Talk:Heckler & Koch MP5/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Grenade Launcher?

I play a lot of video games and most of them show the MP5 with a underbarrel M203 Grenade Launcher, but isn't the M203 bigger then the MP5 in Real life?

Could someone clear this up for me, thanks.

MP5 does not have a grenade launcher, I would be interested to know which game has this configuration. You may be thinking of an M4--—  KaiserB 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The M203 according to the manufacturer: The M203 grenade launcher is a single-shot weapon designed for use with the M16 series rifle and fires a 40mm grenade. The M203A1 grenade launcher is a single-shot weapon designed for use with the M4 series carbine and also fires a 40mm grenade. Both have a leaf sight and quadrant site. The M203 is also being used as the delivery system for a growing array of less-than-lethal munitions.
  • Actually, RM Equipment offers their M203PI with an optional attachment system for the MP5. This is the basis for the End of Days movie prop. Check out the following PDF on the second page: RM Equipment M203PI. There is also a more recent version of the attachment that differs slightly in appearance. --D.E. Watters 01:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The Half-Life series is known to usually have underbarrel Grenade Launchers on their SMG's (MP5, MP7).
On an MP7? That seems hard. Although the M203PI seems like it could fit.Sk8tuhpunk 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Half-Life 1 features US.Marines armed with MP5's with M203 under the barrels like with M16/4 rifles. The Mp5's look like they've had their barrels extended like with the M203 PI system (although the player view models look like MP5Sd's (despite not being suppressed), while when yu look at marines carrying them the weapon has the M203 PI barrel extension.

Half-Life 2 features the MP7 with a GL. However the game is set like 20 years in the future when the world is ruled by an oppresive race of aliens (known as "combine" who emply human like armed forces which among other weapons carry these. HL2 isn't exactly meant to be realistic in that respect. --80.229.147.110 12:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


The mp5 simply does not have a grenade launcher ! we must remember the game is indeed fiction. however a grenade launcher could be made for it but is highley unlikely. the m203 is just to big.

Did you even bother to click on the link I provided to RM Equipment? They have offered their M203PI for the MP5 for some time now. D.E. Watters 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
@D.E. Watters necro post, but boy you didn't do research. it's been in the SAS procedures since they got the MP5 that they could attach a 40mm launcher. it just wasn't done because if your using the MP5 in CQC, your hopefully not going to need explosives like that 207.216.92.224 (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think you must be getting confused with another gun (say...The M4? Not really sure though). I've been playing shooting games since they were worth playing (sorry Doom fans) and I never remember playing a game with a grenade launcher on any varient of an H&K MP. I haven't played every game out there, but I've played many, and most of the popular ones.

Why on earth would you want to fit a grenade launcher anyway? Wouldn't that weight and bulk partially defeat the point of a machine pistol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.145.131 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It does exist: [1]. End of discussion. CMarshall (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Article Accessiblity

Is this article accessible to the average reader? Would this article benefit from structural or organizational changes? Some guy (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop playing the field. Please take this to the WP:GUNS talk page and ask for a review of the consensus on article organization. You are attempting to ask the same WRONG question multiple times. Asking to change each article individually rather than changing the general consensus is wrong. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No it is not. There is nothing wrong with tailoring the structure for each article individually. Please read Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus". You have not cited a single policy or guideline for your behavior and I have cited several. Your refusal to discuss this situation appropriately is not helping your stance on the subject. There is no way in which adding subsections reduces the quality of the article. This article is inaccessible without the subsections; the design details section is unacceptably long by any standard. The Steyr AUG article is much worse. If you're so keen on WP:GUNS then why don't you actually go discuss it there. So far six different people have asserted their agreement with my attempts to organize the MP5 article and there is no reason to assume other articles cannot be organized in the same manner. Some guy (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
While I very much agree with the sentiment behind the RfC, I have to say that this does look very much like forum-shopping. There are currently at least four different discussions on this topic (one here, one at WP:GUNS, and two at WP:MILHIST). Please let's try to keep to one thread. This negates the possibility of the proposal being thrown out due to accusations of bad faith. There is not pressing need to change the article right now, and discussion has been quite sympathetic so far. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Due to the extreme lack of response, I was attempting to get more people involved. These cemented claims of "NO CONSENSUS" demanded additional input (also I didn't find WP:MILHIST until after WP:GUNS. I don't know which section is the most appropriate. As I have already stated I believe articles should be structured and considered on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to change the article in which direction? Some guy (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I posted at Talk:SIG SG 550#Request for Comment: Article Accessiblity and I think a lot of the same things I posted there can apply here, especially the jargon. Also I noticed that the infobox has the specifications for a zillion variants. It's not an ideal form to get this information across because its all squished together and unaligned. A table in the article might be nice, with one axis being the variants, and the other weight, length, barrel length, muzzle velocity, and whatever else is appropriate. Again my knowledge of firearms is zero, so I'm not sure how much more advice I can offer. Sifaka talk 08:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The opinions of people who are not firearms experts are important, as they reflect the average reader. Some guy (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Image and POV

