Talk:Armsel Striker

The use of Rhodesia
Is wrong in this case as it ceased as a country in 1979 and and became Zimbabwe, I have only heard Rhodesia used by older British people or used by the British equivalent of a "red-neck". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" would be the correct terminology in this case, I think, as that was the name of the successor state, as the Republic of Zimbabwe did not exist until April of 1980. Rhodesia was a British chartered colony that consisted of present day Zambia and Zimbabwe, but in 1965 the ruling body of colony declared independence. Although never officially recognized as an independent republic, it did act as a sovereign state from 1965 until 1979, and Britain and the UN did acknowledge that it "reverted" back to colonial status briefly before it held elections which brought Mugabe to power, and the name change to Zimbabwe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.61.214.213 (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements
This article is full of unreferenced statements and weasel words with a political slant. Please make more encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.102.53 (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Statements about the political reasons for the Armsel Stiker being banned are quite well known among firearms users. While it was classified as an "Assault Weapon" in California in the past decade I personally can only recall one Striker varient being confiscated by the police out of thousands of weapons confiscated in the area. So basically while being portrayed by some lawmakers as a criminal wet dream, the reality is far differant.--Paulwharton (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, please provide relevant references. Nitrokitty (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Following the links on the assault weapons ban page indicates that the ban was politically motivated and not effective at controling the criminal missuse of firearms. So called "Assault weapons"(of which the Armsel Striker is named in the first US ban of such weapons) has according to the data collected before and after the ban such weapons are unpopular among criminals.Paulwharton (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Varients
At five different varients by two different manufacturers I think it's time for a varient section. So far we have the Armsel Strtiker, the Armsel Protecta, the Armsel Protecta Bulldog, the Cobray/SWD Streetsweaper, and the Cobray/ SWD Ladies home companion.Paulwharton 17:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The section looks good. If it is known, we might want to mention if the Cobray clone was licensed or not.  As the parts didn't interchange, I'm guessing the answer is that it wasn't, but we would need something sourced of course. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on the Armsel Striker and it's varients article on the Internet Movie Firearms database. According to the Movie Propmasters who work on the site the Cobray weapon is an unlisenced varient with very few parts interchangeable. that and I need to add the Sentinal Arms Striker to the varient list.Paulwharton (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Official Title
As DAO-12 is the name of the weapon in a Video game. Shouldn't the page use the real world name for this weapon? Every reliable source I can find states the weapon's name as Either the Armel Striker/Protecta/ Protecta Bulldog or as the Cobray "Streetsweaper". -- Paulwharton 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to create a subpage.--Holocron 16:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to see if I can clear this mess up. Arctic-Editor 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

something sounds wrong about the LA Riots example of a situation in which this weapon would be useful, could it maybe be changed to "any event of civil unrest in which the bearer's life, limb, or property were at stake"? -anonymous

Yes, 65.32.197.91, it could. Go ahead and change it.--Holocron 12:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can find no source for the name "DAO-12" besides Battlefield 2. Does anyone have any further information? Zod 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

every source of information I can find on this firearm refers to it as the Armsel Striker or Protecta.I think that we should re-name the article to reflect this. Paulwharton 10:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pancor Jackhammer
This gun bears a striking resemblance to the Pancor Jackhammer. Does anyone know what the relation between these two is?

-- MiG 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They are completly unrelated designs.

-- Paulwharton 12:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They also don't look very much alike. Atypicaloracle (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

list of firearms in films
I've moved the fiction list to list of firearms in films. See What wikipedia is not.CynicalMe 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

.410-bore model?
I recently saw a .410 model made by Cobray. Anyone know what this is and if it should be added to the article?


 * I've handled one, Cobray Took the trigger group of a Street Sweeper and attached a .410/.45 long colt drum and barrel to it. It is officially called the SWD Ladies Home Companion.

-- Paulwharton 03:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Maybe this should be added to the article. 71.93.238.214 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular Examples
Though specific examples elude me at the moment the DAO-12 very much resembles the 'Streetsweeper" type of shotgun popularized in video games and moves. Though I can't give specific names at the moment, my first thought about shotguns if not of the saw-offed variety then of the streetsweeper. I am not a hunter nor have I been in the military so my knowledge of shotguns is limited to the sort of exposure I mentioned before. Merely upon seeing the picture I thought of the nickname streetsweeper which is indicative of popular culture.

