Talk:Bushmaster M17S

AWB and flash hider
I have twice tried adding information regarding how the flash hider was removed to satisfy the BATF for the AWB. I'll merrily admit my first addition was OR, but I corrected that tonight. Again it was removed. I then added the reference from which it came. For the third time, it was blindly removed.

I think this is good and useful information about how this was accomplished, as I know it was incorrect information that led to my first posting. It also provides useful information for those who have that version on how it can be changed.

The page it is referenced on is the manufacturer's own FAQ, so it is factual.

Lagaman (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the source (found here) you're using to substantiate the statement (diff here). I get the part that the post-ban M17S has the barrel sleeve, etc., I'm getting the part that a flash hider might fall off of a post-ban M17S as a result of reduced thread length, and I'm getting that the reduced thread length is a direct result of the barrel sleeve. The best I can guess for Nukes4Tots' rationale for opposing this contribution is that the FAQ might not qualify as a reliable source. However, as the FAQ page is hosted by Bushmaster itself, was (as far as I can tell) written by someone who works for Bushmaster, and discusses a (presumably) uncontroversial design "feature" of the post-ban rifle, I have no problem with accepting this as a reliable source to establish the claims you're making. While more sources might be better, especially secondary sources (e.g., an article in a guns magazine), I don't personally have a problem with the edit. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the more I look at it, the more I'm convinced Nukes4Tots simply didn't see the added reference with that last revert. I'm re-adding Lagaman's content with an inline reference. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I hadn't noticed the reference. Had I noticed it, I would have still reverted it. The question is that a feature that warrants passing mention in an FAQ burried deep in a web site ad irrelevant today does not even come close to being notable. The heart of the issue is that, even though the rifle had a threaded muzzle, BATF allowed it to be sold during the ban because of the design of the tensioning sleeve. This is really technical stuff that I seriously doubt even the advanced reader would care about or get even after reading it several times. It is confusing and wholly unnecessary. Given that, I'jm re-re-reverting it per Wikipedia convention that te status quo stays until there is a consensus for inclusion. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how notability is a relevant issue here. And in any case, there's no inherent harm in providing more detailed information here. All that's happening here is Lagaman's contribution says:
 * "This version has a lengthened barrel sleeve, split washer, locking nut, and jam nut". Supported by source
 * There are "insufficient threads for the flash hider, possibly allowing it to come off under fire". Supported by the source
 * "the barrel sleeve causes [the barrel] to expose insufficient threads [for a flash hider]". Supported by the source
 * I don't see how the BATFE issue is at the heart of anything here; Lagaman is trying to contribute apparently factual information about a variant of the M17S. I don't see any reason why this information should not be included. More information is generally not harmful, and in an article this short, is definitely not harmful, regardless of the supposed technical nature thereof. I don't see it as confusing (and as my degree is in linguistics and not mechanical engineering, I think this is significant), and in fact consider it somewhat interesting.
 * Furthermore, I don't quite get your interpretation of Wikipedia conventions with regards to the inclusion of article content. There is no such thing as a "consensus version" as you seem to suggest. Lagaman's edits here pretty clearly pass WP:V and WP:NOR. I believe, at this point, the onus is on you to exclude the content. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Technical Data Package for building an M16 rifle, similar in complexity to the M17, is thousands of pages long and includes details suc as tolerances, material finish requirements, relfectivity standards, glass content of fiberglass, etc. Now, should I paraphrase this info into the M16 article so that it's about two or three megabytes long?  That would meet all of the requirements you are using to argue for inclusion here.  There has to be a subjective limit to te level, quality, and relevance of the content in an article.  Detail creep will eventually muddy an article as I believe it already has in this article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While you've set up an interesting straw man argument, there is so little information readily available about this rifle that I can hardly think three sentences in any way compares to three megabytes of data. It's interesting and useful data for both owners and for people who may not know what kinds of things the BATF allowed to be changed to comply with their rules.


