Talk:Heckler & Koch MP5/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

What's the point of these SMG's anymore?

Besides VERY compact PDW's, weapons like the MP5 don't belong in combat anymore. The M4 (and more recently, even weapons like the FN SCAR CQB system) achieve the same desired effects as SMGs, only with more flexablility in improvising during combat situations. I mean, unless you are shooting on a plane, and don't want to punch a hole in it, what's the point of a 9mm round going up against modern Kevlar?24.15.64.119 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)jake

Wikipedia is not a forum.--LWF (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And to answer the question - it's a lot harder to suppress a 5.56 than a 9mm, especially a subsonic 9mm, having rounds that travel very far is often a disadvantage (limit the danger radius of missed or deflected shots), shooting a 9mm in an airplane will punch holes just fine (I've tested it on aluminum panel test sections... ), and sometimes, momentum is better than energy. As a general combat weapon, you're seeing carbines replace SMGs to a large extent, because they're flexible in other ways and use the standard rifle ammo, but there's still a place for SMGs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry LWF, its just that since it says "discussion" and I had an on-topic question I thought it was OK. Most of the other sections here seem very similar.24.15.64.119 (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)jake

The disscusion page is used to genrealy make the article in question better. I suggust using the WP:Reference Desk БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what happened. For future reference, go to the very top of the page. Once there, you will see a box, and in it it says that the discussion page is for discussing ways of improving the article, and is not for discussion of the general subject. Although I will admit, it is a common mistake.--LWF (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with your opinion. Submachine guns are for use with special forces, self defense of pilots, tank crew (p90 development aim anyone?), Unconventional warfare, CQB, the list goes on. submachine guns are light, compact, simple, and just as deadly as any rifle. Somtimes it is even better to have a submachine gun! (again p90's ss190 ball round for use against body armor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a discussion board, however...

How on earth is a 5.7 round which is slower and lighter than a 5.56mm rifle round better at penetrating body armor?

Also, in terms of compactness and so forth, look at the CQBR or other compact (10" or less barrel) rifle-derived rifle caliber submachineguns. The P-90 is only 6 inches shorter than the CQBR. There are shorter (7", 8" barrel) 5.56mm weapons as well.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do some reasearch on the ss190 and you will se exactley how well it penetrates body armor. It was desinged for that. There are some videos on youtube that explain this common assumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.7_x_28_mm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

picture caption is wrong

the gun pictured is an MP5F not an A3, the F model is the newest one, made for the French military, it is like the MP5A5 minus the burst setting, and with a new butt stock design with ambidextrous sling hooks.. Archangel17 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

B&T version

Shouldn't the information on the Brügger & Thomet MP5 be added to this page? Unfortunantly it seems that some people want a separate page for every firearm varient under the sun even when it's not needed. Paulwharton (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to include it into the page. It's just a licensed variant. Koalorka (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, While I do aprove of articles on significant derivatives of firearms. I can't justify a page that is on a cosmetically modifed design. Paulwharton (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

question

is it avaluable for civil use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.131.77 (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

TAG MP5 Use

Please keep the TAG East MP5 image.

• The weapon is as visibly identifiable as in any of the other images
• Resolution was changed by third party.
• The usage policy is fine,

No other images on this article show the weapon being carried in a way which would be difficult to manage with other firearms. i.e. climbing a ladder

--Carbonrodney (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT displace the main image again with your poor quality, low-resolution poor angle photograph. I'm sure you are proud of your local law enforcement team, but you will NOT force an inferior image into the article by displacing other, "better" photographs. The fair use rationale is disputed, because it is a copyrighted non-free image and other similar types are readily available. I can guarantee it will be removed sooner or later by an admin. Saving you the frustration. Koalorka (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't displace the main image. I displaced your image... by one paragraph. Mine is a newer image, and seriously... is the order that important? Swap them if you want YOUR image first, it doesn't bother me. Frankly, you are just pissed off because someone touched what you think is your article. --Carbonrodney (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not MY image. It's a "better" image. It's not my article, it's on my watchlist so I revert unhelpful or destructive edits. YOUR image offers nothing. The MP5 in a counter-terrorist LE setting is already pictured in several other photos. The ladder climbing claim is simply stupid. So, apart from the magical ladder-climbing characteristics of the MP5, why do you wish to include this inferior image into the page? Are you from Australia? Koalorka (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please change your tone, it's unhelpful.

