Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms

WikiProject Firearms (Rated NA-class)
This page 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

 WikiProject Military history / Firearms International 
Flag of the United States.svg Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Discussions:  Military history / Firearms
Flag of Canada.svg      Discussions:    Forces canadiennes / Canadian Armed Forces
Flag of Germany.svg      Diskussionen:  Militär / Waffen
Flag of France.svg      Discussions:    Histoire militaire / Armes
Japan - Rounded Rectangle.svg      Discussions:    Portal‐ノート:軍事 / 
Flag of Italy.svg      Discussioni:     Guerra / Armi da fuoco
Single Color Flag - 007500.svg      Discussions:     بوابة:الحرب  نقاش البوابة
Flag of Poland.svg      Dyskusje:         Militaria / Broń
∑ Interntl. 1 <--> ∑ Interntl. 2

Contents

Expanding the scope of mass shooting listingsEdit

In the article about mass shootings in the US, there has been a move to expand the scope of the list from the original 20 incidents to anything 10 or more. Discussion is here.[1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC noticeEdit

An RfC has been opened on whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre. 19:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Call for nominations for project coordinatorEdit

(see "Results" below)
- twc 21:53, 15 April 2018 (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.

We haven't had a Project Coordinator election since 2011. At that time, the election process was borrowed from MILHIST and called for elections every 12 months. There's no need to reinvent the wheel so I'm copy-and-pasting the previous call for nominations.

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

  • The coordinator's main role is performing the maintenance and housekeeping tasks required to keep the project and its internal processes running smoothly. This includes keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is little that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—the coordinator has an explicit role in only a few processes—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, the most efficient route has proven to be to delegate formal responsibility for this administrative work to a specified individual.
  • The coordinator also has several other roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as the individual to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, the coordinator has the highly informal role in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to informally resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive. The coordinator is not, however, an authority for formal dispute resolution; serious disputes should be addressed through the normal dispute resolution process.
  • Coordinators are elected by a simple approval vote of the membership, normally held every twelve months. Any project member in good standing may nominate himself or herself, including the current coordinator, who may serve as many times as they wish. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes becomes the coordinator, and bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project.
  • If, between elections, the project has more work than the current coordinator can handle, and no election is imminent, the coordinator may co-opt additional coordinators, to serve until the next election.

To get the ball rolling, I would like to ask for nominations (including self-nominations) to begin today (April 8) and remain open for one week (ending May April 15). This will be followed by a one-week voting period. Who would you like to see coordinating WP:Firearms? –dlthewave 18:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, and perhaps I just haven't thought about this enough, but would this end up being a wiki-political charged position? Since some of my edits have been seen as overly sympathetic in one direction I'll use myself as an example. If I had the job would other editors feel comfortable that my opinions on weight etc wouldn't have an undue influence on the editorial leanings of the project articles? We seem to have two camps of project editors. One camp finds the use in crimes and the like to be the significant factor in articles and thus where most efforts should be placed. Others are more likely firearms enthusiast and thus see the details of operation, subversions, and production etc to be the real focus of these articles while crime and the politics associated with guns should be left to articles on those particular topics. Would this position be, in practice, neutral with regards to those views or result in favoritism for one or the other? Note: I don't want the job. At the very minimum I don't have the time for such a roll so, regardless of my qualifications (real or imagined), I would decline any nomination. Springee (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not my home-wiki and I do not know the group of firearms editors to well. But please: An assumed polarization between crime and politics-related writers and more firearms enthusiasts is a mistake and in many cases a false allegation. Many of the authors are technicians or people who handle weapons as a professional tool. --Tom (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This coordinator position could be a lot of work for in the absence of shared project goals. I suggest project members ask themselves why someone might want to be coordinator under the present circumstances. I also suggest considering whether having a coordinator would be an improvement over the present situation. The designated week for submission of nominations is an unusually long one, so there seems to be ample time to mull over these questions. Just in case that submission deadline gets unexpectedly shortened from May 15th, however, I would like to nominate NO PROJECT COORDINATOR for consideration on this ballot. Some later election might select a coordinator if the present circumstances change in the future. Thewellman (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Long week indeed, thanks for catching that. I've corrected it.–dlthewave 01:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no project coordinator. Not needed and a bad idea. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no project coordinator. The position does not seem to be necessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no project coordinator. I think it would create further divisions and marginalise some. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC).
  • Support no project coordinator. The position does not currently play a significant role in the project and is not needed. –dlthewave 15:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would like to nominate NO PROJECT COORDINATOR for consideration on this ballot. This to me reads like a self-empowerment attempt. -72bikers (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully self-empowerment for all of us as we realize the benefits of anarchism in finding shared values within our polarized membership. Thewellman (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Side conversation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

So when I make a in general trivial observation about no one specifically, it is casting aspersions. But a editor saying I think the idea of a civilian owning a gun is completely moronic, I couldn't really care one way or the other if people in a far off country decide to blow each other's heads off from time to time. Edaham (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC) This is perfectly fine. -72bikers (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the resolution/ruling I read, there definitely appears to be a double standard. Apparently, a mildly snarky comment is considered just as "uncivil" as an expletive laden tirade that included threats of violence, and the committee topic-banned the former while only issuing a (third or fourth) warning to the later. TXGRunner (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
  • While I think a project coordinator could be useful, I don't think there is any chance of finding a person who could do the job in this climate. Therefore, I too favor NO PROJECT COORDINATOR. TXGRunner (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner

ResultsEdit

During the 1-week nomination period, no editor was nominated for the Project Coordinator role and 7 editors expressed support for No Project Coordinator. There is no need to continue to the voting phase, and the Coordinator section will be removed from the participant list. This topic may be revisited in the future if editors feel that a Project Coordinator is needed. –dlthewave 18:13, 15 April 2018 (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.

