Talk:Desert Eagle

Recall
I understand there was a recall on a batch because of a faulty firing pin. More info is needed regarding this, and specifically verification as to the recall itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaturdayNightSpecial (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Designed in Israel
This handgun was actually designed in Israel. I thought this was a well-known fact. If I find corroborating references, can I change this entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.137.56 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not. A simple viewing of Bernie White's patent will show that it was designed in Minnesota.  IMI merely cleaned up White's original design.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A simple viewing at the patent..well, why not-do you have a link that lead to it? Any way, in one of the links I attached (of a website that actually selling these guns) it is written that Magnum research has repatent the Desert after its final refinements by the IMI in 1985 and that this is the gun we know today as the Desert Eagle. You actually wrote about the patent of 1982, but it seems not to be enough for Magnum research to protect its best seller, I wonder why. A clue may be that to repatent a product it actually should have at least one noticeable difference from its first prototype--Gilisa (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the Desert Eagle was designed almost entirely in the US by Bernard White. People seem to think, despite 5 references, that because it is manufactured in Israel, it was designed there. This is obviously not the case, but I still have to revert about 2 edits a week because of people changing the place of origin. —  DP 5 02:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this one for instance, telling us that the final refirements for its design were done in Israel. In the site of the Israeli weapon industry it's written what parts exactly were designed in Israel. So it seem right to change the place of origin  to both Israel and USA and to indicate, if needed, that most of the design was made in USA. To exclude Israel entirely from the cerdits for the design is quite peculiar and factualy wrong as it's specifically mentioned in the reference (the first came up from google search-I can found additional if needed I guess) that only after Israel made those refirements and tested the DE for thousands of times it become finished product.--Gilisa (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pay attention to this (from ): "..It was about 80% functional, with a rotating bolt, full gas operation and excellent shooting characteristics. The final refinements to the pistol were made by Israel Military Industries (IMI), under contract to Magnum Research, Inc. After research that included thousands of rounds of test-firing, a fully functional .357 Magnum production model was produced in an edition of just over 1,000 pistols..". Those, if 20% of the devlopment was made by Israel and 80% by USA it's a co-design with the American design having the lion share of the design. Please change in place of origin to USA-Israel and indicate in the article itself that most of the design is American.--Gilisa (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Max's site (as whole) has multiple errors of fact. I'd feel much better if I knew what source Max was using for this page.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately he's not only one to say so .--Gilisa (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't that essentially a word for word copy of Max's own description, minus the last couple of paragraphs? Even if it wasn't a copy, that site would hardly be considered a reliable source.  At least Max has been published.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim otherwise...As I wrote, If you have a more reliable source that claim otherwise than all of the sources I cited, don't hesitate to use it. If this wording repeat itself in many different sites than it's probably come from somewhere, maybe from Max's site-but as you didn't give any more reliable source you truely can complain about the reliability of the source and also-if you want to evaluate it we can- but as accepted in WP and not base on you impression. More, this is not the only source I gave, I found few, from different sites and they are clearly not the same. All claim for Israel involvment in the devlopment, including one site that selling these guns and presented the detailed story. Anyway, I use sources (some of high and some of low quality, how does it change the true?) to base my arguments and you didn't-and there is a reason why-there is not even one single source that support the exclusion of Israel from involvment in the design that has the 1985 patent, which is the one by which all Desert Eagle guns are manufactured since 1985. So please don't revert my editions again, otherwise it could be only considered as WP:VAND --Gilisa (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As my comments here were not pleaded against with adequate sources-I changed the place of origin to both USA and Israel.--Gilisa (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems pretty straightforward. Everything indicates it was a U.S. design. Koalorka (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you give here no explenation why does it seems so "straightforward", and you didn't refute my arguments.--Gilisa (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I simply read the sources provided. Koalorka (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, so you probably read this as well: "..It was about 80% functional, with a rotating bolt, full gas operation and excellent shooting characteristics. The final refinements to the pistol were made by Israel Military Industries (IMI), under contract to Magnum Research, Inc. After research that included thousands of rounds of test-firing, a fully functional .357 Magnum production model was produced in an edition of just over 1,000 pistols..". 20% contribution still counts for a joint development and I made it clear in the entry that Israel didn't develope the lion share, but without its contribution the gun couldn't come to serial production, isn't it? And if not explain exactely why. Otherwise your reverts could only be account as Vandalismu.--Gilisa (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for cutting the honeymoon short, but here is another source-from the IWI itself. In page 5 it is written: "...Magnum research contracted IWI to re-design and manufacture a Magnum caliber (44 Magnum, 357 Magnum and 50 AE), semi automatic pistol. The result was the Desert Eagle..". This link  tell that: "..The makers filed a second patent in December of 1985, after the basic design of the Desert Eagle had been refined by IMI for production, and this is the model that entered production...". Now, I dont know nor do I care about how many users have reverted my editions as long as none of them has provide adequate evidence (and I realy careless whether one claim that he saw the patent documents or made any other original reasearch). You can also read this . Your edit summery messages (i.e., your threats and the use you made in capital letters) are truely uncivil. If you revert it again, then it would be a violation of  WP:VAND. If you still disagree we can appeal to a neutral third side, but do not revert my edit without providing a source of equivalent quality that exclude Israel involvment in the design and devlopment of the Israeli made Desert Eagle. --Gilisa (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're citing articles that are straight copy + pastes of older versions of this page. I will revert your controversial edits unless you can find a VALID source for your claims. Until you provide adequate evidence, you can make all the ad hominem attacks and references to WP:Civil you'd like, but it won't help your case. Koalorka (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does this one is copied from? According to this sourece only the  a .357 Magnum is Bernie White’s design, but not the .41 and .44 Magnums, then the  .50 Action Express which are modifications of the original design and what make the Desert eagle convenient, or even possible, to use by end users. But considering your objections so far I guess that these links  wouldn't be enough for you as well, so, what is your source that claim otherwise?  You are not in charge to evaluate sources (except for the copy of the old page I put by mistake) and those I gave constitute adequate evidence-unless you provide better ones. As you still didn't provide contrasting evidence, I will edit the opening paragraph as well in a way that express the IMI involvment in the development of the pistol at my time. BTW, as for your last line, uncivil behavior and using captial letters wouldn't help you to keep the article factualy wrong, don't be confused about that.--Gilisa (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a copy of Wikipedia. It's a pretty obvious copy, too.--LWF (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are actually trying to cite a game manual as a source in Wikipedia? I'm sorry, but Gamespy is not a reliable source for firearms in any way, shape, or form.--LWF (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I didn't notice that, funny indeed. Anyway, I just took first glance over so I couldn't see that the content is similar to the article, I have to look on it again. As for NATO 3, how could I knew it related to GameSpy? I couldn't seen it on their hompage.. Look, it's obvious, I guess that for anyone here, that the IWI was involved in the design of the commercial pistol models. I appealed for an official unclassified source from the IWI PR department itself. Eventually the article will not overlook the IWI part.--Gilisa (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well for starters, is got "GameSpy" in the url, plus it's a mod for Rainbow Six. As for the gunslot source, it is quite clearly a copy with some paragraphs taken out, it is almost if not completely word for word the same as Wiki. And the article doesn't overlook Israel, it's just that the original design came out of America. --LWF (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted for reasons stated above. Don't waste our time unless you have valid sources. Koalorka (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

