Talk:WASR-series rifles

Untitle
I added a section for the GP WASR-10. Does anybody know how to change the title of this article? I think we should make this article for all WASR series guns, since we already have the WASR-10 and GP WASR-10. There's also the WASR-2 and WASR-3 rifles we can add. Eric Ashford

Once you have made a certain number of edits (about 100) you can "move" an article. In the mean time I can move the article for you - what should the new title be ? WASR series rifles ? Megapixie 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good title. Thanks :) Eric Ashford
 * I have moved the article. Edit away. Megapixie 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Images
I added a picture of a single stack WASR-10. Ashinn11 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted importance?
The WASR is one of MANY commercial clones of the AKM. I don't see why this model should have its own page. Proposing merge into AKM or other suitable articles. Koalorka (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can think of at least a couple of reasons for the WASR to have its own page-- 1. Wide availability/cheap price, 2. Quality control issues particular to this rifle. I do understand where you're coming from, however. Perhaps a separate article on commercial/civilian-model Kalashnikov clones organized by country is in order.--SmashTheGlass (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jams/FTF on WASR-3 and mag well issues on WASR-10
Says due to mag problems. Isn't it just as likely the problem is with the feed ramps? This is often a problem with non 5.56 platforms converted to 5.56/.223 (especially a weapon designed for tapered rounds accepting non-tapered rounds). Maybe someone with better knowledge could assist here?

Also, as to WASR-10 tight mag fits being a problem with poorly re-milled wells, this is true, but sometimes the mag wells are over-milled, causing the opposite problem (loose fit/wobble). --SmashTheGlass (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WASR-10 in the Mexican Drug War
To further improve this article, it should take some of the facts made in this PBS special on gunrunning into account- gunrunners to Mexico

84.238.73.113 (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See the WikiProject Firearms guidelines. The information in question isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article. ROG5728 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WASR meaning
What does the abbreviation WASR mean? Can somebody post it. 98.209.165.202 (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It means wassenner arangement semiauto rifle.

God bless my rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.2.232 (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

do current-production rifles still have chrome-lined barrels?
As of early 2014 we are beginning to see some rifles in the US marked WASR10/63 which have non-laminated wood stocks and which do not show chrome lining at the muzzle. Are these rifles chrome-lined? Does anyone have any definitive answers? It is already known that some Kalashnikov pattern rifles imported by Century lack this rather important feature. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.169 (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on WASR-series rifles. 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/20160112071239/http://roman-forums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75 to http://roman-forums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75

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 21:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on WASR-series rifles. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20050728145010/http://www.gunsnet.net:80/Linx310/model.htm to http://www.gunsnet.net/Linx310/model.htm

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) 23:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Why Can't I Find The Calibre?
I had to look carefully through the topics to find the calibre of the WASR. Why isn't there a short summary of the specs like calibre, barrel length, etc., at the beginning of the article?

Thank you from a loyal fan of, and donor to the best reference source in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.204.132.93 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Removing Irrelevant Information
Upon browsing this article, I've found that people keep adding information about the WASR-10 being used to kill people in El Paso. This information does not belong in a general history section of the page. If you want to introduce that information, that's fine, but create a separate controversy tab. The first section of every firearm page shouldn't scream out, "LOOK HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE DEAD NOW, FIREARMS ARE EVIL". Generally speaking it can already be inferred that a firearm of any type has at one point been used kill human beings. That was the original intention after all. I'm just looking for general design history of the WASR-10, not the controversy. Please refrain from reposting that information in that section. ~RB

UPDATE: Added "Controversy" section for controversial information to reduce argumentative edits to the page. Please use that section and cite your sources if you wish to mention events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.173.74 (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC) 0cean faux (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to the stable version per WP:BOLD. On the information, it's an independently notable incident that is part of the history of the weapon. Moreover, what you're looking for isn't the same thing as what other people may be looking for. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