Gun politics task forceEdit

  Hello! I thought you might be interested in joining the Gun Politics Task Force. We work on coordinating, expanding and improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics broadly related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page. Thank You!

This may be of interest to members of this project. Thanks –dlthewave 19:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Move page currently titled Type 45 Siamese MauserEdit

In Talk:Type 45 Siamese Mauser I started a discussion about a page move. Before I make the change, I wanted to ensure others had an opportunity to offer input. "Type 45" is a misnomer, the rifle is the Type 46; Type 45 refers to the cartridge. Possibly more significantly, I think the page should the more generic title "Siamese Mauser" as there were several developments in the rifle that changed the type designation, but used the same receivers. The details and supporting references are in the Talk section of the article in question. TXGRunner (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner


Following discussion on the talk page, the page Type 45 Siamese Mauser was moved to Siamese Mauser style rifle. The content was also revised and expanded a few days prior, with sections for each of the models covered (i.e. Type 46, Type 47, Type 46/66, Type 47/66, and Type 66) and appropriate sourcing for labels. Please post any comments, feedback, or other input in the Talk:Siamese Mauser style rifle about the move or content updates, or implement edits as appropriate. TXGRunner (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner

March for Our Lives Portland AfD noticeEdit

An AfD discussion related to March for Our Lives Portland has been created. [[2]]. Springee (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

March for Our Lives on Mainpage of german Portal:ArmsEdit

Hello colleagues, just for your information: on the Mainpage of de:Portal:Waffen you can read the german version of March for Our Lives as a teaser. You may ask: why ? ... or better ask: why not ? In my opinion it is better to see and present real-life (and existing WP-articles) then somehow "sitting behind a gun cabinet" and ignore the rest of the world. BTW the mainpage de:Portal:Waffen had 41.634 views in the last 3 month. Best --Tom (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tom: cool; thanks for sharing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I hope this can break up parts of the polarization here in Wikipedia. Last not least wikipedia is not a Role-playing game to reenact the The Famous Five and Catch the Thief [3]. Best --Tom (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

article-stats-mainanance .... only for Enterprise resource planning ?Edit

Hello, I came across Talk:Siamese Mauser style rifle and tried do fix the rating of this article. Seriously ... I think all this ratings are obolete. What is the purpose for the reader?, for the authors? for the project? I feel that it is just like Enterprise resource planning of WDME ? Supporting SAP_SE#Enterprise_SOA is somehow WP:WWIN not good for Authors + not good for readers = not good for encyclopaedia. For this reason I demand to fix the artcle-disc-project-tag of WP:Firearms in order to get rid of this stuff and the interconnections via categories. Notabene: maintanance and use i have checked via https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:.22_Long&action=history ==> since 10 years ==> nobody cares about this ratings. Best --Tom (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Additions to the .30 TC Wiki pageEdit

For the .30 TC Wikipedia page, I added the original name of the cartridge incase a reader was interested in what the "TC" meant. I also added that the .30 TC was developed for Thompson Center Arms and not by. The edit before, said that it was created by Thompson Center Arms which is not arcuate because the creater's name is Hornady. I added an overview section of the .30 TC just to give readers an idea of what it looks like in terms of size and how has it improved compared to the earlier cartridges. The picture that was already on the page, showed both the .30-06 and .308 as well as the .30 TC. The previous edit included information in comparison to the .30 TC so I went even further so the readers could get a sense of the quality. I spoke about the .30 TC in terms of speed and performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srleath1 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion noticeEdit

A discussion related to this topic is taking place at NPOV Noticeboard. –dlthewave 02:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