What I propose is that a list be formed here on the discussion page and that once 4-5 examples of its usage in fictional settings or non-military examples is reached that a section dedicated to its reputation outside of military use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helioglyph (talk • contribs) 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
 * "Striker" is another name for said weapon. Featured in Resident Evil 4. Shorttail 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, obviously its reference in culture should be mentioned in the article. Because this kind of coverage of it is exactly what gives it the degree of notability which it has. And after all that is one of the key areas that enables it to have a wikipedia article in the first place! So to reduce and cut out such coverage seems to be highly conter productive. There use to be a good section in the article about it in popular culture, but another editor has been persistent in its removal due to their belief any such mention of this kind of notability of the weapon should be kept out of the article! Mathmo Talk 00:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Designers thought it looked cool"
LWF removed the popular culture references with the above message, believing that this means it doesn't have anything to do with notability. Yet it does, they have "noted" this gun as such in their games. Would they have done this for a totally obscure weapon nobody has heard of, or famous weapons that people can identify with? Naturally, such references as this shows the notability of the weapon. Mathmo Talk 02:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The entry was trivial, that's why I reverted it. There is a clear policy, and these games don't meet it. There is an easy way of determining notability, is the game (or pop culture item) commonly associated with the gun? An example could be the Walther PPK, which is almost synonymous with James Bond in the public's mind, so much so that gun shops will frequently advertise it as "James Bond's gun". Somehow I don't see these pop culture references as being of the same notability; the game designers could have gone with the Saiga-12 or the SPAS-15, and no difference would have been made to those guns in real-life. See WP:MILHIST and WP:GUNS for two policies on this kind of thing.--LWF 03:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The links you have supplied show a confusion between what is policy and what is just writings by a project. This section does illustrate notability, how would the average person (who is not already interested in guns) know about this gun? 99.99% of the time through popular media examples such as Max Payne, Far Cry, etc...  Without the existence of these references in popular media you are wiping out the knowledge of existence of this gun (in a sense, its notability) from millions of people's minds. Mathmo Talk 03:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Does the average person really care that it was used in a video game? In my experience, the people that care are those who already know. Also, as to your comment about the projects, both of those policies were arrived at by consensus by both projects, and since Wikipedia is editted by consensus...--LWF 03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of wikipedia is not to educate those who already know! Mathmo Talk 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be taken over to WT:GUNS to reach a consensus.--LWF 03:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

On reading the previous policy links and what they say about popular culture I have to say deleate the trivia section.it adds nothing of substance to the article and the weapon is known outside of videogames and films. The weapon in question is notable due to its design let alone it's media image. Paulwharton 23:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it is known outside of its coverage in the popular media, just like it also obviously gains part of its total notability due to its many repeated mentions in popular culture. Mathmo Talk 07:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Matho, I sugest you seriously read the Trivia section policy again. so far all you have posted is unrelated information. adding a line like: the Armsel Striker's distinctive looks makes it popular in visual media apearing in numerous films and video games.(a few examples given). would be apropriate but a trivia section would not be so. do you understand what I am trying to say?Paulwharton 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiousity, do you have any evidence for your claims that the games made the Striker more famous?--LWF 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In doing some looking to try and see if any of the trivia information was valid. All I can say is that due to BF2 there are alot of uninformed people using the name DAO-12 for the design. other than that there is really no notable popular culture referances.Paulwharton 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Rhodesia
Isn't the phrase "After Rhodesia fell..." a tad POV. Couldn't a more politically neutral phrasing be developed?Rykalski (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite apart from NPOV, it's inaccurate. The country became Zimbabwe in 1980, so if the weapon was developed in the 'early 1980s' it could not have been developed in 'Rhodesia'. If we have a citation indicating that the designer left Zimbabwe because of changes after Mugabe and ZAPU/ZANU took over the country, the point could be relevant. Otherwise, we should stick to the factual statement that the designer emigrated. I've amended the text with this in mind.65.38.32.132 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

article is contradictory
the very first sentence in the article states that the shotgun was created for riot control and combat. however in the very next paragraph it says that it was originally intended for hunting. perhaps the first sentence could say something like "originally intended as a hunting weapon, it evolved into a combat shotgun"? 76.25.115.99 (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture
Ok once again someone has put op an In popular culture section. Unless it is something like James Bond's Walther PPK or Dirty Harry's Smith and Wesson Model 29, it does not belong on Wikipedia. If you want to list what weapon was in what movie there is the Internet Movie Firearms Database.Paulwharton (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Design and Features
I removed this entire section, it was little more than an exerpt from a gun catalogue about the features of the gun, it was also contradictory and repetitive because it discussed how the weapon has "often" been demonized for its appearance, and that its hard to acquire. Despite the fact that the US and Canadian laws which say the exact same thing are referenced in the following section. Further, any of the other information about the gun that was present was repetitive because it was already in the info box (being like a revolver etc.. Clearly a fanboy took it upon himself to write about this gun and complain about the aforementioned laws - useless information if its just that guys perspective without any references.