practical?
Requesting cleaning up this section, seems very biased, almost as if the person has never fired the desert eagle. I have fired many variants of the desert eagle. too many biased (uneducated?) opinions

Cherokee40 19:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Aye, I don't think the "Practicality" section has any reason to be there in the first place. Sure, there are video game and Hollywood stigmas surrounding the Desert Eagle, but I think it's presence singles out the Desert Eagle as if it were the only uber-firearm that's been over-exaggerated, and it's not like video games or Hollywood havn't exaggerated anything before either. On top of that, it's redundant. There are all sorts of other crazy firearms like the S&W Model 500, Colt Anaconda, and .50 GI 1911s that people aren't pointing out the so-called "practicality" of, and even then, a firearm is only subject to the context of the environment and the personal preference of the shooter, and not to a bunch of anecdotal/made-up opinions forced into forged facts. Besides, am I the only one noticing that the majority of that section is geared to deride the Desert Eagle as if it were only chambered in .50 AE?

I say clean up the article by killing that section. SouthernStang93 02:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some variants of it chambered for the 9mm magnum round are very practical for a combat situation, though only if wielded by a very skilled and familiar shooter. That aside, the section should probably be done away with.MVMosin 08:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree that it should go. It's sort of POV anyway as to what's practicle and what isn't.  So I killed the section.  —Thernlund (Talk 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that issues regarding practicality that rely on anecdotal experience should not be posted. I personally find them to be terribly impractical for a variety of reasons (cost and availability of ammunition, weight, cost of firearm, availability of parts and accessories, size, etc.), but my personal indifference to this fire arm is my opinion - if you don't like it that is fine, but keep you personal views out of the article or provide peer reviewed research and create "criticisms" section.

Discussions of practicality must be based on good sources, but they should not be eliminated from the text altogether. The only reason I came to this page was to learn why the Desert Eagle was made, when it seems like such an impractical weapon. I'm sure I'm not the only one to come to this page for that reason, and I'm sure the person who wrote the original "practicality" section had this in mind. Something has to be added on this issue, because it IS relevant to understanding this weapon.67.193.243.245 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark VII status
An anonymous user noted that the Mark VII was discontinued; the Magnum Research website still lists the Mark VII in 6 and 10 inch barrels. I'm going to dig a bit more into that and see if I can verify it's status; it could be out of production but still in stock (it's not like $1k hand cannons sell all that fast--well, except for the .45-70 T/C). scot 01:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actual Location of MR Company
Despite the fact that the company lists Minneapolis as its location on their website, it is actually located in Fridley, Mn. This is commonly done with addresses in first ring suburbs. I know this is a trivial detail, but I am going to change it nonetheless, both because it is more accurate and because I am adding Magnum Research to a list of companies located in Fridley. To verify this do a mapquest or google maps search for the address given on the company website, you will see that it is clearly in Fridley. Asedzie 11:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

IMI vs. IWI
I'm changing all the IWI references back to IMI; my 26th Ed. Blue Book of Gun Values lists IMI and Saco as the makers; no IWI is listed in the Blue Book. If anyone can provide verifiable reference to an "IWI" (maybe IMI just changed their name?) then provide it and we can discuss what do do. scot 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Israel Military Industries IMI is now Israel Weapon Industries IWI: .--81.197.218.62 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The title should be changed back to IWI Desert Eagle since IMI is now IWI. Spartan198 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Should it even be called IWI, as MRI moved the pistols' construction back to the US? --D.E. Watters (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Stocked Pistols
I recall back in the late-90s MR offered a stocked version of their pistols to the LEO/MIL market. It would be classed as a SBR, so civvies would have to jump through the NFA hoops.

It must have not be very successful, because I only recollect seeing one ad for it.

