the local page editors for civilian guns will never accept that themselves and you're wasting your time here I suspect. Fig (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Phrasing like "removalists", "disciples" and "whitewashing" sound less like good faith and more like someone with an agenda to further a POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus on the state of redirects at the moment - so I would agree then that this article should be amended to reflect violence with the category of gun. This doesn't seem to be an ideal state of current way the article(s) is setup. CC: @Limpscash: @Wbm1058: Talk:AR-15_(disambiguation)#Update_Redirect

Per the above - where is the "appropriate" page article for this - violence in the category, and can this at minimum also be added as a "see also"?

Shaded0 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• What consensus on redirects is that? 3 people who dropped into the article with the specific goal of adding certain material and are now trying to find a way to accomplish their goal? Is that the consensus? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• OPPOSE...We already have Mass shooting and Mass shootings in the United States page with a body count, and (for the moment) nowhere on those pages does it even mention AR-15s. That's where the info you want to add belongs, NOT here.--RAF910 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. I will raise the point for discussion on Talk:Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States to start the discussion on this. Shaded0 (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)