For those who may not have seen it, I invite attention to User:wbm1058's concise statement of a basis for perceived non-neutrality. Some firearms may be built for sport or competition, just as some automobiles may be built for competitive racing or appearance rather than utilitarian transportation; but there is widespread comprehension of the underlying truth to wbm1058's comparison, despite the fact that the majority of animals killed by either automobiles or firearms are non-human. A look at an automobile windshield reveals the automobile death toll is far higher. (Those who find the windshield tally irrelevant may observe the dead cats, dogs, deer, rabbits, snakes, skunks, and possums littering the roadside.) In reality, though, very few of the civilian firearms or automobiles manufactured cause human fatalities.
The neutrality issue arises if one considers the comparative value to Wikipedia readers of repetitively illustrating misuse of firearms while ignoring misuse of motor vehicles. If the underlying comprehension of firearms misuse is already embedded in our social consciousness, it may be a disservice to deflect attention from the potential dangers of motor vehicles. The equivalence of road rage to assault with a deadly weapon has been most recently demonstrated in Toronto, but the potential dangers arising from misuse of a vehicle's carrying capacity may remain unrecognized. Aside from domestic use of automobiles to transport firearms to sites of mass murder, explosives are being detonated in areas of civil disturbance; and the potential damages from flammable liquids, compressed gas, toxic chemicals, radioactive waste, or disease vectors may come as an unpleasant surprise to the unprepared. Thewellman (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I see the term "sport" / "sporting" used in the AR-15 style rifle article several times, but the article doesn't describe the nature of the sport. If there are competitions where prizes or medals are awarded, please do add this information to the article. I know that some types of rifles are used in competitions, including Olympic events, but I'm not aware that the AR-15 is. If there are other positive uses, please do balance the article by describing them. Wikipedia does have articles about drug–impaired driving, driving under the influence and drunk drivers; also motor vehicle emissions. If there is evidence that impaired drivers have a demonstrated tendency or preference for using a specific type of vehicle, then by all means do mention that in Wikipedia's article about that class of vehicle. If some vehicles are disproportionately responsible for high levels of unhealthy emissions, then do discuss that in articles about those vehicle classes. Wikipedia also covers the topic of roadkill. Again, if there is a vehicle type that is disproportionately responsible for roadkill, it may be appropriate to mention that in the article about that vehicle class. There's an article about road rage too. If truck drivers are much more likely to commit road rage than car drivers, then sourced statements about that vehicle class' tendency to disproportionately inspire rage might be included in those articles. When a particular vehicle has safety issues, Wikipedia covers that – Ford Pinto § Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation, for example. Though it wouldn't surprise me to see supporters of that car lobbying to remove that negative content, consensus appears to support including it. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hunting would be one of the sports. High power rifle match shooting is another. There are also tactical completions [[4]]. Some people are also known to take such rifles to the range for basic target shooting. Springee (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
By all means, please feel free to add a hunting/sporting if you have suitable RS that support this. –dlthewave 00:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I was replying to Wbm1058's assertion that their are no sporting activities for those rifles. I'm sure we can make a request for such information in the article's talk page. Incidentally, the NRA's page talking about the competitions is a RS for those events since the NRA is sanctioning many of them. Springee (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I was asserting that there were no sporting activities for those rifles that I was aware of. So I just learned about high power rifle match shooting. I see that in service rifle matches, a competitor may only use an M1 Garand style rifle, an M1A (M14) style rifle, an SR-25 (M110) style rifle, or an AR-15 (M16) style rifle. So sure, add something to the AR-15 style rifle article about that. wbm1058 (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
No problem, it was good that we could share some background on the subject. Sorry I misstated your post and also that my comments were harsh in tone. I should have been more tactful when replying to a good faith disagreement. 04:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This has been brought up several times, the idea of adding "legitimate use" content to some of these articles, (such as AR-15 style rifle), uses such as hobby target shooting, competition (pro & am), hunting, collecting, etc., etc. But the sources that were cited, were challenged as "non-expert" or "non-neutral" and nothing really happened after that. - theWOLFchild 03:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD, March for our Lives PortlandEdit

Since the article lists this project, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March for Our Lives Portland (2nd nomination) Springee (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Crimes by WeaponEdit

Hello dear colleagues, to make it easier for everyone, I suggest to consider the implementation of a list of crimes sorted by weapon. See a translated version as it exists in de:WP. Best --Tom (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Then just a sentence or two in the gun article, with just a link would not be a bad idea. Food for thought. -72bikers (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Safety recallsEdit

Hello all, should safety recall notices be included in the articles on their respective firearms? I couldn't find any pertinent discussions in the talk archives, or any applicable project guidelines, so I'd appreciate your thoughts here. Thanks, - Mr.1032 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if it's received significant RS coverage. I would avoid using the recall notice itself as a source. Remington Model 700 #Misfiring would be a good example. –dlthewave 03:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Since autos have a higher rate of recalls, perhaps the discussion about this topic at the Automobile project might be relevant: [5]. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both! - Mr.1032 (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

M1911 firearm discussion, criminal use.Edit

In order to notify all projects associated with the M1911 pistol article, there is a discussion related to inclusion of criminal uses of the firearm here. [[6]] Springee (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an assault weaponEdit

There is no such thing as an assault weapon. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talkcontribs)

Perhaps you should take this discussion to the Assault weapon page. (Note: I presume you intended to create a new section, so I did it for you) --RAF910 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Butterfly bulletEdit

Is there, and should there be, an article on this new kind of bullet? Are there sources? Does this exist under a different name? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Anna Frodesiak: The term "butterfly bullet" was probably made up by the reporter, or a mistranslation from Arabic or something, because there is no such term (a search on Google returns only pages about Bullet with Butterfly Wings by The Smashing Pumpkins...), so no, we should not have an article about it. Based on the description in the article you linked to it's just an ordinary "fragmenting bullet" (i.e. a high-velocity bullet with a thinner than usual metal jacket), similar to the bullets that were widely used by the Russians in Afghanistan during the 1980s (where they were called "poisoned bullets" because of the horrible wounds they caused...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: There seem to be some conflicting reports on this. The ammunition shown in several articles, like this one, appreas to be this which might go to the Expanding bullet article. But sources seem sketchy on what they actually are. PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. I just saw it on DemocracyNow!'s show for May 4. Sadly, they are being used on people's legs. I hope content about this ends up in the mainspace somehow. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Israel introduced a new 73 grain 5.56mm Armor Piercing Match cartridge earlier this year.[8] "If" that's what they're using, it appears to be an effective anti-personal round as well. "Assuming" that the reports are correct.--RAF910 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

RSN discussion noticeEdit

A discussion related to this project regarding AR-15 style rifle has been opened at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. –dlthewave 15:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Brand new article to improve--can you help?Edit

We have a new stub that would be fun to expand. It has three reliable sources. Great candidate for DYK. What is DYK? See our entertaining guide here "DYK For Newbies."