Anyone else remember this?


 * Actually, I think I remember a 16" barreled version being available as well, which would be class I, as long as you had the 16" barrel on the receiver. However, given that the the DE sells mainly due to the "BFG" factor (I actually knew one guy who sold his DE a week after shooting my T/C in .45-70 Government), there's nothing special about a .44 Mag carbine--there are the venerable model 1894 lever actions by both Marlin and Winchester (it was a very good year for lever actions), plus the Ruger .44 semiauto, which even at the inflated prices of the 90's (it was discontinued in '85, and was still in high demand as a brush gun) sold for under $400.  I think it was just too pricey to compete as a carbine in the hunting market, and that's where you'd find the buyers for a carbine.  scot 20:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize this is an old discussion, but I've seen some early examples with stocks. It is shown here as a "police only" variant.-- Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk 03:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Circling back to this. If it was a produced variant, there should be some information or reference to said. -- Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 21:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Popular culture references
Per the AfD, I've condensed the Desert Eagle In Popular Culture list into a paragraph with a few examples of it's use. IMO I do not feel it is neccessary to add EVERY appearance it has made in movies or video games. Manmonk 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Desert Eagle was a gun used by the main character in the game, Ray, with animation very similar to South Park. Ray is a game found on "heavygames.com". I'm not trying to advertise. --66.218.12.60 02:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I Did not think you were persay advertising but i dought its that notable.(ForeverDEAD 00:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

Brought back the popular culture section. It's short, vague, and reference-less. Hopefully it'll be shaped up over time =p  FoxDiamond   00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If some sources are added, especially for the "deagle" part I think that the popular culture section will be excellent. It avoids trivia better left to tvtropes and gives a brief overview. Stargate70 (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Brought back pop DE in Media again, Quoting WP:whatever doesn't do any good because it is obvious that one or more people think that they own this page and they care not one whit for precedence. Nor have they noticed that Wikipedpia is frought with inconsistencies in the moribound bureaucratic rules which seem to proliferate here.--71.246.30.208 (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
The second and third paragraphs in the Practicality section contain a lot of personal views. It needs to be an objective analysis to have a NPOV. - D&#39;Agosta 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That was vandalism, no? I think someone reverted it because I do not see what you are talking about. Manmonk 04:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I forgot to check the history. :-P - D&#39;Agosta 23:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think something needs to be added to the part about Practicality. I'm not sure about the stove pipe thing but since that's a common limpwristing problem on many handguns I don't think it should be pointed out as just a DE thing.

"This weapon is very powerful, however, the huge recoil and size make this gun hard to control. Additionally, the .50 AE cartridge is simply deemed by many to be unnecessarily powerful for self-defense or military purposes."

That part about recoil is subjective to the person shooting it. I'm a small person and I thought the .50 Desert Eagle was pretty tame especially in comparison to some revolvers I've shot. I thought a .44 Mag kicks more than this thing. Saying it has "huge recoil" and suggesting it is hard to control is subjective. Maybe for someone new to firearms but once again I think this statement is subjective. The second sentence quoted needs to be cited (although I agree with it.) The paragraph immediately following the quote above (about recoil) seems to turn around and suggest the recoil is less (which I agree with.) Makes it a bit confusing. 74.131.56.240 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Deagle
Is "Deagle" commonly used to refer to the Desert Eagle or is that just a Counter strike thing? --Ortzinator 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that's a Counter-Strike thing, as all the Desert Eagle owners I know of regard both the term and the game with something approaching outright contempt. BobBQ 14:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is just a Counter-Strike term. The makers of the game shortened many of the weapon names for ease in coding or to bypass the copyrights/registered names. I have not heard another shooter call it by that unless talking about CS.74.131.56.240 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps, it WAS just a Counter-Strike term... My friends and I (those of us that shoot regularly, at least) only refer to it as a "deagle" now. Of course we all fall into the 18-24 demographic and play or have played first-person shooters online at some point growing up, so we have come to understand and appreciate the convenience of shorthand and abbreviated terminology that is characteristic of the internet. Furthermore, the tacticalshooting.com forums, which I frequent, also have a regular mention of "deagles", when referencing real-life shooting practices, from time to time. It is interesting to hear deagle owners regarding the term with contempt... At the risk of assuming stereotypes, I'd venture to guess most or all of them have had much first-hand exposure to the game itself, or a computer for that matter... 69.166.14.83 08:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is also a Rainbow Six term. I've seen "Deagle" in one of the games. 68.196.110.215 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not just a Counter-Strike term. Deagle is a common pop culture reference to the Desert Eagle itself. If you want to talk ghetto, sometimes a Desert Eagle is considered a Deagle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.122.184 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So what is the consensus concerning this issue? Does anyone think that this term should at least be mentioned? I have heard the Desert Eagle called a "Deagle" by quite a few people for quite a while, and as such I believe that it deserves to be at least mentioned somewhere. Thoughts? -- OranL (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be at least mentioned. It's not just a Counter-Strike or Rainbow Six thing; gamers on the whole typically refer to the gun as a Deagle (and apparently so do people in Ghettos). "Deagle" is practically a word/name in its own right now, even if many fans of this weapon despise it. FoxDiamond  22:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
Does anyone have a picture of someone actually holding a Desert Eagle? I know it's referred to as large, but I can't find a picture of someone holding the gun through Google.