Also of note is that the entire section does not contain a single reference, its politically laced hearsay from someone who doesn't like US gun laws.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.87.236 (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel that the contents of this section are an excerpt from a gun catalogue then you should provide a URL where this information can be found. If you feel certain lines in this section are biased then please edit those lines or remove them rather than deleting the entire section. Please sign your posts using 4 tildes. Jovianeye (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I said "little more than a gun catalogue", not an actual exerpt from one. Also, the entire section is useless for the article. Its repetitive because all of the information that it contains is either discussed elsewhere in the article, or is severely biased and contains information that is not relevent (i.e. the gun being "ideal for home defence"). Thus I deleted the entire section.

That being said, because some people out there have too much time on their hands and love to revert without reading comments, I took out all the biased information, leaving just the repetitive stuff.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.87.236 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By blanking the section repeatedly insted of re-writing it you are commiting vandalism. I sugest that you stop not as one could make a good argument that you are doing it with mailace. I know that the design and features section needs to be re-written as there are features left out of the article and the more recent varients have changes to the design. While I like the look of the design mechanically and tactically it's a horrible design personally, slow to reload and the triggerpull is in the 20 pound range for a Cobray Streetsweeper. Paulwharton (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

References and Deadlinks
This page really needs some references, the only two that are there are in a single section (Availability) and both are dead links (the ATF one is dead, while the CDN mounted police one just links to the front page of their webesite). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.87.236 (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:DAO-12gaugeCombatShotgun.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
The Image was Jacked from an IMFDB User who copyrighted his image of a Cobray Streetsweeper. The Image has to go ASAP.Paulwharton (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Military service?
I know many current and former South African soldiers, I recently made a point of asking many of them if they have ever seen this weapon in military service - so far all have said "no" - many have in fact never even heard of this gun before. So I'd really like to see an authoritative source (not Joe Blow's Guns-R-Cool Blog) that explicitly states that this shotgun has been/is in service with the South African military. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the main sources I used for the Eland Mk7 article, Landgren's Embargo Disimplemented, confirms that Armsel produced the Striker for both the SADF and the SAP. If the vets can't remember it, chances are it was a limited run which may have spent more time in an arsenal somewhere than in the townships!! --Katangais (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a rather large gap between making something in the hope that the army or police will buy it, and the army or police actually buying it. Every single image (tv, print or web) that shows SA police carrying or using shotguns that I have ever seen, (many thousands of images over several decades) shows only conventional pump action guns. Not a single one of the many books I have about the SADF/SANDF ever mentions this gun. A source such as Jane's or similar high reputation is needed - actually Jane's is pretty much the only seriously reliable and NPOV source, except for the users themselves. The gun was a commercial failure too, people simply did not like it's bulk, balance or the very slow loading. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Designing for" is not the same as issued. I have a knife that was designed for the Navy SEAL by their specs, 5 prototypes were made and used by the SEALs, but the Navy Brass found it to be too aggressive. It was redesigned with a new profile and the new model was issued. Does that make my original piece a SEAL knife, because it was designed for them and field tested by them? No. However, the model that was based on it was adopted and is considered a SEAL knife. Same with the Striker.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We must yet consider that the Striker was designed as a military - rather than a civilian - weapon, if it was produced with the SADF in mind. The Vital Guide to Combat Guns and Infantry Weapons by Bishop and The world's elite forces by Lang state that it's used by unspecified police (Bishop) and special operations units (Lang) worldwide. Then there's this: http://www.pmulcahy.com/semiauto_shotguns/south_african_sa_shotguns.htm


 * @MikeSearson, the weapon here was not a prototype, so stop using the term "designed". My source explicitly states it was "produced" - whether or not it entered long term usage with the SAP/SADF (as Dodge and I are currently discussing) is the issue at hand. --Katangais (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Self-published source
Lulu (company) is what used to be called a 'vanity press' - they publish whatever anyone pays them to print. Normally such books are not suitable references for Wikipedia, per WP:SPS. However there's an exemption for experts writing within there field of expertise. The author, Al Smith, says on the back of another book that he's a professor of history. It's not an ideal source, and a better one can probably be found. However it's probably acceptable so I'm not going to delete it. Rezin (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)