Lionel(talk) 12:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Any recent changes?Edit

I've recently seen a series of editors (both of whom are suspected of being sock accounts per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid) claim that "All mass shooting articles are doing this now" in reference to them changing infobox descriptions from Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic rifle to AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle (Ruger AR-556). Examples of this are here [9] and here [10]. Does anyone know if any sort of discussion related to this has taken place, or is this just a sock editor trying to force their personal preference on articles?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No change that I've seen and the editor has been blocked. Per WP:EVADE, the edits may be reverted as the work of a blocked sock. Springee (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that does not seem like a productive change at all. PackMecEng (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Pac. -72bikers (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @SamHolt6:: This is the type of edit I’ve done in a couple of places, e.g. [11] & [12]. I believe it’s more helpful to readers as many would recognize “AR-15” but not the specific model. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
In cases when the rifle is a true "AR-15" pattern rifle I think K.e.coffman's suggested edit makes sense. I'm sure that's going to cause some issues since we don't always have a clear cut line in the sand when something isn't "AR-15 type". For example the Smith & Wesson M&P15 is largely AR-15 pattern but with a different gas system and bolt carrier group. On the other hand we have something like the SIG MCX which isn't an AR-15 though it looks a lot like one to the untrained eye. I think so long as we are open to discussion in cases of doubt this is a reasonable change. Springee (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
It's common to put the type of weapon after the model, since the reader may not be familiar with the name. I prefer Ruger AR-556 AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle but would generally consider the edits to be constructive as written. The "grey area" cases should follow whatever has been decided at AR-15 style rifle or that weapon's article. We can have a case-by-case discussion if there's no satisfactory existing consensus. –dlthewave 19:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
"Ruger AR-556 AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle" looks like "sea of blue" (MOS:SEAOFBLUE); that's why I prefer "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle (Ruger AR-556)". In this case, Ruger AR-556 comes after the type of the weapon since the former is a specific brand name and would be less familiar to the readers.
Separately, I believe I only made the change when a specific model was an AR-15 pattern rifle, and not, for example, in the cases when the weapon used was SIG MCX. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
For naming conventions of firearms it goes manufacturer, followed by the firearm's name. If you think it should be different for groups of firearms that are based on similar patterns like the AK and AR you need to start an RFC and get community consensus for the change. PackMecEng (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe the premise that more people that have no firearm knowledge than readers who do is a weak argument (there are no supporting facts) for this unstandardized naming. Also the sea of blue theory is weak as the result is essentially the same. -72bikers (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The naming convention applies to article titles, not article text. The manufacture-model style, followed by the weapon type, is commonly used in infoboxes. The only proposed changes are to put the weapon type first and change it to the more specific "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle". –dlthewave 18:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Request additional input at AR-15 style rifleEdit

There is a debate about several sections on this article that could use some outside eyes. One is the appropriate mention of mass shootings in the article lead. Another is how the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban should be covered in the article. Thanks! Springee (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion regarding Wikipedia:Gun useEdit

A move proposal has been initiated in regards to this Wikipedia essay. Please see Wikipedia talk:Gun use#Requested move 19 May 2018. -- Netoholic @ 06:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for a new missing article 11 × 59 mm REdit

Hello, could anyone here be so kind and create the article 11 × 59 mm R please? Preparation/Prework has been done at de:11 × 59 mm R (sources included) and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q53857991 thx --Tom (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  Done, 11×59mmR Gras. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC).

RfC NoticeEdit

An RfC related to this topic, Wound characteristics of military-style rifles, has been opened at Reliable sources noticeboard. –dlthewave 20:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

do your mission on your own. I just feel that nobody wants to go with your ideas any longer. --Tom (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProjectEdit

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

BackgroundEdit

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: one of "your" Portals WikiProject-supporters is active right here. Sorrowfully Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms has almost fallen in Agony due to internal struggles or just perhaps because the editors do not like this area any longer. Best --Tom (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tom: Sorry to hear that. By the way, what portals fall under this subject?    — The Transhumanist   13:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Transhumanist: there is a bunch of projects interconnected. From time to time I made an update for disk-directlinks for international collegues to find each other. see:

 WikiProject Military history / Firearms International 
    Discussions:  Military history / Firearms
       Discussions:    Forces canadiennes / Canadian Armed Forces
       Diskussionen:  Militär / Waffen
       Discussions:    Histoire militaire / Armes
       Discussions:    Portal‐ノート:軍事 / 
       Discussioni:     Guerra / Armi da fuoco
       Discussions:     بوابة:الحرب  نقاش البوابة
       Dyskusje:         Militaria / Broń
∑ Interntl. 1 <--> ∑ Interntl. 2

By some interconnctions you even find more f.e. Portal:War and Portal:Weapons of mass destruction Best --Tom (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Estimated number of guns per capita by countryEdit

User:Emir of Wikipedia has suggested that the project review the Estimated number of guns per capita by country page as the "Statistics need updating."--RAF910 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Polyamorph was the one who added the expert needed tag. I just specified that this WikiProject might be able to help. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:3001derivativesEdit

RKBA ArticleEdit

RKBA needs you to join in on content dispute.

1) Should Czech Republic be part of the article?

2) Should RKBA be defined as "as it is called by its proponents"?