--58.179.115.136 10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can probably make one. Let me see what I can do.  Thernlund 22:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be good if somebody could replace the pimped out gold DE image with something relatively more pratical. That thing looks like it belongs to Goldmember or Snoop Dogg. Gamer Junkie 04:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Millsy 02:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I have a few pictures of my hand holding a desert eagle. (.357, Mark VII) I don't know if it is a good reference though, as I have large hands (which is why I like the Desert eagle as much as I do, the grip is perfect for me) Links for now I'll upload them if someone else thinks they are good. First shot Second

How do you fix the main Desert Eagle page from saying "You're all fags" back to the original?

ive got a good image, Ill try and upload it soon


 * I can't help but feel the main picture is of a Tokyo Marui airsoft Desert Eagle. Can't prove it, so probably not important. But surely it must be possible to find a picture of an actual ten inch Desert Eagle, rather than a screen grab from what I think is a Resident Evil game? Optimus Sledge 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The trademarks would suggest otherwise, especially if the picture was taken in the USA. Also, there are no Tokyo Marui markings on it, which it would have if actually an airsoft gun. Still, I would prefer a higher quality image than the present one.--LWF 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Shot of a TM Deagle here: http://www.airsoftatlanta.com/images/tm_cdeagle_jpg.jpg Does bear out that the pic we have isn't an airsoft one. My bad. Optimus Sledge 16:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we now have a scale picture in the article. I realized that a picture of someone holding it is still subject to scale problems, so I used a CD instead. Most everyone does know how big a CD is after all.--LWF 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing the Main Page
How do you change the main page from the idiot who wrote "You're all fags", back to the original?

When were the first?
Other than a reference to U.S.-based production in 1995-2000, there's no indication of dates. When were the various marks first produced? Belltower 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dilemma over country of origin
There seems to be a slight dilemma in this article over the country the Desert Eagle originates from. I was wondering if we could weigh in on which country is the true country of origin, Israel, or the United States of America. The main problem is that the original design and patent originated in the USA, and were then refined by Israel, which then was given a license to manufacture Desert Eagles. This creates the problem of whether we go with the original design's origin, or if we go with first mass-producing country. I personally think that in this case it should be America, as the design is of American origin, and I license to manufacture being issued by an American company lends credence to the idea that the design's country of origin is the USA. Please tell me what you think and weigh in on this discussion.--LWF 03:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The essence of the design is the use of a rotating bolt in the rear of the open top slide, and gas operation working directly on the bottom front of the slide; this is what differentiates the DE from the Automag, Widley, pistol sized AR-15s, and and other gas operated handguns. This layout is clearly established in the original MRI patent.  MRI then contracted with IMI, who simplified the gas piston (going with the self cleaning Mini-14 style system) and performed other minor revisions to make the gun easier to produce, and started producing it.  IMI has NEVER marketed or sold the DE; and it has NOT always been made by IMI.  MRI owns the design, just like the company I work for owns whatever software I design and write while they pay me; it wouldn't get written unless the provided me with the specifications, so the software originates with them.  Anything patentable I develop while working for the company gets patented with my name as the inventor, the company as the assignee, and if it was done for one of their customers, that customer would then get a license (exclusive or not, depends on how the contract was written) for the use of that technology.  That's just what happened with the second (filed) DE patent.  An engineer working for IMI, who was in turn working for MRI, developed a patentable refinement of the original design, it was patented with his name as inventor, IMI as assignee, and MRI, who funded it, gets a license to use the patent, even if it's Saco and not IMI that's building the thing.  scot 13:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice pic, truly scary sight :) Anon 003 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Performance
Shouldn't there be more information about the performance and handling of the weapon? Including in relation to other calibers?Alexander 13:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Performance information is available under the articles on the calibers themselves, such as .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum. As far as caliber comparisons go, that's not really relevant to any particular article; there are hundreds of common calibers, so it's not practical to compare, say, the .44 Magnum to all other handgun calibers in the .44 Magnum article.  That said, perhaps and article focusing on comparative performance might be in order.  If you're interested in seeing a cartridge comparison article, go over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms and propose it, along with your ideas on what you'd like to see in such an article.  scot 16:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in caliber performance, as I'm well aware there are individual pages for such things. What am interested in is the performance of the weapon itself, and how it stacks up to weapons of similar design/caliber/class. Say we use the DE .44 as an example, well, how does it compare to other .44 pistols? Or other large bore autoloading pistols? How does the weapon in and of itself handle? What is the recoil, weight, refire rate, etc. Obviously one pistol will have different performance characteristics than another, even if they they are very similar. Adding information on such things is valuable to potential gun owners, as well as those who wish to understand as much as possible about something. I myself do not know this information for this particular weapon, but I'm sure someone on Wikipedia does.Alexander 04:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