 * At this point, you are in direct violation of the three revert rule. Secondarily, you talk about "build a concensus", which we now have in this discussion, yet you've removed it again, directly against the concensus.  - Edit - forgot to do this logged in.  Lagaman (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have come here from WP:3O. I was reluctant to take on this issue because I know nothing about guns and I will say that now.  However, I decided to comment because this ignorance gives me an external perspective on this article.


 * When I read this article it all makes perfect sense to me, apart from this statement under discussion. At that point you completely lose me since you start talking about specific components without any context as to what these all are.  Even if I was interested in guns I suspect the same would apply unless I was intimately familiar with this particular gun or at least a similar model.  Possibly even if I was familiar with this gun I would still want an example in front of me to make sense of this addition.  The level of detail here is more akin to that in an instruction manual rather than an encyclopaedic entry.  It does not put the gun into context, it merely provides information that may be of interest to a subset of owners interested in a particular modification.  That fails WP:NOT.


 * You could make a case that material is needed here. However, that needs to be in considerably less detail and much briefer.  From the understanding I have garnered about this issue, it appears to me that the salient points are that the barrel sleeve is longer which means there is insufficient exposed threading on the muzzle to securely attach a flash hider.  I don't think more detail is necessary, and you would be doing the reader a disservice by adding it. CrispMuncher (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

I used the exact phrase recommended by the third-party. Again, you ripped it out. It would be nice if you participated in the discussion instead of again ignoring it Lagaman (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While I don't really agree with CrispMuncher's statement that the information fails WP:NOT, I think the reason he/she feels so is because we may not be presenting the information in the best manner. As to Nukes' comment, I still don't really get how a concise explanation of how the post-ban M17S was made to not support a flash hider is "unnecessarily complex". My understanding is that we should strive to include any and all major details about a subject (see WP:FACR 1b for example). If the information becomes complex enough to interfere with flow, that's what summary style subsections linking to subarticles are for.
 * At any rate, I think what Lagaman is trying to include is a useful and informative piece of information. It shows how Bushmaster made a relatively small modification to comply with the AWB. This detail would be interesting to someone interested in gun control, gunsmithing or general gun collecting. I think Lagaman's most recent wording, which came out of CrispMuncher's recommendations, is at least a reasonable compromise, but I fail to see why the reference needs to be removed again. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've only noticed this latest addition after I amended the article. To answer Lagaman's comments, my suggestions were simply what should be covered as an indication of the level of detail I though appropriate: it was not a suggestion that could simply be cut-and-pasted into the article.  I expected someone to refactor that and come up with something that integrated nicely into the rest of the article.  I've reworked it to reflect what I had in mind.  In my opinion this is enough to put the gun into context and show how it evolved due to changes in legislation, without getting involved in technical details that require a detailed understanding of the gun and are better covered in an instruction guide or howto-style article.  Anyone wanting further details can click through to the source material easily enough.  Of course, I do not wish for either party to feel I am imposing any kind of wording: third opinion is of course non-binding and I have no authority to do anything of the sort.  I have simply edited the article to illustrate what I had in mind.


 * To address Mendaliv's comments, yes you need the reference to support the assertion. It is questionable whether the material itself is instructional in nature and I accept that.  However, as it was it was presented without any context and needed further explanatory material in order to make sense to those unfamiliar with this rifle.  That material would have been quite detailed about the specific of this particular gun.  That would inevitably take on an instruction manual tone in my opinion. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm good with the new wording. I understand what you mean about how, without context, the earlier information could be taken in a guide/instructional manner. I think your edit makes an appropriate compromise between both. Nice job! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I figured copying your wording, CrispMuncher, was the easiest compromise available, so I went with it. I realize it wasn't binding, but it satisfied what I wanted to see, as does your current rewrite.  That version, with the link, suits me great.  Thank you. Lagaman (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bushmaster M17S. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824094533/http://www.bushmaster.com:80/electronic-documents/operation-manual/bullpup/bpmanual.pdf to http://www.bushmaster.com/electronic-documents/operation-manual/bullpup/bpmanual.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * M17S556.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * M17S556.jpg