Thank you. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

How to avoid more criticism of this project in media?Edit

This wikiproject has received criticism in mainstream media for pro-gun bias.See https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086794/ar-15-wikipedia-gun-control-parkland-mass-shooting . Should the goals of this group be changed for more emphasis on NPOV - and in that case how? Tomastvivlaren (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The questionable nature of that criticism and the unfounded claims in the article were previously discussed. If you think there is a specific, actionable item that should be addressed please point it out. Rehashing the incorrect claims made by a reporter who clearly (and demonstrably) didn't do his homework isn't productive. Springee (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We did change the Criminal Use recommendation back in April so that it can no longer be used to exclude relevant content. –dlthewave 14:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I similarly question the portrayal of this project's editors as non-neutral. Some of the journalists making that observation seem ignorant of the technical features of firearms. Perhaps they are embarrassed by their ignorance, or by a perceived lack of tact by those pointing out the misinterpretations of their reporting.
I am reminded of the period between the World Wars when many residents of English-speaking countries refused to teach students to speak German (or students refused to learn the language) because they blamed the German people and culture for the horrors of the Great War. The resulting ignorance did not serve the Allies well when hostilities resumed. Assuming removal of firearms might reduce violent crime similarly ignores the social circumstances contributing to those crimes.
An element of the NPOV issue seems disagreement about whether firearms cause violent crime, or whether firearms are necessary for protection against violent crimes (including warfare). It seems irrational to assume firearms can be eliminated from military use, and debatable if they can be eliminated from police use, so the issue becomes entangled with which persons or properties deserve or require protection of armed security personnel. Is a wealthy or powerful individual able to hire an armed bodyguard more deserving of that protection than individuals unable to pay for professional protection? Does a certain monetary value deserve armed protection, or should that protection be available to those for whom much lesser sums represent the accumulated wealth of their lifetime?
These questions should be resolved in other forums before the issue of socially acceptable weaponry is discussed; but the technical nuances of projectile weaponry will be important in those decisions. Rather than encouraging the irrational belief firearms can somehow be eliminated from our society, project focus on presenting information to improve understanding of the technical features of firearms will be important for implementation of effective measures to reduce their misuse. Thewellman (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I in no way could have conveyed these clear important issues better than the above editors has laid out. -72bikers (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Chiappa Little BadgerEdit

I think that Draft:Chiappa Little Badger may be salvageable, if someone more knowledgeable on firearm sources could take a look that would be great. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion noticeEdit

A discussion regarding criminal use is taking place at the Smith & Wesson M&P15 talk page. –dlthewave 03:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is nothing more than forum shopping and an attempted to reinsert material that was discussed in a previous RfC. Springee (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: as I've attempted to convey to Springee here: [13], the prior discussion took place 20 months ago. This is certainly not "forum shopping". I think it would be best if disputes were not personalised unnecessarily. There's also no need to take such disputes to project Talk pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of RfCEdit

A RfC related to the inclusion of three mass shootings in the Smith & Wesson M&P15 article has been opened. Springee (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

China Lake repro info?Edit

preemptive apologies if i'm putting this in the wrong place but i'm hoping for some assistance from someone more knowledgeable than i.

someone has recently made a number of edits with no sources cited to the article on the China Lake grenade launcher, specifically to the prices and production dates of the repro launcher in the 2000's. a lot of their edits seem to pertain to specific details of the launcher and one of the manufacturers, Trident. i was unable to find any pertinent info online that wasn't from a decade-old forum post & was hoping someone here knew or had access to something regarding this. i also posted something about this in the talk page for the launcher itself but haven't gotten any responses there. Dankdevice (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I applied lots of [citation needed] tags which may prompt the editor(s) adding to the article to include some citations. I found little more than the most basic information about the weapon myself when searching. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFCEdit

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Links to Modern FirearmsEdit

Hi all, I came across the edits of @Mpopenker by chance. He has been adding links to his personal website, either as references or external links, to a significant number of firearms-related articles. These have been the only edits from this account, there are no content changes as far as I can see. I reverted most of them, but then I noticed that the links he was modifying (previously world.guns.ru) appear to be to a previous incarnation of the same site, and the previous links just redirect to Modern Firearms. The site very much looks like it isn't a reliable source. I don't really have the time to spend on this and it certainly isn't my area. If anyone else would like to follow up, please do. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nzd: IMHO Modern Firearms is at least as reliable as most of the websites of American "gun experts" that are frequently being used here, and has the added advantage of also having information about Russian firearms that are little known in the West. I posted a message on Mpopenker's talk page just before this thread here was started, BTW, telling him that the edits could easily be interpreted as an attempt at search engine optimization, so let's hope he stops. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 23:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
If Mpopenker is Max Popenker, then he is a published author - he's co-written several books on firearms with Anthony G. Williams, including Popenker, Maxim; Williams, Antony G. (2004). Assault Rifle. Ramebury, UK: The Crowood Press. ISBN 1-86126-700-2..Nigel Ish (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

AttacksEdit

Are articles about attacks in which firearms were used within the scope of the project? Jim Michael (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

To keep the focus on a comprehensive description of firearm features, I suggest articles focusing on specific events, such as warfare battles, terrorist attacks, sport or subsistence hunting, wildlife management programs, sporting competition, or noteworthy crimes are not within the scope of this project. Where reliable sources identify specific firearm features contributing to the success or failure of the intent of such events, I would prefer to put that information into project articles covering such firearm features.
Previous discussions have noted use often depends on availability based on cost, production volume, and distribution of specific manufacturers and models, while broader firearms categories or features (like weight, dimensions, accuracy, sights, magazine capacity, reloading mechanism, reliability, and bullet weight and velocity of the cartridges used) are often more significant to suitability and effectiveness. Thewellman (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
"Where reliable sources identify specific firearm features contributing to the success or failure of the intent of such events, I would prefer to put that information into project articles covering such firearm feature." This information is often quite relevant to these events. Although these articles may be outside the intended scope of the project, that's no reason to remove facts about the guns that were used. –dlthewave 20:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
How about shootings which governments changed laws in reaction to, such as the Dunblane massacre? Jim Michael (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Another question related to criminal use - crime list at GlockEdit

