Talk:Ruger P series

Merge proposal from Ruger P97
I think Ruger P97 should be removed and redicted here. - RevRagnarok 02:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, with one caveat. The P97 article contains a table with specifications (size, weight, capacity) and I'd like to see that table moved before P97 goes away, and tables provided for the other P series models as well.  scot 13:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that information is just taken directly from Ruger's web site, which is a reference at the bottom. It might take a good chunk of work to copy it for every model, and if we did, it may be a copyright issue...? - RevRagnarok 00:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that a list of specifications is really copyrightable; but that point aside, yes it would be a bit of work to gather all the specs together, but all the info should be on Ruger's website. Perhaps a 2-D table would be best--then not only is the info more compact and readily readable, but you work around potential copyright issues by using a far different format.  Maybe something like:

etc. for weight, capacity, length, etc. I can get some specs for out of production models (the P-85, P-91, P-93) from the Blue Book. Things like safety/decock/DAO, finishes (blue, SS, two-tone), availability of pitcanny rail can be noted in an "options" row, as can the CA and MA approved status. scot 01:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you can make tables without HTML tho with vertical bars...

I have a mat that a dealer would put on top of a glass display case to show the model without scratching the glass... picked it up off eBay a while back... it has P89-KP95, so anything newer wouldn't be on it. Has all the info I listed above. - RevRagnarok 02:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming Issue
Shouldn't this page be retitled "Ruger P Series". Afterall, other manufacturers use a "P" prefix for their pistol models as well: Walther, HK, SIG, etc. --D.E. Watters 23:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It probably should be. The reason it is named as it is, I had created articles that referenced "P series" pistols and created links, and I just filled in the blank article.  It'd be easy to change the links, there aren't many.  On the other hand, Rugers are the only make I've heard refered to generically as "P series", so it might be worth keeping "P series" as a redirect.  scot 13:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it "D" or "DC"?
My Ruger is stamped P89DC, as it is the decocker variant. Is is D or DC for the decocker?--BohicaTwentyTwo 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "DC" on the guns, as you've seen, but "D" in the Ruger catalog, such as: http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=3072&return=Y  scot 17:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought I wrote it pretty clearly in the article... ;) "However, many catalogs put DC instead of D, incorrectly listing the previous example as KP95DC or even P95DC w/SS slide. This confusion likely stems from that model's slide being stamped P95DC, but Ruger's official web site and catalogs use only the "D" suffix. " -- RevRagnarok 02:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I proposed unofficially merging P97 in a long time ago. Now I'm better at this and know how to do it proper. ;) So I'd like some comment on merging in P89 and P97. There's not much there that isn't here now. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think the individual articles can be dispensed with now. The one possible exception would be an article for the P-345 (such article does not, to my knowledge, exist) because the P-345 is significantly different than the other P series guns.  scot 15:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree, as mentioned previously above I believe the separate articles provide more in depth information -- why should a reader be forced to wade through several pages of other information to attempt to find some particular detail that can quickly be presented on an individual page? I believe this desire to merge reflects bias on the part of authors; I am not in favor of mc-monster pages. Doug 18:58, 1 Aug 2006 (EDT)


 * But at what point to you split the articles? Do you have separate articles for the P-85, P-85 MKII, and P-89?  Do you have different articles for the standard, decocker, and DAO models?  The Picatinny rail models?  What about the K- models?  Those articles would be 90% the same, and keeping them in sync would be very difficult.  Putting all the general information in one spot is not only more compact, but allows the reader to follow the evolution of the model line, something that is not possible with multiple articles.  Another argument in favor of putting the P-89 through P-97 together is that Ruger lumps all the aluminum framed models together; safety models into one manual, decockers into one, DAO into one. The P-95 Picatinny rail models (the only ones still in production) have safety and DC manuals, and the P-345 (which is functionally signficantly different) has safety and decocker manuals.  See http://ruger.com/Firearms/PS-InstructionManuals-PI.html for the list of manuals, including which lines are still in production and which aren't.  scot 03:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from, but for me it is just about readers finding their information; all sorts of different lumpings can be argued -- for my nickle the monster merged articles just aren't a fit. Doug 01:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think all the individual articles regarding the P-series ought to be merged because essentially they are just all variants of the original. Veritas Panther 08:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not too familiar with the P-series but if they are in fact variants of the P85, then yes, they should all be merged here. Koalorka (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks like old business. Yes, they are all product-improved P-85's.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Holy smokes, 2006! Koalorka (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