.41 AE
The Jane's Infantry Weapons for 1989-90 indicates that the Desert Eagle was, at one point, chambered for the .41 AE cartridge. Though authoritative, I believe the Jane's guide may be in error and the researcher may have confused the .41 Magnum with the .41AE. Having said all that, if the pistol in question was ever chambered for the aforementioned cartridged, perhaps it should be added. 68.116.99.232 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't; it was the .41 Magnum. The DE requires a high pressure, magnum cartridge to provide the force needed to operate the mechanism, and even moderate pressure loadings of the .357 Magnum were not sufficient to the task.  The .41 AE was chambered in the Jericho 941, which was later marketed under the name "Baby Eagle", which may be the source of the confusion.  There is some cosmetic resemblance, but the Jericho was short-action recoil operated handgun based on the Browning tilting barrel, while the DE uses a direct impingement gas operated mechanism with a rotating bolt, similar to the AR-15.  Damned shame the .41 AE was eclipsed by the .40 S&W, as the .41 AE was the better answer to the FBI's quest for a reduced 10mm Auto variant.  Most reloading manuals these days say to just use .40 S&W info with light .41 Magnum bullets when loading for the .41 AE--case capacity is nearly identical, as is bore diameter (.400 vs. .410), and the SAAMI max pressure is the same for both.  scot (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I think you are correct; I also did not think the .41 AE would have worked well in the DE system.  Even though Jane's is usually regarded as authoritative, I think we hold off unless we can find another source.  66.191.19.217 14:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The copy of Fjestad's Blue Book of Gun Values I have in my office (13th edition, about 15 years out of date--my more current copy is at home somewhere in a huge stack of boxes full of books) does list the Baby Eagle pistols under the "Desert Eagle series" section of the Magnum Research entry, and it is possible that at some point they may have at some point marketed the Jerhicho somewhere as a "Desert Eagle" rather than a "Baby Eagle"; this source supports that. I'll stick in a "see also" link with that as a reference.  scot 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:500 Desert eagle.jpg
I don't like the placement of this image, and I don't really think it contributes anything to the article. In addition, the image just doesn't look natural. I think that it should be removed from the article, but if anyone else thinks it could be moved to another area of the article, then please respond. -- OranL (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In defense of that image, somebody above in this talk page asked for a picture of somebody holding/ or shooting one to give someindication of scale. the woman shooting the gun is of average size. I though it was kind of neat that I caught the ejected case close to the lense making it appear outsized and kind of unnatural.
 * Maybe there will be other comments. However it shakes out, I think it was very polite of you to bring it up for discussion rather than just deep-sixing the image. --Mcumpston (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried the image on the right side but I see that Lwf has put it back where it was to clean up some blank space my move created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the idea of having an image of a person holding the Desert Eagle is good, it's just that this specific image looks kind of unrealistic, and doesn't provide a good representation of the scale of the gun because of the angle and lighting effects. I appreciate the fact that you have been bold and added this picture, but I believe that it can be improved. I'll see if I can't get the picture to appear on the right margin like the other ones are. -- OranL (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I moved it back while I was reverting vandalism to the article, feel free to move your image again. By the way, you do realize the point of the picture of the Desert Eagle with the CD was to provide the asked for scale image. Right?--LWF (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I realized that after posting my defense of the picture. the CD does provide scale and may contribute to the ultimate deep-sixing of the image I uploaded. I still like it but not enough to insist on it. sic transit gloria munde--Mcumpston (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The cd pic really does show scale better because all cd's are standarised a human can vary alot. БοņёŠ ɓɤĭĠ₳₯є  20:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "...cd's are standarised a human can vary alot."
 * True. does the picture appear unrealistic because of the flying case or is it something else???. It is a true capture of this woman shooting the pistol. She's an adept shot and actually hits things with some heavy recoiling handguns. The 500 linebaughs are downright viscious while the DE just gives an insistant push  --Mcumpston (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the picture of the woman firing the gun is fake look at the "casing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.62.39 (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The case really did show up just like that on the photograph. It is unusual enough to look like photoshopping but If I had decided to photoshop a fake case in the picture, I would have gotten on that was in sharper focus. --Mcumpston (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes no difference if it is fake or not. The discussion is not regarding the authenticity of the photo, but rather its encyclopedic content. Personally, I believe it not a good representation, if for no other reason than it is not presenting the Desert Eagle in a neutral point-of-view. It seems to be an almost surreal depiction of someone firing the gun, and while this is nice artistically, it doesn't really help people study the gun and draw their own conclusions. Perhaps a more cut-and-dried picture of someone firing the gun would be more appropriate for the article. It might also help if people didn't wonder if it was a real photo or not, then they would be focusing on the article instead of the picture. Do you have any other photos of the Desert Eagle being fired? -- OranL (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of input now. I haven't heard from anybody (else) who likes this picture or thinks it belongs in the article. I believe I will switch on over to the article and delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Drum?
Can anyone explain why "drum" is listed under feed system? There is probably no such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.44.140 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The extra high capacity magazines used with thompsons, luger pistol carbines and several other magazine fed arms are called "Drums." They are circular in shape. here's a link

http://www.modelguns.co.uk/images/ThompDrum.jpg --Mcumpston (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that, but are there any for the desert eagle? The link you put up was for the Thompson.

Probably not. One of the sites that hawks Desert eagles also has a drum fed gun. They put the advertising blurb together in such a way as to make it sound like the desert eagle has a drum mag: '''The SpecialistsIMI Desert Eagle .50AE Tremendous power coupled with high recoil make this handgun ... and can fire up to 360 rounds per minute from its drum magazine. ... www.specialistsmod.net/weapons/weapons.html - 32k - Cached - Similar pages''' that might have made its way into one of the revisions.

Requested move
Desert Eagle → Magnum Research Desert Eagle — See WikiProject_Firearms for naming conventions this article should have the manufactures name before the model of the pistol —MRIanthony (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