The only edits I've made to the Glock article was the reversion of an edit that wasn't discussed. I haven't added or modified content. I'm also a bit reluctant to wade into yet another gun debate... but here I am. The crime list at the Glock article seems to be out of control Glock#Criminal_uses. It seems to have evolved from a limited list to a long list of every Wiki-notable crime that used a Glock firearm. I think this is exactly the sort of list that editors were worried about when the project members suggested standards for including crimes in various articles. If a number of news/RS talk about Glocks and their use in crimes I think that makes sense. A list of crimes various Glock models were used in seems like a triva list (not saying homicides are trivia in context of the article what does it add?). None of the items on this list circle back and explain how/if the crime impacted Glock the brand/company/public perception/sales practices etc. What are the thoughts of other editors? Springee (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Springee...Your quite right. However, there are too many anti-gun editors who are pushing a political agenda, and doing everything in their power to gang-up on and ban pro-gun editors. So, despite our best efforts, I'm afraid there is very little we do about it at this time. Just "VOTE and HOPE" that enough editors realize where this is going and are willing to do something to stop it. --RAF910 (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Which is why I deleted the list. If it didn't lead to a change in the law, what impact did it have on Glock? Show that., & maybe it merits inclusion, in the same way as (frex) Thompsons were affected by the 1934 law. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the article talk page. I have several concerns with the removal, particularly considering the fact that stringent inclusion criteria do not seem to be applied to other sections of the article. –dlthewave 20:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts and concernsEdit

Well i for one propose we keep the Criminal Uses sections on all these firearms. I mean what's the point of doing it for the Walther P22 and Browning Hi-Power, then just leave the rest out? Do they really have to be so significantly known for just one massacre to be listed, yet others not (example: P22 mentions Virginia Tech, but not Kauhajoki - The same gun was used in both shootings). It just seems uneven and unbalanced to me. @OmniFrieza994: talk 20:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Phrasing for effect on rate of fire of bump fire stocksEdit

Hi. There's a conversation at Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Changing_"similar_rate_of_fire_to_a_fully_automatic_weapon" on the how to phrase the effect of bump fire stocks on rate of fire with comparison to rate of fire of automatic weaponry; numerous articles from reliable sources make the comparison. Could interested experienced editors please review the current wording and sources, and if necessary assist in developing a suitable alternative which is more correct, still brief and non-technical, and continues to compare them to automatic weaponry. Thanks, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 20:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Notification for the projectEdit

I'm posting this to notify the project of an Op Ed article which focuses on Project Firearms and has been submitted for Signpost review. The subject of the OpEd is "This op-ed describes a long-term pattern of disruption at Wikiproject Firearms, where editors coordinated to keep information about mass shootings out of firearms articles for over 10 years." [[14]] Springee (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Range of 18th century muskets?Edit

Can someone please take a look here: KunyLi69 (talk · contribs). A new editor has found a copy of Hughes' early 1970s book Firepower, the one (before the advent of serious reenactment in the UK) where he started banging on about musket ranges and making some rather inflated claims for them: not so much that they could reach so far, but that they were tactically useful out to those ranges.

Given how today went, I assume the same changes will be coming back again in a day or so. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty clear misunderstanding of the difference between "lethal" & "effective" ranges. The .58 Springfield was easily lethal at over 1km, but nobody in his right mind imagined engaging the enemy at that range; the 50-75yd (100 paces?) number, in all the cases here, looks about right. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I propose to review the data in several articles concerning the range of effective fire of the muskets of the 18th-19th centuries. This is based on several competent sources: Firepower. Weapons effects on the battlefield, on page 27 was the results of shooting on distance 300 yards the percentage of hits made up 15-23%. Napoleonic Infantry: Napoleonic Weapons and Warfare, on page 26 are a few more results of shooting at a distance of 300 yards, the percentage of hits was 20-30%. British Light Infantry & Rifle Tactics of the Napoleonic Wars. Which shows the range for light infantry at 300-400 yards. The Rifle-Musket vs. The Smoothbore Musket, a Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Two Types of Weapons Primarily at Short Ranges In order to avoid misunderstandings, I want to say at once that these data show the effectiveness of fire in a training ground, against large targets the size of an infantry line. In a real battle, the effectiveness could be lower, for obvious reasons (fear, fatigue, stress, smoke). In addition, some articles contain erroneous theses. For example the fact that the only weapons muskets of line infantry and used only in linear battles against massive targets. There are many refutations to this thesis. Rogers ' Rangers, British light infantry, Voltigeur, Jäger, militia, Indians and natives used conventional smoothbore muskets, and their tactics were similar to those of modern infantry. KunyLi69 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You are making a change (throughout, although this example is from Brown Bess) to confuse the effective range, and thus the range at which they were used, with their maximum range, i.e,
Effective firing range     Variable (50–100 yards)
Maximum firing range     300 yd (275 m)[1]
to:
Effective firing range     300–400 yards)
This is incorrect, misleading, and goes against the bulk of WP:RELIABLESOURCEs in the relevant field.
You may also find it useful to read WP:CONSENSUS before proceeding. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should focus on defining effective range before we embark on changing numbers in the various articles using the term. Different organizations may use different definitions for different types of weapons designed to engage different targets. Conceptually, the distance the projectile can travel is obviously important, but it should have a reasonable probability of hitting the target of interest while retaining sufficient energy to inflict critical damage on that target. The following definition has been attributed to the United States Department of Defense: The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired effect.[1] Would anyone care to compile additional sources required for a useful article link when the term is used in other Wikipedia articles? Thewellman (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd happily agree with that in general. But for infantry muskets like this, the crucial value is probably the engagement range: the range at which tactics and training said they should be used. That's closer to the shorter-figure engagement range. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "maximum effective range Definition (US DoD)". Military Factory. Retrieved 12 March 2019.