2/3/2021 Yes, but instead of putting that information inside the general description, it should be noted in a separate category. The information should be available, but it is not important in that section of the article. It deserves it's own section for people that are specifically looking for that information. General reference material should not include events unless the firearms is specifically and commonly known for that event. The Wasr-10 is not notable because it was used in a shooting, it's notable because it's a widely popular firearm and one of the first firearms imported after the sunset of the 1996 AWB. The shooting it was involved with also does not relate directly to the design, history, or import of the weapon. The inclusion of this information in that section is more a political move than an informative one. For exaggeration sake I'll propose a similar situation. Consider a scenario where you're reading an article about German chocolate cake. You get to the end of the general description and history of the cake maybe some ingredients, and last last sentence of the general information is "Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse-tung, and Stalin all loved and endorsed German chocolate cake". Yes that might be true, it might also be comical, but that information doesn't belong in the general description and history of German chocolate cake. Hitler, Mao, and Stalin loving German chocolate cake is not relevant specifically to the history and baking of German chocolate cake, it's an aside.

Reverted to "Controversy" tab. 0cean faux (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)r
 * And I've reverted to the stable revision per WP:BRD. Part of the WASR-10's history is its use in this mass shooting. By moving the information to a different section (and calling it a controversy? A mass shooting is now a mere "controversy"?), you're obscuring that history. Alternatively, I'm open to renaming the current section "Design and manufacture" and retitling the shooting section as "history." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not obscuring history, It's categorizing it properly. The information is not being removed, it's simply being moved to a more specific location. The issue is the political presentation of the information. While relevant, the use in a mass shooting is not integral to the history of the firearm. Unsurprisingly, all guns have been used to kill people at some point. Labeling the subtext "Uses" implies that this is the only use, which is simply not the case. It's a general purpose rifle, used for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. If we're attempting to be totally unbiased in the presentation of the information, we supply information and nothing else, but we're not trying to send a message in the description. The "Controversy" tab allows for presentation of possibly politically motivated information to be posted, but uncensored. If you'd like I could post positive alternative information in the controversy section as well, as the positive events of the use of the rifle generally outweigh the negative events. Picking an choosing what parts of the rifle's history are relevant for political purposes is not really being unbiased though. We ought to separate that information out into it's own category. 0cean faux (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First, please follow the established WP:BRD cycle; we're currently in "D". Second, please assume good faith and don't assume political motivations on my part. Third, I haven't proposed "uses" as a section name; I've proposed "design and manufacture" for the section that is currently titled "history." Last, its use in a mass shooting is now integrally linked with this gun, as even a brief perusal on Google News shows, and should be listed in the history section of this article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Google is not the end-all be-all, especially when it comes to firearms history and technology. Frankly, they're quite anti-gun in that respect. Google is a political entity in it's own right, and does take anti-gun stances. Good faith can't be assumed when you're fairly open about your distaste for the rifle as well. It would be similar to a person who hates cats writing about cats. Your interest is just never going to be good faith about it. Life isn't based on Google trends. 0cean faux (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to respond to the last half of your message, as you're blatantly assuming bad faith on my part. Setting that aside, Wikipedia operates on what reliable sources say; my reference to Google News was shorthand for "there are a plethora of reliable sources that discuss the WASR-10 in the context of the El Paso mass shooting" (plus, as I've just discovered, a few focusing on its use in Mexico's drug war). Can we compromise on "notable incidents"? See the edit I've just made. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can live with that, Yeah I do assume bad faith on your part, the changes made are acceptable. My biggest issue is the integration of event usage in the the general history of the rifle. You can have a section for that, but the "Use" part of the original configuration is simply misleading. It's use is general purpose, not mass murder.0cean faux (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. As you're a newer editor, I might advise stepping back and having a think about your approach to Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is built upon assuming good faith and coming to a consensus. In fact, it's the fourth of our foundational five pillars. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I made the account specifically to deal with unfair representation of firearms. I have no qualms about information being available, but I care specifically about making sure it's presented in a fair light. The current config is fair, the previous was not. Simple as that. I'll be keeping tabs on this article and others like it. People who do not own the object in question are probably not the optimal source of information. 0cean faux (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)