• The ladder climbing IS important, because one of the major features of the MP5 is that it is light and compact, allowing personnel carrying them more maneuverability than they would have carrying an M4 or an SR25. So that makes climbing ladders and rapelling easier. None of the other photographs indicate this.
• You referred to the image I uploaded as "my photo", so despite both now belonging to Wiki commons, I referred to the image YOU uploaded as your image, for clarity.
• You keep insisting this is an inferior image, and that yours is simply "better". What about it is inferior? the low-resolution was someone else, I have since compromised with them and now it is acceptable (you probably need to bypass cache) - not that that is even a criterion for removal. The weapon is as visible, if not more visible, than your image and the other images (including more of yours).
• I am Australian, but that doesn't imply COI. As I have completely ignored your insult toward our CT capability above, I would say I am remaining NPOV.

It appears that you are clutching at straws for reasons to remove the image from this site. Please stop discarding the contributions of others, they are not infringing on your territory - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

I propose a new idea: we have a gallery at the bottom of the page and all images go there. We can order them chronologically from date added to page (making my image last, because it is obvious what upset you was my image going in front of yours)

--Carbonrodney (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the photo of Australian commandos is nessessary. It is not a good photo of the subject of this article (the gun) as the gun is almost invisible against the soldier's uniform. Given that better examples of the gun being used are available it doesn't seem worth including, and the fair use claim for this article is probably not justified given that free photos of the gun being used by special forces troops are easily available from US military websites. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, by my count both of you are in danger of breeching the three revert rule, and may have actually breached it. Please note that this can lead to you being blocked from editing. It is good that you are now discussing the matter here though. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Not only is the image not helpful in illustrating the topic, but it is a non-free image, for which public domain alternatives are readily available, including an almost identical photograph of Chilean forces negotiating a flight of stairs and wielding the MP5 in one hand. Koalorka (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. My opinion is in the minority, I concede. I would remove the photo, but a fourth party already has. --Carbonrodney (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Red Army Faction

Closed as unanimous consensus to keep the article racially clean of politics and other trivia. Everyme 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

---

Dispute over the inclusion of a referenced statement that the MP5 has been used in the Red Army Faction's insignia. See here and here. Neutral, commonsense- and policy-based input from uninvolved editors welcome. Everyme 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This is a very weird topic to get into a fight over. The only reason I have ever heard of the manufacturer is precisely because of the RAF logo. Based on this personal experience I would consider it normal for this fact to be mentioned in some way. On the other hand, I am not sure how notable the RAF is (was) internationally, and I don't care at all. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The RAF, although it long since ceased to exist, remains quite notable. The point is that the RAF is arguably more notable than the MP5, and a direct connection like this one deserves to be duly mentioned in this article, if only for accuracy's and completeness' sake.

The WP:GUN#Guidelines that have been cited here in the past (see several sections above) arbitrarily demand that "In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage." This is in wild contradiction to the available sources, commonsense and our core content policies.

Also, I heartily agree that this is a weird thing to fight over, but there is surprisingly rigorous resistance against this relevant, verifiable piece of information. Consider that my edit preceding this RfC was reverted within less than two hours. I have occasionally tried to implement this bit before (2 times to be precise), but any attempt was roundly reverted and the last time, me and admin John kept talking to a wall of what in my personal opinion contained a wee bit ignorance and obstinate refusal to get the point in the face of overwhelming arguments. We eventually gave up, but it has bugged me ever since and I have now decided to escalate dispute resolution. Imho, it's a good little test of how strong Wikipedia's processes really work. Whether we indulge non-neutral editing like this or not. Everyme 07:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Based on the sources and the allaround obviousness of the situation here, I believe that the WP:GUN guidelines are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Nevertheless, since they have been cited in the past, please note that I opened a policy RfC on the "Criminal use" section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. Everyme 08:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The passage you cited from WP:GUN seems to make sense in general. I guess its purpose is to fend off little boys who come along with "this gun is cool because it was used in that high school massacre". But this case is clearly not what the rule was intended for, and WP:GUN does not take precedence over our general rules anyway. The purpose of WP:GUN is (or should be) to codify interpretations of our general rules as they frequently arise in conflicts in this particular part of Wikipedia.