MRIanthony (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support

Oppose This gun is pretty well known and by its common name rather than any link with its manufacturer's name, the wikipedia naming conventions are pretty clear on common vs official names. Narson (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * I suggest you read and understand the naming conventions on guns which i posted in the discussion below. It is to affiliate its model name with the manufacture name. A Desert Eagle could refer to a number of different items, a eagle in the desert?, or even the Tokyo Mauri Desert Eagle or SoftAir Desert Eagle either of which are not related to the actual article which is the Magnum Research Desert Eagle I hope you can understand what i am getting atMRIanthony (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, two of those are derivative products, arn't they? As for the wikiproject naming guidelines, I looked but the wikipedia naming conventions override any style guide a wikiproject has. Narson (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per convention/nom. Also because this is not an article on birds known as eagles that live in deserts. 70.55.86.138 (talk)
 * Vehemently Oppose The Desert Eagle is almost exclusively known as the Desert Eagle in popular usage. Changing it would result in confusion for most readers. Also is there another article that would need the name "Desert Eagle". Not that i know of. This whole proposal is ridiculous changing the name of a well know pistol to something extremely less common. БοņёŠ ɓɤĭĠ₳₯є  03:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article refers to the Magnum Research Desert Eagle we are not taking away from the article Desert Eagle. For the mean time Desert Eagle can be redirected to Magnum Research Desert Eagle. But for any other author(s) wanting to create an article for any Desert Eagle air soft, bb gun, bird, etc.. From then Desert Eagle can simply be redirected to Desert Eagle (disambiguation) and the user can choose the proper article if it comes down to it. MRIanthony (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your basing this whole (flimsy) proposal on the assumption that someone would make an article that would need the name desert eagle for something else. Once one of those pages are created we can worry about it. Also the likely hood of someone making an article on a air soft gun and it surviving an AFD is highly unlikely. Desert Eagle is BY FAR the more common name and if we haven't seem to had problems with this name since 2004 im going to guess that any new problems would be very unlikely and that most people looking up "Desert Eagle" would search for the weapons. БοņёŠ ɓɤĭĠ₳₯є  04:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Your idea of most people is who? How many kids may be into eagles? How many people want to learn more about the non-lethal variants? I couldn't tell you who searchs for what in what frequency, and either should you try and make the assumption. And no, this is not about someone that would need an alternative for Desert Eagle, but it does however help the claim. The main purpose, if you have not noticed, is to combine the owner and model as the title name to help others (just like the 99% of other handguns). And this flimsy idea is coming from someone that has actually taken time to call MRI to: find out the facts and revise the information (which is not complete yet). On top of that the whole article seems it has been written by a high-schooler. So i ask, have you helped try to expand the information in the article and what did you do? MRIanthony (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Search results: "Magnum Research Desert Eagle": 111,000 hits. "Desert Eagle" -"Magnum Research Desert Eagle": 2,790,000 hits. Doing a google books search, "Desert Eagle" -"Magnum Research Desert Eagle" gets me 644 hits. "Magnum Research Desert Eagle" gets me 0 hits. The advantage of posting to RM is you get uninvolved editors who havn't got a horse in the race, Anthony. An argument based on wikipedia naming conventions would be good, remembering that there is a policy of, in a dispute, going for the one that remained the stable title for ages. (And that other Desert Eagle things may exist wouldn't affect this page as this is clearly primary usage.) Narson (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative
Im re-opening this becuase i have thought of a compromise. "Desert Eagle" to "Desert Eagle pistol". Thoughts? БοņёŠ ɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Desert Eagle (pistol) would work. FYI: MRI also calls the pistol a DEP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRIanthony (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a need for the disambiguator though? What else is there called Desert Eagle? Are we saying this isn't clearly primary usage? Narson (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion


''Naming The names of firearm articles should start with the proper name of the manufacturer, followed by the firearm's name. Examples of this policy are Heckler & Koch MP7 instead of MP7 or Smith & Wesson Model 1006 instead of S&W Model 1006. Exceptions to this are firearms named with military designations such as M16 rifle or AK-47. See WP:WEAPON#Naming conventions for the guideline on naming military firearms.''

I think that for the moment we should hold off on renaming this one. The Desert Eagle is an unusual case because of the way by which it came into being. I would suggest that the WikiProject Firearms discuss this first, and come to a consensus on what to do when one company owns the design, and another makes it and sells some, while the first distributes it.


 * But Magnum Research developed it, owns the design, imports it, and distributes it. Seems a no-brainer.  IMI, IWI, and Saco are all just contract labor.  scot (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Quick Question
I've been curious about this for awhile, but I can't find any information on it anywhere. Does anyone know why the .50AE Desert Eagle lacks a fluted barrel, whereas just about every other (XIX) model has one? Thanks in advance. FoxDiamond  22:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern Firearms.
Perhaps a link to the Modern Firearms article would be of some benefit as it includes a photo of the original design. 68.116.99.78 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! --Dreammaker182 (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced statement: NPOV violation (?)
I believe the following statement, as it is unsourced, to be an NPOV violation:

I'm no firearms expert, but I cannot see how "muzzle flash" and "considerable report" could negatively effect self-defense? If one is committing a murder, yeah, these could be drawbacks. If, however, you're legally defending yourself, a loud noise and big flash can only hurry the police to your side (because if a perp in hanging about when you've capped off anti-aircraft gun, you're obviously dealing with a mentally unstable individually!).

Some people may well feel that way, but without a source, it's just an editor's opinion and, thus, I think it should be removed unless a source to back it up can be found; e.g. a review in a firearms magazine or website.

I have a cousin who carries this weapon for self-defense and he tells me he has no problem "clearing leather". Tho', fortunately, he hasn't had to use it for self-defense (he carries makes big cash deposits for his business), he did draw down on an armed robber who attempted to rob a restaurant in which he was eating. The would-be criminal pulled out a .38, only to find himself facing my cousins DE .50, a .44 mag and 9mm Glock. Whoops! Needless to say, they disarmed him and held him for Dallas' finest to show up and take him to the House of Blue Lights.