KP89X Variant?
There is/was a variant called the KP89X that was a convertible stainless steel model that was supplied with both 9x19mm and 7.65x21mm Parabellum (.30 Luger) barrels. Any thoughts of adding it to the table?-- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

civilian defensive use
The lead paragraph of the article asserts that this weapon is "designed for military, police, civilian self defense and recreational use". More is needed here to explain how the manufacturer can design a gun that is serviceable for defensive use but somehow will reliably fail when used by civilians for other purposes. Alternatively, the word "defensive", which certainly looks more like a subjective hope than a fact, should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter D'Eustachio (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your first statement is correct. I don't understand what your second statement means..could you please elaborate? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  19:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The phrase means, in plain English, that the gun has somehow been engineered so that it works when used by a civilian only if the civilian is using it for self-defense. Somehow, the gun won't work if the civilian tries to use it for some other purpose. That may be the manufacturer's hope, but it is not a proper use specification, so the "self defense" phrase should be (now, has been) deleted.Peter D&#39;Eustachio (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

P93 manufacture dates
Under "P93, P94 and P944" the article list the P93 production ending in "1994". While this may be true, the Ruger web site shows shipments through 2004, of both the DC and DAO models. The serial # listings given on Rugers site tend to support the P93 being manufactured through 2004. The above info can be confirmed on the Ruger web site, customer service drop down, Instruction Manual and Product History selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5DE:5510:9D43:AD19:C61:9E52 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

P345 Magazine Release
The P345 doesn't have a magazine release like the one described here. The P345's isn't ambidextrous and has to be operated from the left side of the weapon (push-in button like the M1911A1). Is that something that needs to be changed? Intothatdarkness 18:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edit
I recently added a Criminal use section which was quickly reverted with the explanation "There has not been any conses on talk page for this content." Please note that this has not been previously discussed on the Talk page and there is no requirement to seek consensus before adding content, however I will gladly discuss it here.

My opinion is that the use of a P89 in the Luby's shooting, which at the time was the deadliest mass shooting in US history, is significant and relevant part of the weapon's history. –dlthewave ☎ 17:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The content is cited and is relevant to the article. In addition, edit summaries such as "The Editor seems to be on a mission..." are not appropriate.
 * I restored the content; please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is highly controversial content. These editor are highly aware that this is controversial so to include this without a conversation is inappropriate. -72bikers (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored; "controversial" content is allowed as long as it's sourced to RS and meets WP:NPOV requirements, which was the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please be mindful of edit warring / WP:3RR and consider self-reverting. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assessment. You know all to well of the other talk page discussion on this controversial subject. I removed a heading that had only one short statement of a crime that happened almost 20 years ago. I fail to see how it brought any neutrality to the article. I do not see the importance of this edit other than the attempt to make criminal content inclusion on as many article as possible, and to make this the norm. The optics of this seem to be that one editor explained it should be excluded because this content is not on any other weapons article. I do not see how including every crime with a particular weapon has any merit of neutrality to that weapons article. There are article of this kind of content, so it is not like wiki is trying exclude this kind of content.


 * In the future please keep all conversation on the appropriate talk page. Also the optics of both of yours inclusions of my specific wording with grammatical errors seemed to be a attempt to belittle my.