It's a bad formulation, and it doesn't claim to be more than illustrative. If someone uses a particular type of gun for shooting 100 people in a discotheque in Luxembourg, then legislation might be passed in that state, saying that visitors of discotheques have to be checked for weapons. Nevertheless that's no reason to mention the shooting in an article on the gun. Similarly one could argue that the RAF did use the gun (I don't know whether they used it physically or just in the logo) as part of their criminal political activities, and that German laws were changed (rather drastically) as a result. But again, that's not a reasonable way to interpret this guideline. This is a very unusual case, and we need to go back to the general principles here.

Re your update: I think an RfC on the criminal use passage is probably overkill. It's not a problem with the guideline, it's a problem with its application to situations where it doesn't fit. We can't codify every single special case. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case a complementary word of caution might do the guidelines good and allay potential confusion in overeager editors who use it just because they are for some as-yet-unstated reason against adding this concise piece of info. I know that several people have this page watchlisted and hope they will eventually chime in with actually policy- and commonsense-based reasons, if there are any, as to what speaks against including the material. Everyme 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:GUNS#Criminal use was not the best guideline or policy to cite when debating against inclusion of the RAF in the article. A better policy to cite is WP:UNDUE, a part of WP:NPOV. My question is, how significant is the RAF's usage of the MP5 in their logo to the MP5? If not very significant to the MP5, then it should be given little to no weight in the article; and if it was very significant to the MP5, then it should be given appropriate weight in the article.

Oh, and by the way, thank you for bringing up WP:NPOV, for a while I've been meaning to make mention of WP:UNDUE in the policies, as that is one of the underlying policies behind the Criminal use and Pop culture guidelines, but I hadn't gotten around to it until you mentioned NPOV.--LWF (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the situation at hand. I am the one invoking WP:UNDUE, or rather WP:DUE. I do have reliable sources, the fact is relevant to a complete coverage and thus should be in the article. The problem with WP:GUNS#Criminal use as happened here before is in the clearly wrongful claiming of UNDUE treatment when it's really just a matter of IDONTLIKEIT. So, to make myself as clear as possible: NPOV and DUE are most obviously on "my side" of arguing for a concise but clearly due and verifiable statement that the MP5 was used in the RAF insignia. Anything else would be a simple perversion of policies against their underlying principles. FWIW, please understand that I am well aware that my effort to bring this article to a more complete and accurate coverage of verifiable facts fully conforms to all our content policies and to their spirit. Unless someone presents any real argument as to why that fact would UNDUE to mention here, for a lack of other options I have to assume that I am indeed correct.