This is extremely foolish to have to discuss this. Moving an image from the right side to the left side to eliminate a gap doesn't hurt anything. Phrases such as "thanks to" are inherently unencyclopedic and biased. I reworded the statement in a completely acceptable fashion. If you continue to revert my edits I think that might be considered vandalism. I am going to reinsert the links AGAIN; there is absolutely no reason to remove them. Some guy (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't reduce your credibility by accusing others of vandalism. It is patently obvious that the editors disagreeing with you are passionate about the topic and are not arguing with you for the sake of arguing. That said, I agree with this edit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that it is "patently obvious", but I did not mean that revert was vandalism; my point was that if they continue to revert extremely minor changes that don't require discussion, that could be considered vandalism (or at least article ownership which I just discovered recently. Some guy (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2009

Magazine Space

How much rounds can an MP5 SMG hold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auror Ferula (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
A normal magazine holds 30 rounds. This is mentioned in the article and the infobox... Some guy (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why so popular?

What is the actual reason for this gun being so incredibly popular worldwide? --KpoT (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be a hard question to answer fully but the MP5 has a number of advantages when it comes to gaining international sales, its a HK weapon and that brings a good reputation of reliability and accuracy to a potential buyer and its very prominent due to its assosiation with elite police and counter terrorist units (SAS, Iranian embassy siege) and has appeared in a lot of popular films and TV shows over the years so it has gained a lot of attention leading to it being well known and a 'popular' weapon of choice for police and military units. --Delta33 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, I came to the take page to ask this exact same question! I was wondering if someone could take a stab at finding some way to comment on it in the article. --mboverload@ 07:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Use in Germany

I see that the Bundespolizei, the Feldjäger, the Landespolizei, the KSK and the Fernspäher were removed as users of the MP5.

The MP5 is the standard submachine gun of all German police forces. Most German police patrol cars are equipped with an MP5. The Bundespolizei (federal police) is patrolling with it at airports, train stations and harbors.

In the Bundeswehr, the use is limited to the military police (Feldjäger) an special forces, such as the KSK and the Fernspäher who use different versions of this weapon.

You probably won't find a reference for all this users in a book. But you can look at the homepages of all 16 state police forces, the homepage of the German Army and the Streitkräftebasis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.121.31 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also have a look at this picture:

German Landespolizei officers with MP5 submachine guns

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.121.31 (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The web pages can be cited as sources. The sources you added do not mention the Feldjäger as a user so I have removed it. Don't make entries to the list without adding sources. ROG5728 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

- Feldjäger belong to the Streitkräftebasis in the military structure of Germany. The German Army is an independent branch. Thus all weapons mentioned on the homepage of the streitkräftebasis apply to the Feldjäger too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.121.49 (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the use of the MP5 on the RAF logo deserve a mention? Postdarwin (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Use in the Netherlands

I saw that the Dutch Police and Royal Marechaussee have been removed as MP5 users and that now only the DKDB is listed as a Dutch user. The MP5 is however used by all Arrestatieteams (SWAT-teams) of the Dutch Police and as the standard submachine gun of the Royal Marechaussee. For example, the Royal Marechaussee uses the MP5 to patrol internations airports and for their special force, the BSB. The DKDB itself is Part of the KLPD (Federal Police) which is part of the Dutch Police. It is difficult to find sources of the users, this site however gives some references for the use by Dutch Police (http://www.arrestatieteam.nl/arrestatieteam/uitrusting/index.php) and marechaussee (http://www.arrestatieteam.nl/eenhedenbinnenland/hoog_risico_beveiliging.php) (http://www.arrestatieteam.nl/bsb/index.php) (all sites in Dutch). btsas (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Use In Azerbaijan

As seen in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_Land_Forces#Infantry_Weapons (it's second on th list), Azerbaijan uses the MP5. 76.66.168.131 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't use itself as a source. It only uses verifiable external sources. ROG5728 (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Usage of Photo

I believe the photo of Malaysian forces using the MP5 belongs to a photographer working with a Malaysian defense magazine produces the Asian Defense Journal (ADJ), and the photo was printed in the sister magazine Perajurit. Thus, I believe copyright to the photo belongs to the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.133.45.194 (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 29 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch MP5 → HK MP5 –