 * Enjoy the rest of your holiday. Cheers-72bikers (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Criminal use
I fail to see how It brings any neutrality to the article and there by avoiding any consensus. There is no support that the crime committed 27 years ago using this particular weapon was any more deadly than any other simaler weapon.-72bikers (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one person does not a consensus make. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Before this information is added we should answer, is the gun noted for its use in this crime? That it was used in this crime doesn't mean we have sufficient weight for inclusion.  This was the consensus at project firearms and one that helps keep articles about a specific gun from turning into articles about what every crime someone cares to mention.  Since we are supposed to deliver weight from outside sorces, do we have sources about the gun that mention the crime?  If not I would say we don't have sufficient weight. Springee (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The gun and its characteristics were certainly relevant to the crime in question. Here are some GBooks snippets:
 * "Without warning, the gunman pulled from his canvas bag a Ruger P89 9mm semiautomatic pistol, a lightweight handgun known for its high velocity and accuracy, and started filling the air with gunfire."
 * "Police say Hennard also used a Ruger P89, expending six magazines that could have held as many as 96 rounds, before shooting himself in the head with his last bullet."
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First, it would be helpful if you include links. Second, are those books about the gun or the crime?  Consider if this wasn't a gun article would we mention the crime?  Here is a long, well subscribed RfC that asked that question and the response was heavily against inclusion.  []. This isn't like the AR-15 topic where lots of sources are talking about the user of AR-15s in crimes and the media widely makes the connection.  I'm guessing your links would be articles about the crime that just say what type of gun was used.  Do we have an article about the gun that mentions its use in this crime? Springee (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm following; firearms are not automobiles so I don't think that the RfC you are citing is applicable. Here's another snippet: Gun Culture or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society, by Peter Squires, discussing the characteristics of P89 that enabled the perpetrator to fire 30 rounds in two minutes. Not sure if this is about Luby's shooting or another crime (possibly another, the 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the RfC is relevant. Yes, one is about cars the other is about guns.  Let's abstract from that.  In both cases we have a serious crime that was committed with a "tool".  In one case, a Ford F-600 truck bomb, in the other a pistol.  The RfC was clear the truck page need not mention the second most deadly domestic terrorist attack in US history (even eclipsing the Vegas mass shooting in loss of life).  So why does something change when we change the tool?  In both cases we have news articles that mention what type of truck/gun was used.  In both cases there wasn't anything unique to the gun/truck that made it essential for the crime to succeed.  Sure, you couldn't replace the medium duty truck with a Honda Civic nor could you replace the Ruger with a single shot bolt action .22.  But you could replace either with a similar truck/gun and the crime would have been just the same.  Your last link takes about the characteristics of the P89 that enabled 30 shots in 2 minutes.  Are those characteristics in any way unique to that gun?  Sounds like a standard 9mm pistol to me.  In both automotive cases articles about the tool don't mention the crime.  We say WP:WEIGHT is the core criteria for inclusion.  Well weight said the F-600 sources don't talk about the crime thus we shouldn't either (same with the Chevy Caprice articles).  Do we have Ruger P-series articles that talk about the crime?  Not articles about crime or the crime, an article about the gun?
 * For a while I've been considering posting a question about, if you will, weight reciprocity. That is the if A is significant to B, is B significant to A?  Suppose I meet the Pope and he inspires me to do significant things in my local community, things that make my name and actions WP:NOTE.  Now I have an article about me :D  Does that mean we should add my story to the Pope's page (JIC, disclaimer, I have no page and have never met the Pope)?  If a serial killer is inspired by Manson do we add that killer's information to the Manson page?  This is the idea I want to explore.  I do think it applies to gun articles because we seem to have two schools of thought, one is if the crime is WP:NOTE then the gun's use should be mentioned in the gun article page.  The other is mention if an association has been made, thus if RS about the gun mention the crime as part of the gun's history then include it.  We see this with the AR-15 and Tommy gun.  I don't see that here (it may be the case but the evidence hasn't been presented). Springee (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that you may have it backwards. The article about the *Pope* (i.e. mass shooting) already mentions *me* (the firearm). It stands to reason that *my* article would mention the Pope and how it was that I was important enough to include in Pope's article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not backwards. Going back to the Oklahoma bombing article, it's clear that the Ford F-600 was a critical part of the bombing and is mentioned in the article about the bombing.  However, it was agreed by overwhelming consensus that the bombing wasn't significant to the truck.  Any suitable truck could have been substituted.  Consensus said it didn't stand to reason that the less significant article, the F-600, would mention the bombing.  This is actually a concept that I think could make for a good essay since I'm sure this sort of back and forth happens in areas other than just guns. Springee (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, the discussion we are having is exactly why the project firearms wrote the guideline about when crimes should or shouldn't be added to a gun article. You and I are both making reasoned arguments and given the large number of basically identical cases of crimes added to a gun article this sort of discussion would be repeated extensively.  This is why people were right to create the guideline and why we should be addressing it vs having debates on each article page.  Springee (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Springee I think you went far more deeply than needed. Editor K.e.coffman's argument has only been that this weapon was far more deadly than any other simaler gun. This is absurd to anyone that knows anything about guns. This gun is not even a custom gun, it is just a middle of the road average gun. There is nothing in the guns article that would lead the reader to believe that this weapon is notable for some extreme accuracy or that it has some extreme bullet capacity.