One particular item of confusion that seems to reappear out of the earlier discussion, and which happens to be in the policy-defying portion of WP:GUN#Criminal use is the entirely erroneous assumption that a thing/fact X "must have had" any influence whatsoever on thing/fact Y for X to be mentioned in the article on Y. This is just not the case. Your question "how significant is the RAF's usage of the MP5 in their logo to the MP5?" is completely meaningless. It's like this: What is the sum of all verifiable facts about the MP5? Part of the answer: The MP5 has been used in the RAF insignia. It's most clearly in the best interest of a general encyclopedia to concisely mention that verifiable fact. One or two short sentences about an item of relatively major notability like this is necessary to even achieve DUE weight. Everyme 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My question is not "meaningless" as you claim. I am asking because in WP:UNDUE it states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." I am merely trying to figure out how significant it is to the MP5 because that is exactly what UNDUE gives as the criteria for how much weight we give it. So my question stands.--LWF (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyme, I think you should really look at our article Show, don't tell. This advice doesn't just make sense when writing a novel; it's also applicable to encyclopedia articles and talk page discussions. You are claiming all sorts of things, but you are not saying much (if anything) about why these claims are justified. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give others the chance to chime in. The point is that I've explained everything necessary. I won't respond to tactical games. Everyme 02:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not playing trying to play tactical games, I am trying to make your point in a convincing way. You may have given actual arguments about the matter itself (i.e. why should the RAF logo be mentioned in an article about the weapon), but I am not going to read old edit summaries or dig your arguments up in other sections (without concrete pointers). Other respondents to the RFC will likely have the same attitude. You must make a convincing case in this section. That means arguing the substance, not hiding the substance in a large paragraph consisting mostly of claims. I am talking about the difference between "I am right and you know it" and "I am right because ...". The latter is potentially convincing, the former not so much. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, here's the quick rundown once again: (1) The MP5 was used in the RAF insignia (verifiable through sources). (2) The RAF is quite notable (verifiable through sources). (3) The fact that the MP5 was used in the RAF insignia should be mentioned in the article about the MP5 to make this article more comprehensive. That's all. Now, what was the line of reasoning again to leave this verifiable piece of information about easily the most notable ever depiction of the MP5 out of the article? Everyme 08:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest adding the information at the end of the article in a section titled "Other uses". I see no reason for including any mention in the lead section of the article. Apteva (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I for one had no particular spot in the article in mind. A section "Other uses", or maybe "Other users" as a subsection of Users would be perfectly fine by me. The current dispute I believe is more about whether or not to include it at all. Everyme 05:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you've argued your position, but that alone will not give you the green light for including the information into the page, you are in the minority, this should come down to a show of hands, let me start:

Oppose: For the various reasons states above. Barely notable, had no influence on the MP5, did not affect the perception of the MP5, promotes criminal use of the MP5, promotes a criminal Marxist terror organization and their actions in an article free of politics. 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koalorka (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, you have it all wrong. (i) No actual reason to not include the statement has been stated anywhere on this talk page. (ii) "Barely notable"? Get real. (iii) "had no influence [etcpp.]": irrelevant, as pointed out above. (iv) "promotes a criminal Marxist terror organization and their actions in an article free of politics" — I like that part of your comment the best. Hilarious. Everyme 17:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Get real", the fact that it had no influence on the MP5 is according to you "irrelevant". You sir just won the internet, good luck. Koalorka (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"won the internet"? And no, the fact that it is irrelevant whether or not the RAF's usage of the MP5 in their insignia had any influence on the MP5 is not my opinion. Opinion (and heavily biased, and policy- and commonsense defying) is that arbitrary threshold in WP:GUNS#Criminal use which you desperately keep citing. Everyme 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I tend to support the WP:UNDUE argument against inclusion. That being said, I don't know what the fuss is all about. Had the original request for inclusion have been made under "Users" and "Germany", no one would have objected. But you agitators insist on including it in the main text body or creating a special header for this brief mention. Koalorka (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy it. You had every opportunity to amend the inclusion anyway you see fit, but you simply reverted instead. And you have done it before, which may indicate an ownership issue to some extent. Frankly, if and as long as you prefer to be dishonest like this and clearly edit motivated by your strong POV rather than an interest in proper enyclopedic coverage, I have no further interest in your comments. Everyme 18:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is one of the fundamental problems with your argument Everyme: you have not shown us how the RAF's logo is significant to the MP5. You've told us it is plenty of times, but you have given us little to nothing to back up your argument that it is significant to the MP5. Now, if it were shown that it were significant, then it would be different; but as of yet, you have not shown us how including it would not go against WP:UNDUE by giving excess weight to something that isn't significant to the MP5.