  • Company logo and literature abbreviates its name as HK; that is sufficient detail for the title here. Also other Heckler & Koch articles must be abbreviated as HK like "HK 4.6×30mm". Kungfu2187 (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And likewise all other weapon articles whose names start "Heckler & Koch" which are not now redirects? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Heckler&namespace=0 lists many such pages, some being redirects and some not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; Many of boxes of Heckler & Koch weapons abbreviates as HK. So likely to move now. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose; seems rather an unnecessary move. What do reliable sources call these weapons? Powers T 12:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If oppose, do we move from 'HK ...' to 'Heckler & Koch ...' all members of Category:Heckler & Koch and its subcategories whose names start with 'HK '? The only 2 such pages that I found were HK SL6 and HK SL7. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Seems reasonable, especially if supported by sources. Powers T 14:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For clarity, the full name should remain. If it was never referred to as "Heckler & Koch" that would be different, but it most definitely is, as frequently if not more so as it is referred to as "HK". -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:TITLE, titles should be as concise as possible. There is no reason to list the full manufacturer name in the weapon's title. This is an article about the weapon in specific, not the manufacturer; regardless, the manufacturer is most commonly known as simply HK. ROG5728 (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The argument that the company most commonly abbreviates the name is incorrect. The company refers to it by the article title. In the product description, it states "First developed in the mid-1960s, the 9 mm Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun uses the same delayed blowback...". There is no need to change this or any of the other H&K weapons article titles.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Good point regarding the company use of the name, which removes the only real argument in favour of the move. No change of vote (below). Andrewa (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No. HK's official product catalog calls it the HK MP5. ROG5728 (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Please reread the above arguments. It wasn't suggested that the company never uses the abbreviated form, of course it does. What has been challenged is the relevance of the bland claim Company logo and literature abbreviates its name as HK. If this means always, then it's false; If it means sometimes, then it's irrelevant; If it means something else, then this should be specified and evidence provided of the accuracy and relevance of the specific claim. Andrewa (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
          • The "bland" claim that Company logo and literature abbreviates its name as HK is correct. HK is by far the most common abbreviation of the company's name (as well as being the company's logo), and an abbreviation should be used over the full name anyway so as to be as concise as possible. Again, this is an article about the weapon, not the manufacturer. ROG5728 (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
          • ...and the operator's manual calls it the Heckler & Koch MP5.
            ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; These articles are about the Heckler & Koch weapons in specific, Other HK articles (Full naming of any HK weapons) should be moved. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly how many times do you plan to !vote in this consensus? You are the nominator and then you also have a support statement above in addition to that. This last one doesn't count again, right?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "the manufacturer is most commonly known as simply HK": HK can also mean Hong Kong, and see HK (disambiguation). Same as, I am sometimes referred to as AA, to save a bit of typing, but my name remains Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    • This is not the Heckler & Koch article, so no, there is no need to print the full name for disambiguation purposes. HK MP5 would be no more ambiguous than the current title. It would, however, be more concise than the current title and it would also be consistent with common usage of the manufacturer's name. ROG5728 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    • And an excellent set of initials they are too (;->. Andrewa (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as the common name. Unambiguous. Marcus Qwertyus 15:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. HK has many meanings, Hong Kong for example (as shown by the redirect). The MP5 gives no clue. Heckler & Koch however is unambiguous and quite famous. So in terms of WP:AT Article titles should be recognizable to readers, it's best to spell the name out. The (small minority of) other H&K related articles that abbreviate the title should probably be fixed too. Andrewa (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • See above. This is not the Heckler & Koch article, so no, there is no need to print the full name for disambiguation purposes. There is nothing else on Wikipedia that goes by the proposed title, HK MP5. Any reader that would recognize Heckler & Koch MP5 would also recognize HK MP5. The proposed title would be no more ambiguous than the current title, but it would be more concise and it would also be consistent with common usage of the manufacturer's name. ROG5728 (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Disagree with most of this. The claim that Any reader that would recognize Heckler & Koch MP5 would also recognize HK MP5 is bizarre. Prior to this RM I had no idea what HK MP5 meant, and I'm still not convinced that it has no other meanings in other contexts, but I certainly know that Heckler & Koch MP5 will be a firearm of some sort. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on what tip-off in the name Heckler & Koch MP5 can a reader without knowledge of the subject ascertain that the subject is a firearm? The current title is no less ambiguous than the proposed title, it's just less concise. As for your comment that you're still not convinced that it has no other meanings in other contexts, no, the proposed title definitely does not have any other meaning in another context. ROG5728 (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the name Heckler & Koch which is recognisable to many, unlike the initials (as has been pointed out several times by others, above). That's how I knew, with no prior knowledge of this particular firearm.
As for other contexts, I admit I can't find one on the web (unless http://glennette10495.t35.com/83.html counts, and I haven't a clue what it's about) but both HK and MP5 have other, well-established meanings, so it's just a matter of them coming up together... in the context of a Hong Kong MP5 player perhaps? Note that MP5 in the context of MP3 refers to a Chinese invention. Andrewa (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Almost any article title on Wikipedia could be twisted in such a manner, with the same outcome. Hong Kong MP5 player is a ridiculous reach; by the same logic, we could interpret any other established WP article title like FN P90 as potentially referring to any combination of FN and P90. If you do a Google search for either FN P90 or HK MP5, you will get millions of search results, all of which cover the firearms and have nothing to do with Hong Kong, MP5 players, Front National, the fn key, or anything of that sort. The fact remains that the proposed title (HK MP5) is the name of a firearm, and nothing else, so it would not require disambiguation. ROG5728 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Something of an overstatement IMO. But your analogy to FN P90 is an interesting one; To know whether it's a good one, we'd need to know what the other proposed title is. FN Herstal P90 is not even a redirect currently, and the page doesn't suggest any alternative title.
On the other hand, if this move does get support, will you be proposing also moving all the members of Category:Heckler & Koch semi-automatic pistols and all the other members of Category:Heckler & Koch submachine guns, and the categories themselves? The same arguments seem to apply. Andrewa (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
With regards to FN P90, the analogy I used was appropriate because that title has been used since the article's creation seven years ago in 2004, and no one has ever proposed changing it. As for the other HK weapons articles, HK's full name should be retained for titles that would otherwise be redundant or inconsistent with common usage (e.g. Heckler & Koch HK45 should not be titled HK HK45). The other titles like Heckler & Koch P7 or Heckler & Koch USP, for example, are more flexible and should indeed be changed to titles like HK P7 and HK USP, respectively. ROG5728 (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, to investigate this analogy a little further, let's consider its contrapositive. You're saying that, because FN P90 isn't spelled out, that HK MP5 should not be spelled out. That's of the form if not A, then not B. The contrapositive is if B, then A, or in this instance because HK MP5 is spelled out, FN P90 should be spelled out too, that is to say, if we don't do this proposed move, we should then move the FN P90 article to match it. I'm doubtfull that you'll agree with this, but it's a logical consequence of what you have claimed. I rather think it's a poor analogy. Andrewa (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's entirely relevant. The FN P90 title has been used since the article's creation in 2004. If we were to include the manufacturer's full name in the title, it would instead be FN Herstal P90. In seven years, no one has ever proposed doing that. The current title, FN P90, is concise and consistent with common usage, so it doesn't need to be changed. The title we are discussing here is really no different. ROG5728 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if this is correct (and I'm still skeptical) then it just means that this other article should be renamed instead. Two wrongs don't make a right. Andrewa (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