Andy dingley, source link " 300 yd (275 m)[1]" does not work! Your statement that muskets were used exclusively in the range of 80-100 yards contrary to the historical facts. At such close range it was enough for 2-3 volleys to the enemy suffered serious losses and was discarded. There are many examples of this: Battle of Culloden, Battle of Albuera, Battles of Lexington and Concord, Battle of Minden, Battle of Blood River, Battle of New Orleans, Battle of Bunker Hill, Battle of Carillon. But as we know, in most battles, the shootings were very long. From what we can conclude is that most of the battles of the warring parties are kept respectful of distancei, afraid to get up close and maximize functions effectively fire. According to the original sources, a firefight at a distance of 200-300 yards was common. I know that among the majority of modern historians and the public formed a misconception about the extremely inaccurate muskets. So your skepticism does not surprise me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KunyLi69 (talkcontribs) 13:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thewellman (talk · contribs) "The following definition has been attributed to the United States Department of Defense: The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired effect.[1]" I think 20-30% of hits to a typical target at that time at a distance of 300-330 yards is enough to consider the fire effective. 400 yards can be considered the maximum range of fire. KunyLi69 (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Without disputing your conclusion, I invite attention to the time difference between use of muskets and establishment of the USDoD. A more comprehensive description of historic usage of the term might clarify the range of interpretations by different organizations through times of differing technology. Thewellman (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thewellman (talk · contribs) The basic requirements are the same USDoD was formulated a very long time. Since then, nothing has changed, only increased the accuracy of weapons and the range of the probable defeat of the target. Unfortunately most of the documents of 18th and 19th century which I have, in the Russian language. If among the editors there is a person who knows Russian, I will provide these documents. Below I will quote a number of requirements relating to the British light infantry (I hope quoting the source is not a violation): Firing practice Although in the line infantry musketry was usually directed against compact masses, in the light infantry marksmanship was prized, and its training brought a significant tactical advantage. Its value was stressed by a number of manuals: ‘To fire seldom and always with effect should be their chief study. To men who act singly or in small parties ammunition is extremely precious, and it should be husbanded with the greatest care. Noise and smoke is not sufficient to stop the advance of soldiers accustomed to war; they are to be checked only by seeing their comrades fall, and that most effectually, when they fall by the fire of an enemy who can hardly be discovered.’23 In a regimental order of 18 October 1803 LtCol Charles Hope of the 1st Royal Edinburgh Volunteers noted that ‘the Regiment will see the folly and danger of firing at random. If their fire is ineffectual, they may as well stand to be shot at with ordered arms. Every individual must take a steady aim... let the object be to keep up a well directed fire, [rather] than a very quick fire.’ Lieutenant G.B. Jackson of the 43rd noted that ‘Our constant caution to the men was...aim steadily, and fire low... [The French] might fire quicker than we did, but such hurried firing scarcely admits of precision, whilst ours has been truly described as “careful and deadly.”’ 24 Even though the musket was much less accurate than the rifle, light infantry undertook extensive target practice at ranges up to an astonishing 400 yards, and were taught to allow for the effect of gravity upon the ball: at 200 yards aim was taken at the middle of the enemy’s body, at 300 at his headdress, and at 400 half a yard above his head.[1] KunyLi69 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If there are no objections, can I start editing the articles? KunyLi69 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you start by editing an article defining effective range. Thewellman (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thewellman (talk · contribs) Why the formalities? I gave the actual data of effective range of fire. For example, in the army of the Russian Empire, the usual infantry trained shooting at a distance of 120 fathoms (256 meters). Here you can read the infantry Charter in digital format:[2] There are still some details of the book Nafzigers "Imperial Bayonets". KunyLi69 (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As may be seen from the origins of this topic, effective range is a subjective term because of ambiguities with respect to definition of target (individual soldier vs formations of soldiers, spacing and mobility of those formations, type of armor being worn, etc.) and acceptable probability of an effective hit per unit of ammunition expended (and amount of training required to achieve that hit probability under specified visibility conditions.) Since many sources fail to define those assumptions, effective range has been an endless source of heated debate for more than a century.[3] Rather than explaining both the underlying ambiguity and the relationship of the source documentation to the weapon being described in each individual weapon article, it would seem more conducive to efficient cooperative effort to describe the breadth of interpretations in a single focused article which may then be linked (perhaps by subsection) from the individual weapons articles being edited. Thewellman (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ British Light Infantry & Rifle Tactics of the Napoleonic Wars
  2. ^ http://adjudant.ru/regulations/1811-infantery-12.htm
  3. ^ Dodd, Mead (1916). New International Encyclopedia. 19. Princeton University. p. 542.