Now, I wouldn't mind a brief mention in the section on users, as that would be brief, concise, and accurate, without being given undue weight by being in its own section or inside the main text body.--LWF (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I daresay I have complied and cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring several times over by now. As I also said above already, I have no strong opinion on where this should be placed in the article. It could be in the main text body (note that the users section is in the main text body). Hell, I'd be happy with a link under See also. But I'm afraid even that wouldn't stick, that's why I included references. Everyme 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I don't suppose you would mind going over it again and showing us how it is significant to the MP5? Just a quick and concise review would be fine, and would be very helpful in establishing where everyone stands. Or you could just go ahead and place a concise statement about the RAF logo under Germany under the user's section, as everyone seems to be okay with that.--LWF (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Relevant to the MP5." Sigh. As I said above, the very simple line of reasoning is that the RAF is quite notable, and their use of the MP5 in their insignia is easily the most notable depiction of the MP5 ever. Honestly, I don't even know why we're talking about this. Who in their right mind would contest the referenced inclusion of the concise sentence

• German terrorist group, the Red Army Faction, depicted a Heckler & Koch MP5 in their insignia.

as being undue? Also, come to think of it, the Users section is not applicable since the RAF (to the best of my knowledge) didn't use the MP5 other than in their insignia. It would also raise an entirely different set of questions (e.g. whether or not the RAF ever had combatant status anywhere on a par with national armies). Everyme 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if the RAF didn't even use the MP5, then there is no issue. The logo is then just a piece of trivia with no place in the article. Koalorka (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be best if you stopped commenting here. Everyme 03:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh*. I don't care a bit whether the RAF, one of the most notable and most embarrassing left-wing terror groups ever, is mentioned in this disgusting article. (Disgusting because it is obviously written – "unpolitically" – from the perspective of people with an unhealthy obsession with killing devices, or from the perspective of actual users. I am not sure which of the two is worse.) In my opinion Everyme has given a single, somewhat convincing but not absolutely compelling, argument for inclusion of such a sentence (very notable depiction), and Koalorka has given a single, somewhat convincing but not absolutely compelling, argument against (did not affect the perception). The rest is misunderstandings, inappropriate rhetorics (trees and herrings), obvious false claims (RAF not notable), and personal attacks (dishonest POV editor vs. propagandist for a criminal Marxist organisiation).

Koalorka, you are not helping your case by writing before thinking. Everyme, you are mistaken about the strength of your argument and the meaning of WP:UNDUE. If you want to get this fact in you need to convince LWF, who AFAICT is arguing from policy rather than ideology. The fact is mentioned in the German Wikipedia, and I am convinced that that's correct there. But notability in the English-speaking world and worldwide notability are different from notability in the German-speaking world. You might have managed to convince me, and perhaps LWF, that the threshold is met even for the English-speaking world, but you didn't even try. This is my last comment here, I will unwatch this article now. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Kosovo Police

It is very clear that Republic of Kosovo's police force uses the MP5 smg as I have shown in a video and photos also the official website. But people like User talk:Koalorka who bring political and nationalistic propaganda are ruing the article by stupid remarks that Kosova is not a country. That is a whole different topic and has nothing to do with this, and maybe he should complain to the 50+ countries that recognize Kosova as a state. 82.35.32.75 (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the Wikipedia article on Kosovo says there is a dispute. That dispute has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the fucking MP5. Your personal attacks to the side, this has absolutely nothing to do with an MP5. Please, take your rhetoric to the Kosovo article or the UN, but keep it out of this article. --Winged Brick (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifications box

The specifications box is huge and remarkably hard to read. Given that the 'variants' section simply says: 'see variants', why do all the other sections spend 7-19 lines listing the stats of every variant, and which variant it applies to? It seems like it would be appropriate to either a) list the specifications of a single basic variant, e.g the A3 (which could include listing both expanded and unexpanded lengths, etc) or b) specify the range - for example, 2.0-3.6 kg weight, 50-60mm width, 700-900 rpm, etc.Full specifications for all the variants could then be listed in a table later in the article. For an example of this in practice, see the m16 article, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Summary_2.

The 'length' section is by far the worst. Some lines start with the length, others start with a descriptor ('Fixed Stock'), even when both belong to that same descriptor (680 vs 790), and there's again no clear indication of where a given weapon will fall in the list. I understand it's sorted by stock type, and ordered so that the first types listed is for the main A variants, but the result is that the list is the A2,A4,/10,/40, then the SD2,SD5, then the A3,A5, then the SD3,SD6 - a jumble. Again, I understand the reasoning behind it, but the end result is just bad.