MP5, not MP 5?

Hi, in almost all (if not all) the bibliography I have read it writes it united, that is MP5 (even on the official site written above [2]), instead here [3] it seems like it's separated, as in MP 5. I just want a definitive answer if possible, being that we're discussing the same thing on Wp:it. Thanks, --Amendola90 (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Mp51600x1200.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mp51600x1200.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Place of origin

Per recent edits, note that the correct place of origin for the MP5 is West Germany (1964-1966), NOT present day Germany. ROG5728 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

West Germany (the BRD) is present day germany. The only reason it is not called West Germany anymore is because it has become unnecessary to distinguish it from East Germany. 84.119.69.75 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The BRD = Bundsrepublik Deutschland surely IS the modern day German state, but NOT the West Germany, - the modern day Germany combines both W. and E. Germanies of the past. Both still exist as ethnical, cultural and economical regions, if no longer as independent states. 95.79.253.253 (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Range of the 10mm Auto MP5 variant?

Currently this article says that the MP5/10's effective range is 100 m, half that of the standard unsuppressed 9x19mm variants listed in the article (supposedly 200 meters). That figure is suspect to me because the wiki article for 10mm Auto states that when properly loaded its effective range can exceed the 9x19mm round's because of its larger diameter (resulting in slightly less drag) and larger casing containing large pistol primer (as opposed to the 9x19mm's small pistol primer), which also affords it less ballistic drop at the same time. Also, the HK UMP page claims that the effective range for the 9x19mm variant is only 100 m, which itself is somewhat suspect as well, since according to its page the HK UMP has a 8-inch barrel length, compared to the MP5's 8.9-inch barrel length--I doubt that the 0.9 inch difference would result in a 100 m difference in effective range. Can anyone look into this and replace these problematic numbers with more realistic figures? --Mazryonh (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, "effective range" itself is anyway a very vague term that does not have any strict definition, its measuring may vary greatly depending on circumstances etc., so it may be said *both* figures are reslistic, or at least plausible, may be in different situations / according to different standards. Particularily in this case, it can be speculated that besides their less ballistic drop 10 mm bullets may have greater dispersion or any other property that damages accuracy and reduces the effective range; also it must be noted that the UMP has simple blowback action vs. retarded blowback used in MP5, what also may damage it's accuracy. 95.79.253.253 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heckler_%26_Koch_MP5/Archive_3&oldid=1140267488"