PainMan (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm no firearms expert either, but I think considerable report and muzzle flash could negatively affect self-defense because it might be disorienting, especially in a confined space where the sound waves are just going to reflect off all the walls and bombard your ears several times. If you miss your first shot, you're definitely going to want to make the next one, but if your ears are ringing and stars are dancing in your vision, that could be quite difficult, even without taking into consideration how large and heavy the Desert Eagle is.

Perhaps the sound waves could even disrupt the fluids in your inner ear, destroying your balance as well. However, that might be a stretch; the Desert Eagle is a loud gun, but its not like its a flashbang.

That's my two cents. FoxDiamond  19:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Desert Eagle is a novelty gun, but the statement is inapropriate IMO. Koalorka (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Why no popular culture section?
I noticed the popular culture section from 23:56, 12 January 2009 was promptly deleted via revert as though it were vandalism. Looking through the history I noticed there were past pop culture sections as well. Why are they all deleted?Splew (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:GUNS.--LWF (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, EXCEPT that the DE is one of the most prolific weapons to come along and has developed a huge cult following. The article should be the exception to the rule.--71.246.30.208 (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That fact that it remains popular with the Counter-Strike community has nothing to do with the gun itself. If you want to read about it in the context of the game, go to the CS article. Koalorka (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't believe you are trying to justify the inclusion of 6,800 bytes of complete trivia. I see people try everyday (and always fail) to add a sentence or two about "this gun was used in xxx game" or similar, but this is just way out there. The fact remains that this is actually an encyclopedia, which should contain notable facts relevant to the topic, not useless cruft that benefits maybe 1 in 1000 readers. Good luck debating an un-debatable debate. —  Dan MP5  15:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The massive trivia list is obviously unnecessary, but the article summary at the top probably deserves a brief mention of the gun's popularity in various media. One short sentence would convey the message without the clutter. ROG5728 (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting since most wikipedia gun articles are written by video game fanboys who never actually fire a real gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.89.243 (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

.440 Cor-bon comments
I know that for a time, they sold barrels in .440 Cor-bon that you could order from them directly. I know this because I purchased one this way. Is there a reasonable way of incorporating this in the section? It's currently written as if no such beasts exist. Lagaman (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

.22 Conversion?
I thought I remembered seeing a .22 conversion for this piece, as well. I'm guessing that it would have been around '94-'95 or so.... What sticks in my mind was that there was a warning that it would only fire a single shot at a time, and not automatic, which makes sense given the mechanism. I assume that it was an after-market conversion.... I'm not looking to change the article so much as I'm curious to see if the brain is still functioning or if this is a "brain fart". :) Thanks.  -- Eliyahu S Talk 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI there is a Brain fart article.--71.246.30.208 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation mechanism
I have noticed a contradiction on the type of gas operation. In the (box table thingy) it says direct impingement. While in the section on the design, it describes long-stroke operation. Can I get confirmation of one or another? From what I understand (No, I don't own one.) it is long-stroke.173.24.177.179 (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be the latter. A DI system channels propellant gases to the receiver where the controlled expansion operates the internal automatics. This is a long-stroke system. Koalorka (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will try to fix it now. If it's not fixed in 5 minutes, assume i've failed. EDIT: Done. 173.24.177.179 (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reason for existing
What are desert eagles designed for? Apart for the little info of "allows the Desert Eagle to compete in an area that had previously been dominated by magnum revolvers." I don't think it's stated what the purpose of the gun is. What is the area previously dominated by magnum revolvers? What was the desert eagle designed for? Is it designed for hunting? It's made by military industries, is it a military pistol? Just for show? Did someone make a big gun just for the sheer joy of making a big gun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.149.101 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It probably helps if you actually read the article, particularly the following sentence:"The pistol is mainly used for hunting, target shooting, and silhouette shooting.[3][5]"--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The USA and Israel wanted to create the 'perfect' side arm to take down your enemy in one hit. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * How about, "no".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is what I read somewhere else before. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * If you are serious and not trolling, and it wasn't in a video game instruction manual, I'd really like to see that source.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia welcomes NPOVs? Maybe I was wrong then? If you are not being sarcastic, then maybe I will try and find this 'reliable source'. PS, I DON'T play, silly games on X-box, play station or any other silly things like that! (TheGreenwalker (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Sounds good! I don't know what NPOV has to do with making a false statement, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Users?
Hello, should we add a section to confirm the armies/organisations that use the Desert Eagle? (TheGreenwalker (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC))
 * If you can cite a reliable source that states an organization uses the weapon, it can be added to the article. ROG5728 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that one, I don't think this pistol has been issued to any .mil or police organization beyond a few experimental prototypes and special-use weapons.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've just been researching and found out that no military in the world uses the Desert Eagle, because of it's size. However, in the article below, it confirms that collectors and gun enthusiasts like to have them. Should we add it?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/desert-eagle-50-calibur.html

Thank you. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * No, gun enthusiasts and collectors are not military or law enforcement organizations. Virtually every gun has been liked or collected by gun enthusiasts, so that is not sufficiently notable for inclusion elsewhere in the article either. ROG5728 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with ROG5728. Also, that article is far from a reliable source.  The English in it is atrocious!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've been researching and it is official. No armies, organisations use the Desert eagle, yet it is popular for target shooting, self-defence and hunting. Also, in the source I've found, the urban police in the states did use it for a little while, but stopped using them as they were too large and dangerours. Also, the US special forces reject using them, because of it's size.

http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/deserteagle.htm

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC))


 * That website does not say that "urban police" used the weapon, it says use of the weapon by police forces in an urban area is dangerous. You misread it because the grammar and overall quality of the website is extremely poor. ROG5728 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen severlal special forces from police using this. gsg 9, sas, gign... they all use it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.100.44 (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was made for taking out a vehicle at a somewhat close range. (Mr.AK-74 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