Even without shortening, the specs box should have the entries reordered to a consistent standard. Compare ROF to MV sections - the first lists the A2-A5, then the SD's, then the PDWs. It doesn't list some variants at all, eg the MP5/40. The MV section lists the A2-A5 first again, then the PDWs, then the SDs, then the /10 and /40. At a minimum, all the sections should use the same ordering (A, K/PDW, SD, /10 and /40) where possible - and that's certainly possible for the muzzle velocity section, it's just different than all the others for no apparent reason. Perhaps even more useful they could be listed in relevant order for the property - like for muzzle velocity, 285m/s SD's, then the 315, 375, 400, 425. This would provide a way for people at a glance to see the range of values, provide an obvious ordering that could be followed as new variants are produced, and even provides for grouping the variants that share a feature together without disrupting the overall ordering scheme (as happens with 'length').

As it stands, attempting to group by type (A, K/PWD, SD, other) really isn't useful. The types are split by necessity in some categories while rightly remaining grouped in others, and that ordering system isn't immediately obvious from the contents of the infobox (-especially- not to a user unfamiliar with the weapon), isn't consistently followed. The infobox is supposed to be a brief summary of the critical stats, useful for comparing and understanding the weapon at a glance. That's impossible here.

The order that's used doesn't even make particular sense. The HK website lists A, then SD, then K. The SD models are more similar to the standard than the K models are, but here they're typically 3rd, not second. And, the HK site lists by model number - A2,3,4,5 or SD1,2,3,4,5,6,N - which is makes sense. In a table it's immediately obvious that A2/4 or SD3/6 etc have similarities, even when they're not contiguous.

And, a table would allow for EASY citations for the information and more space to elaborate - for instance, why does the K-PDW weigh so much more than the other K models, almost as much as the integrated-silencer SD1/4? Is the K-PDW weight 'loaded' and the others 'unloaded'? Are those from the same source? Are we positive that every single one of the 11 listed weights are all the same (either all loaded, or all unloaded)? Which? (Yes, after reading I understand that it's because the K-PDW has a folding stock, but in infobox list format, that's very hard to determine).

Seriously, put all the extra information in a table and limit each stat to 3 lines at most. "2.54-3.08kg (typical), from 2.0kg (compact) up to 3.6kg (silenced)" is far more useful. I'd do it myself but I don't want to ruffle feathers, and I'm not sure whether the consensus would be to list the ranges or a specific weapon (and which that would be).

Tofof (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree absolutely, I don't know how to make a table that elaborate. Help out and I will try to assist you to the best of my abilities. Koalorka (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

MP-5/10 Magazines

Perhaps a minor point, but perhaps there should be a reference to the MP-5/10 magazines being of a different contructions, etc. [1] 66.191.19.217 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

HKPro is hardly considered a source. It's a website for enthusiasts. Koalorka (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there are other sources such as Jane's Guide [2]. Modern Firearms is another (currently one of the external links on the article). [3] 66.191.19.217 (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have access to the Jane's source, by all means, you're welcome to do it. Koalorka (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. It appears that particular Jane's Guide article is open for public viewing, so would likely work as a source. I also have access to hardcopy of said guide, but not handy right at this moment. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

\

Excessive lead/article organization

The lead section is a bit long; most of that information should be moved to a new "history" section. Some guy (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented this change myself. Additionaly, the rest of the article is in dire need of reorganization. If a reader is looking for a specific detail regarding the weapon's design, or a variant, the reader is forced to read through all of the text in those sections because they are not organized with subheaders. This is not really acceptable; additional sections/subsections/headers/whatever are needed to make this article more approachable. Some guy (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very fond of a dozen subsections. I think the current layout is ideal, with the technical information contained under "design details", following a logical flow from method of operation to accessories. The lede can be trimmed down by moving the weapon's development into a seperate "History" section. Koalorka (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I support User:Some guy's cleanup of the lead. But the idea of many headers needs to be refined, as User:Koalorka has stated "I'm not very fond of a dozen subsections", which I agree with. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say a 'dozen' or 'many' subsections, please don't exaggerate my words. Please look at the AK-47 article, which is structured much more approachably with better sectional organization. Going from design details to variants is logical, but having each of these sections at enormous length with no subsections is not. The M16 rifle article has a shorter, easier to read design section, and an organized variants section with subheaders. Neither the AK nor M16 articles have extremely detailed descriptions of what happens mechanically when the weapon is fired. Some guy (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Who said you did say 'dozen' or 'many'? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Kaolorka said "I'm not very fond of a dozen subsections" and you said "the idea of many headers needs to be refined". Where did I present the idea of "many headers" that needs to be refined? This is silly, to be playing word games on the talk page. Please try to add some subsections to make the article more managable.