Thewellman (talk · contribs) In this case, you will have to edit a lot of articles in which the data of the "effective range" is very contradictory. In addition, it is too much work, requiring the study of the material beyond my personal interest. In the context of an interesting theme for me (antique firearms), I'm ready to introduce all necessary explanations. For example: 50-100 yards against a single human-sized target. 300 yards against a group target the size of an infantry/cavalry line. 400 yards maximum range at which there is some probability of hitting the enemy.KunyLi69 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been unable to effectively communicate the ambiguity of this subject. Some probability does not specify the acceptable probability of an effective hit per unit of ammunition expended. A group target the size of an infantry/cavalry line could be interpreted as anything from a company to a brigade in either close formation or a broken charge with numbers of men (or the larger targets of mounted horsemen) ranging over more than an order of magnitude. I would anticipate editing disagreements if your assumptions with regard to those factors in addition to the expected visibility conditions and training of the musketeers do not match the assumptions of other editors. Is it beyond your personal interest to define these factors? Thewellman (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thewellman (talk · contribs) Many official documents and military experts of 18th and 19th century confirm that "probability" was acceptable at a distance of 300 yards. In the sources I have given, the target sizes are 6 feet high and 100 feet long. Also in some sources appear target size is much smaller: about 6 feet in height and 12 feet in length. The probability of hitting in both cases is 20-30% at a distance of 300-330 yards. It is worth saying that the level of training of soldiers in the 18-19 centuries was very low, as gunpowder and lead were very expensive and ammunition had to be saved. But even poorly trained soldiers could get long distances. It is obvious that with better preparation, the probability of hitting increases several times. Therefore, I believe that the maximum range of the fire could reach 400 yards. The weapons of later eras go beyond my interes, because in the second half of the 19th century, military doctrine changed a lot. For the generals became acceptable (from the point of view of efficiency) to conduct a massive fire at a distance of 1000+ yards. Of course the ratio of the number of spent ammunition per hit was about 10000/1. Apparently the development of industrial production made it possible to create billions of cheap ammunition, so the criterion of "the number of spent ammunition per hit" has lost its relevance. Accordingly, it is very difficult to talk about the effective range of fire.KunyLi69 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with your final sentence, I would have no objection with your proposed editing of effective range (specifying both target size and hit probability to at least one significant figure) in individual articles so long as the source citation for each edit was specific to the article subject firearm model in use by an identified military unit during a specific decade or battle. For the reasons you describe, the widely differing training and supply situation over longer periods or in different military organizations makes extrapolation of other sources unreliable. Thewellman (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thewellman (talk · contribs) Okay, I'll start editing the articles soon. I came across an interesting video of shooting from the original musket of 1812.[1] Despite the venerable age of this musket, its accuracy at a distance of 100 yards is quite impressive. This is far above the physical capabilities of the regular line infantry of the 18th-19th centuries. First of all, this video should serve as a good example of the fact that the accuracy of the weapon is largely dependent on the level of training of the shooter. And even smoothbore muskets could be very accurate in the hands of an experienced shooter. I think a shooter of this level of training would be highly likely to hit a target even at a distance of 400 yards.KunyLi69 (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Your own sources & statistics undermine your argument. If only 25% or so of hits are at 300yd, clearly the effective range, where the majority of hits are achieved, is a great deal less. That is in line with every source on the subject I've seen: effective range of around 100m. Single shots in pefect conditions, not under fire, prove nothing. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

TREKphiler (talk · contribs) I will take this into account when editing articles. Basic data on effective and maximum range will remain virtually unchanged. Yet 25% is a fairly high probability of hit in terms of combat effectiveness of fire and tactical use. As I said, shooting at a distance of 300 yards was regulated in many military manuals and instructions of the 18th and 19th centuries. In addition, with a higher level of training, the potential accuracy should be much higher. It is obvious that in a real battle, the probability is much lower firing results in perfect conditions training grounds. For example, in 1944-45, American soldiers spent about 1,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition of various calibers, which is about a million rounds per killed/wounded enemy. Does this mean that the effective fire distance of M1 Garand, Thompson, M1 Carbine, was greatly overestimated?KunyLi69 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) I've indicated the maximum range of the bullet. For a sample I took the article M16 rifle, in which the maximum range is 3600 meters.TooLRF (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

.375 H&H MagnumEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Page moved back to .375 H&H Magnum per WP:RMUM. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC).

The .375 H&H Magnum page has been moved to .375 Holland & Holland Magnum. I have no real opinion either way, but feel consistency needs to be applied to the other H&H Magnum pages which still use ".XXX H&H Magnum" (.244, .275, .300, .400 and .465).

Do project members feel the .375 H&H should be moved back or the other pages moved to ".XXX Holland & Holland Magnum"? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC).


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Category:USA Shooting Hall of Fame inducteesEdit

This category was deleted as non-defining. I created this category, and was not notified of the CfD, nor was this discussion posted on any project board that I can see to elicit discussion. I believe this is a defining award and the category should be kept. Before I ask for a reconsideration, I would like input from people in this project group. Do you think this category should be kept, or is it non defining and should be deleted? See here for discussion. Thanks for your input. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!Edit

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Antique guns at Seth KinmanEdit

Two fairly new videos + a bit of other info are now available and I've written most of it up and included the videos (as external videos) at Seth Kinman#Legacy. The problem is that I don't really know anything about guns and I'm just parroting what the sources say while trying to avoid a copyright problem. Altogether it sounds like I'm going to cause a problem. Could somebody help me with this? The 1812 long rifle is the one that really needs a description and the text ref should be the best one. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

IWI Tavor TS12Edit

Recently created this article, and I need help expanding it. Thanks in advance. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Need help (can somebody rename the article?)Edit

Greetings. Can anyone rename the wiki-article "Baikal IZH-46M" into "IZh-46" because the existing name is incorrect and wrong. "Baikal" is tradebark of all Izhevsk Mechanical Plant guns (firearms, air guns, etc.). The correct name of the first model is IZh-46 (ИЖ-46). The correct name of the second model is IZh-46M (ИЖ-46M) without "Baikal". Thanks Shadowcaster (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

RfD notification: Overcoat pistolEdit

Hi all, your feedback at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 19#Overcoat pistol would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Firearms".