One hand firing
Anything about the absurdly common belief that firing a desert eagle with one hand will break your wrist? Sera404 (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it won't. I've heard the same ridiculous claim made about TC Contender's in .45-70, 454 Casull Revolvers, etc.  I own and shoot them all and have fired them all one-handed with no ill-effect.  Some Old-timer's have reported a "bad case of the shakes" when firing full magnum loads all day, but never the broken wrist B.S.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I meant shouldn't something be added into the article about this ridiculous rampant belief. :3  Sera404 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if we can find a reliable source that talks about it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

'compensation phallique'
I'm sure it's just meant as a joke, but someone might want to consider renaming the file name of the image used for the 10 inch barrel DE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.238.171 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It will not break your wrist, but if your no holding it right, your wrist will hurt!Mr.AK-74 (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Biased?
I don't find any reference saying that this weapon is only for gimmick because it is heavy, unreliable, small size of the magazine and overexpensive.

--190.21.144.107 (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)--190.21.144.107 (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it is not unreliable, it is only expensive to paupers who can't afford it, the magazine capacity is adequate, and its only heavy to little limpwristed school gitls who cannot handle a man-sized weapon. :)  --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And really, in a close combat environment, how accurate does a cannon like this need to be? Johnny Squeaky (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
Hey. Been contributing to this page for a while now and helped to clean it up. Anyway, I added the flags for Israel and the United States to the infobox. It makes the article look more professional and also adds a link to the countries. Hope you guys like it. (Burmiester (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC))
 * Good job, thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on IMI Desert Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160115145504/http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=3838325 to http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=3838325

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Baby Desert Eagle
If "Baby Desert Eagle" is really just another name for the Jericho 941, and if it has no other connection to the IMI Desert Eagle other than marketing and appearance, then the IMI Desert Eagle section doesn't belong in this article. The sentence quoted above is sufficient to describe the relationship. If there's no objection I'll merge the material into the other article. Felsic2 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ''Magnum Research has marketed various versions of the short recoil Jericho 941 pistol under the Baby Eagle and Desert Eagle Pistol names; these weapons are not directly related to the Desert Eagle but do share a similar visual design..

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IMI Desert Eagle. 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/20060703092850/http://www.wp.mil.pl/galeria/517/zdjecie_517_6398.jpg to http://www.wp.mil.pl/galeria/517/zdjecie_517_6398.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"Gas Operation"
"The advantage of the gas operation is that it allows the use of far more powerful cartridges than traditional semi-automatic pistol designs." No citation for this, probably because it is simply untrue from an engineering perspective: gas operation is not necessary in order to design a pistol with "far more powerful" cartridges.

The most common pistol design is "short recoil": the Browning M1911, Browning Hi-Power, Beretta 92, SIG Pro, and Glocks, together with all their derivatives, are short-recoil. This same design principle is used by the Browning M2 heavy machine gun firing .50 BMG: obviously short recoil (and long recoil) operation is not inherently limited in the size of the cartridge that can be used. I will note that while most pistols are short-recoil operated, and the Browning M2 is far from unique in being large caliber short-recoil operation (e.g. Browning M1919 fires .30-06 which is a full powered rifle round), there's a notable lack of recoil (short or long) operated weapons between pistols and machineguns.

There are examples, including the Chauchat (long-recoil operation, 8mm Lebel rifle round), the Remington Model 8 (long-recoil operation, .25-.30 cal), Remington Auto-5 (long-recoil operation, shotgun), M1941 Johnson Rifle (short-recoil .30-06 rifle round). It is absolutely possible to design a short-recoil operation pistol firing, for example, .50 AE. The reason the Desert Eagle uses gas-operation is likely - but I cannot find any reputable source, and most of the internet is now regurgitating the misinformation here - for reasons of cost, weight, size, or reliability. This is not that same as being necessary, as the article suggests. The article really needs to explain the design considerations driving the selection of gas-operation over short-recoil and remove the misleading suggestion that short-recoil cannot be used for rounds like .44 Magnum or .50 AE. 114.198.23.97 (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IMI Desert Eagle. 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/20080709041335/http://www.magnumresearch.com/Desert_Eagle.asp to http://www.magnumresearch.com/Desert_Eagle.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IMI Desert Eagle. 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/20131022124056/http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/isr/desert-eagle-e.html to http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/isr/desert-eagle-e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Desert Eagle. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   14:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

IMI Desert Eagle → Magnum Research Desert Eagle – Magnum Research is the sole brand name under which it is and always has been sold. It is also the primary designer, and, as of 2019, the only manufacturer. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not just move it back to Desert Eagle? That redirects here already, and I think it has always led to this article (except for a period of about 13 hours in 2014). Before an undiscussed move in 2010, that was the name of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also move it to Desert Eagle, which solves the designer problem and is the most common name. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, and something I considered before posting the requested move. This is one of those rare cases where the model designation is a stronger brand name than the manufacturer, which means the latter is often omitted. However, while for example anyone who knows anything about cars will call a Ford Mustang simply a Mustang in colloquial speech, its page is (rightfully, in my opinion) named Ford Mustang and not Mustang (automobile) or something similar. According to the WikiProject advice, it is the norm to include the manufacturer in the article title, the only exception being weapons known by their military designation. I don't see a reason to deviate here. Also, it is quite common for industry publications (such as this one and this one ) to include "Magnum Research" in the name. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * IMI Magnum Desert eagle black.jpg