I've added some section headers myself. I feel that the extremely detailed description of all the mechanical elements involved in firing the weapon is excessive and beyond the scope of information needed in an encyclopedia; users interested in those detailed specifics should seek further reading elsewhere. I would like to remove most of the firing process text. Some guy (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be frank, I completely disagree with the changes made and think they're a step back towards the hazy days of the fledgling Wiki, disorganized, lacking content and with no standardized structure. The AK-47 page is a perfect example of what a gun article should NOT become. It's a complete mess, with no logical flow, virtually no detailed information and trivial information injected seeminlgly at random. This is not the place to begin your crusade, start with WP:GUNS as what you're trying to push affects the entire project. I'm going to undo some of your more drastic changes. You will MOST CERTAINLY NOT remove detailed information without permission or approval from the wider community. Koalorka (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone agrees with you and that's why the AK-47 article has been featured and this article is rated start class. This article doesn't have any organization the way it is now - logical flow doesn't even factor into the awful mess of text. I will not accept your opinions as a reflection of the entire community. I am free to be bold and try to improve the article and implement some structure into it. This article might suit you fine if you are intimately familiar with it and the general mechanical workings of a firearm, but this article is the absolute opposite of something that would be valuable to the average reader. Most people will hit the ridiculously detailed mechanical description of the firing process and give up. You could be helpful and try to improve my organizational efforts instead of reverting them. I attempted to very carefully organize the paragraphs into broad subsections in a manner which I felt made the article more approachable. Again, nobody new to the subject is going to be able to jump right in and find a specific detail; they'll have to dig through numerous paragraphs to find the relevant information. You didn't even leave in wikilinks which I laboriously hunted and inserted.

I just read over my edit again and I still feel it is infinitely better than the current presentation. Having the short bit about the MP5A2 as its own paragraph (perhaps separated from the subsections as I did) presents the reader with a simpler and more memorable set of information; a general overview of the design. After that I had the possibly mislabeled but still appropriate "firing mechanism" section which contained all the paragraphs that detailed the mechanical process involved in firing the weapon. Finally the "features" section addressed the elements that more directly apparent and visibly beneficial; the features of the gun and its accessories. Actually the features should go before the firing mechanisim since they are more accessible information. Some guy (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created a sandbox version of this article with organizational changes which I feel improve the article. I don't think the changes are perfect, but that's why it's a wiki. Anyone feel free to visit the sandbox version and give your opinion or try to make additional edits to better improve the organization. Thanks. Some guy (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think in this case the use of subsections does improve readability, that is, of course, only my opinion as someone who does not usually read over weapons articles. I also believe that subsections are acceptable as per WP:Section and probably does improve accessibility (see WP:MTAA), as cited by Some guy in his edit summary. Having said that, I wouldn't want to see too many subsections. The policies are guidelines and do not necessarily state that articles have to have subsections. I am not familiar with the Firearms project, so it is possible that they have a set format that they like to use for weapons articles. If that is the case then it is best to follow that format, or get a cross section of that project to discuss the changes to obtain consensus. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. Your opinion as someone who doesn't usually read over weapon articles is extremely important, as this represents an "average reader" who is not a firearms expert. I have been reading the Wikiproject Firearms and do not see anything that forbids subsections. Regardless I don't believe that a WikiProject guideline would absolutely override general Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Some guy (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)