 * His argument so far is just based soley on 3 points that hold no weight "a lightweight handgun known for its high velocity and accuracy", "expending six magazines", "P89 that enabled the perpetrator to fire 30 rounds in two minutes". The weight of the gun is just average to other similar guns at 32 oz. Also this would contradict itself by saying "lightweight and more accuracy" in that lightness would only create more muzzle rise and therefore would be less accurate, especially in rapid fire. Velocity is determined by the ammo not the gun. The gun would have only limited impacted with some extreme length or shortness of barrel. This gun has a very average barrel size. There is nothing in this article that would lead the reader to believe this weapon is by far any more accurate than any other similar gun. And I am sure I could dig up some review by Guns & Ammo to confirm this. The point that he made that the police sated he (mentally insane psycho) expended six magazines has no bearing in notability that this is any standout defining uniqueness. In fact this would only strengthen the argument that the AR15 is any more deadly than a average handgun. His point of argument of "30 rounds in two minutes" is also no standout as this is a extremely long time to expend 30 rounds as by comparison  I am sure a competitive shooter could have fired all of 90 rounds used in that time.


 * Most of what he has cited is just some writers peacockery of trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I believe as most other with any common sense that what truly should be addressed is the mental heath  and not wasting efforts to condemn some tool. Next they will be saying because some psycho wore some model of nike's at the time, he was any more agily or any more quick of step. Were does it end? 72bikers (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No reply to the issues I have brought up?-72bikers (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You Have not shown that the reason for your content inclusion to be valid. You also have not won consensus by not compromising in any way. Are your opinions more important than facts? You have also started other headings in what would appear a effort to avoid this conversation. 72bikers (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not shown a valid reason for the removal. Repeatedly making the same point is not going to help achieve consensus. I already linked to WP:NPOVN to bring this issue to the wider audience. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You have still failed to address any of the point I have made about your reasons for inclusion are not valid. You also have failed to comprise in any way, this would be a failure of any consensus as well. -72bikers (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Truck bomb vs firearm
The difference between the Oklahoma city bombing situation and a mass shooting is that a weapon (bomb) was placed inside a truck, to weaponise it, creating a "truck bomb", also known as a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED). P89 did not need to be weaponised to carry out a crime; it's already a firearm / weapon. That's why I don't believe that the RfC you are citing applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I would say it doesn't apply since WP:OSE but I don't think your logic holds. Consider the Chevy Caprice that was used in the DC area sniper attacks.  That was the other part of the RfC in question.  Again a strong consensus against inclusion.  What you are trying to do is argue that despite that in both the truck and the P-series article we don't have RS's about the article subject making the connection we should make it in the gun case but not in the other case because, well one is a gun and the other isn't.  That means we are applying a level of subjectivity here.  Perhaps that's the right thing to do but call it a subjective call.  Springee (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus
Re: "No reply to the issues I have brought up?-72bikers (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)" -- there does not appear to be a consensus that the material should be excluded. To bring the matter to the wider audience, I would suggest posting to WP:NPOVN (Neutral Point of View Noticeboard). --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * adding ping. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to include it, and more of one to not include it. Yoo have not shown or disproved any of the rebuttals to your points. Ass the controversial content is recently added would it not be appropriate to first come to some neutral middle ground first. -72bikers (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and "controversial material" can be included if reliably sourced. I also fail to see how one section would create an NPOV / balance problem. I've already suggested WP:NPOVN; this would be an appropriate venue to seek more input on the matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to include it, and more of one to not include it. Where might we find the consensus you referred to? –dlthewave ☎ 19:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail - uncited or self-cited; unneeded self-citations". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Will you not address the content under the discussion of criminal use. You have no consensus to include the content, but fail to remove it. Can you show were you think the consensus is? You have not shown or disproved any of the rebuttals to your points. You have now induced a error in citation and removed sourced content with your knee-jerk action.-72bikers (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the broken reference. K.e.coffman's removal of overly-detailed material was appropriate, and editors do not need to seek consensus before boldly adding or removing. Do you have any concerns with the content? –dlthewave ☎ 18:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I was clearly stating the criminal content that has not been addressed above. -72bikers (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Users section ...
This could use a clean up and placed into regular format.-- Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 03:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)