Talk:Pancor Jackhammer

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pancor Jackhammer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Popular culture[edit]

The computer game and music stuff should be moved to a 'Pancor Jackhammer in Popular Culture' section or something... Sajt

I agree, and this is the general consensus among the military project members. Riddley 16:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a member of the military project, however I also agree the popular culture heading seems a good way to solve the problemRyan4314 12:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another link, since the first two contained the same information Ud terrorist 18:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its also featured in SOCOM II U.S. Navy Seals but its called something else. [ming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.159.230 (talk • contribs) 02:21, January 12, 2006 (UTC)

So... since I don't think it's appearance in Battlefield 2 is all that notable or prolific, I'm replacing it with Max Payne (two examples are good, I didn't want to tack on a third). I think the Jackhammer makes a much more notable appearance in that game. --UNHchabo 08:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a lascannon/gun from warhammer -arax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araxmas (talk • contribs) 19:53, April 14, 2007‎ (UTC)

Why has someone replaced the original schematic profile image with (what appears to be) a render of a game model?162.249.162.194 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious[edit]

If the Jackhammer was ever released to the world for use, military or whatever, just how illegal would it be or what kind of licenseing would you need to own one? Supposedly you can own a USAS-12 personally, but this seems a little, weird?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aringarosa~enwiki (talk • contribs) 18:07, April 7, 2006‎ (UTC)

Depends on the country. Check out Gun politics for details. --UNHchabo 07:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DAO-12[edit]

This gun bears a striking resemblance to the DAO-12. Does anyone know what the relation between these two is?

-- MiG 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, there is no relationship. The operating principle is totally different and it was designed in two different countries (USA & S. Africa). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.72.85 (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Drum magazine used as landmine[edit]

Somewhere was told, that drum magazine can be exploded as mine if somekind of pressuredetonator is attached onto magazine...

Am i totally wrong?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.230.18.85 (talk • contribs) 21:59, October 22, 2006‎ (UTC)

No, you are correct. Several editions of Jane's Infantry Weapons mention this option. It was named the Beartrap. This was mentioned in previous versions of this article before someone deleted it. D.E. Watters 16:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It did exist. It was detailed in the 1989-1990 Jane's guide. I think something should be mentioned as it is a rather unique device. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.72.85 (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I think some reference to this would be a good idea. I have at least one copy of Jane's guide that outlines the feature. It has photographs of the device, or at least a mock-up of said.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Development completed?[edit]

@Khitrir: I wonder if this is merely a difference of definitions as to being "completed" I suppose you could consider development "completed" if the mechanism functions mechanically. I wonder if @Surv1v4l1st: still has the original article as I'd be interested in seeing it. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 02:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I do. Here is the text description and photograph of this device (Jane's 89-90). There is additional information on the same page about the weapon system in general, should it be of interest. Cheers.

@MTWEmperor: @Surv1v4l1st: The version from 1994-1995 has much the same information (inc. same photo) being basically identical with 2 main differences - Status is listed as "Development Completed" and the address is different (implying that its at least had an update and isn't just a typo picked up from transcription). Personally I'd rate Janes as the more reliable source, McCollum is good but not perfect and the information in the video isn't attributed to any primary source. But theres also enough doubt that I'd be happy leaving it as a contested until some clear cut information decided it one way or another. Khitrir (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Khitrir: That's fair. I'm fine with a contested declaration. I have no desire to get into some kind of edit war. I'm merely going to separate the paragraph and making the in line citations attributions clear. Also thank you @Surv1v4l1st: for the screenshot. It's great to actually see what it was supposed to look like. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi I may expand the description a little based on the screenshot. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 04:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with all that and glad to help. I don't have any particular hard and fast view of the matter, being only aware of the development from what is in print and in video. Jane's is very authoritative, but I can think of more than one time they just got it plain wrong in their publications. However, it would be an understatement to say they are one of the best sources in this field. McCollum's work is fantastic, to the point (in the interest of full disclosure) I'm a Patreon supporter of his channel, but I'm pretty sure he has no editorial oversight other than himself. Jane's most certainly does have said oversight, which is germane to Wikipedia sourcing, so I'd err on their side too. All that said, at a minimum, I think some reference to the development is in order, and the erasure of said a long time ago was a bad call. As to where it ended up in final development, and therefore how it is worded, I'd defer to other editor's judgement. And, naturally, if I can help in any respect, I am at your service. Cheers, amigos.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 04:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

The text at the two external links reads exactly the same. I'm guessing Nazarian copied the Modern Firearms stuff, as it reads like most of the other articles at world-guns.ru. Any way to confirm who copied who, and should one of them be removed? Optimus Sledge 19:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]