User talk:Koalorka/Archive 1

WikiProject Firearms
Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 23:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope you enjoyed my SG 550 article. More accurate articles to follow time permitting. Koalorka 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Rk 95 TP edits
OK dude, why the hell are you undoing my edits without giving a reason all the time. Some corrections I want to make without you undoing them:

- The Rk 95 buttstock does NOT fit any kind of cleaning equipment or kit, only a 3-piece cleaning rod that you screw into a hole. - At the effective range I would expect the effective range in meters, not what the sights are "graduated" for. That info is for the "sights" section, where (to top it off) it is already stated! The effective range is 300 meters as stated by the Finnish Defence Forces' Soldier's Handbook. - The sights are not "flip-up" like BUI sights, but they are selected by flipping. Why don't you mention the night sights at all? The settings are 1) open night sight 2) 150m aperture 3) 300m aperture. The front post does not have a tritium insert, there is a separate bigass flipup front post with tritium behind the front post. And you call the rear sight "L-shaped"? LOL, nice description, I have trouble visualizing what you mean even when I've flipped and cleaned that goddamned sight about 1000 times. - Where did you get the idea that an underslung grenade launcher can be fitted? There is a mock-up picture of an Rk/M92 with an m203 going around the Internet, but it is just a mock-up, you can't remove the mag when it's mounted. The FDF has never to my knowledge even tested the RK with an underslung GL, much less approved one for use. - synthetic vs. metal stock and usage in FDF, whatever. There is lots more small stuff (mostly semantics) that I won't start arguing about.

Merry Christmas.

edit: I'm blankku btw.


 * Hello. Effective range can be interpreted as any range at which the rifle can be used to engage and destroy targets. So as you can imagine this leaves it open to many inaccuracies. Some see the range as the maximum range the bullet remains letal for a human being, others estimate the average combat distance. These are subjective and it is best simply to include the desikgner's intejust nded ranges incorporated into the sight system. This is a standard we use, information about the type of sighcheck out WikiProject Military history for standardized templates. The "sights" sections contains ting arrangement, not their range increments.


 * Yes, I know what the sights are, and yes they would be considered "flip-up". Is english your native language? We call an L-shaped dual aperture "flip-up" sights and it is correct. WHAT ABOUT THE NIGHT SIGHTS?! Did you even read the article? Here it is again:

"The rifle comes with adjustable iron sights, that consist of a forward post and an L-shaped dual-aperture rear sight with settings for firing at 150 and 300 m. The front sight, manually corrected for windage and elevation, is mounted in a semi-shrouded post on top of the gas block, and the rear sight – on the receiver’s top cover. For operation in low-lighting conditions subdued self-luminous tritium inserts are used, installed in a separate, folding post (mounted to the base of the foresight post, deployed manually) and in the rear sight an assembly in a fixed notch sight (mounted forward of the aperture sight), visible after placing the rear aperture in intermediate position. Additionally the rifle can be adapted to use optical sights (i.e. a Trijicon ACOG, PSO-1 telescopic sight or night vision equipment such as the Patria VV2000 sight), through the use of a receiver-mounted side-rail. A detachable cheek riser is employed when using optics."

As you can clearly see it contains accurate information about the iron and night sights, so I don't know where you are coming from with this....

The rear sight is actually referred to as an "L" shaped dual aperture in the ENCYCLOPEDIA I used for reference. Perhaps you are better versed in firearms nomenclature than the editors at Janes, what would you propose?


 * The manufacturer states that a grenade launcher can be mounted and just because the Finnish forces doesn't use this configurations doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not possible.

Semantics? You reverted and called the stock synthetic, which is incorrect. Please don't include false information and then simply shrug it off as "semantics". Research your facts before you include them and state sources. First-hand experience is irrelevant, there is no original research on Wikipedia. Koalorka (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

- OK, blankku here again.

1) Yeah, I estimate it as the average effective combat distance, as I hope most militaries or reasonable people do, as we're talking about a military weapon. "Range" and "max range" are two different terms and both included in the infobox. Whatever, Wikipeida standards seem to be retarded anyway. 2) No, English is my third language. So? "L-shaped sight" is a stupid term. 3) I am talking about including it in the infobox. The part you cited is wrong anyway, the night sights aren't visible in an "intermediate" position, the progression is 1) night sight 2) 150 m 3) 300 m. If it's some Wikipedia "standards" again, OK, whatever, you win.

"Perhaps you are better versed in firearms nomenclature than the editors at Janes, what would you propose?"

What? I would propose what I edited it to, of course? It don't know if it's perfect but it's certainly better than some "L-shaped sight".

Do you have a citation for the Russian PSO-1 being used on the Rk 95 TP? Even if you do, why would you use it as an example? This rifle is only used by the FDF, this is why I included the part about FDF usage.

An underslung "40 mm" grenade launcher can possibly be nailed or glued to any firearm in the world, why should it be included in the article? I have never seen such a config fully implemented and I am very interested in any refence to this statement. If you don't have any real-life reference to it, if you don't I would at least expect the article to state that this config is hypothetical.

The Rk 95 TP buttstock will NOT fit anything other than the 3-piece cleaning rod and some sand. This is a fact, I don't have any Internet source for it though.

"Semantics? You reverted and called the stock synthetic, which is incorrect."

It is coated in some kind of polymer/plastic, so just calling it "metallic" is incorrect. I admit I was as wrong as you about this one, a compromise like "polymer-coated metal" would be more correct.

I am also really interested in the possibility of mounting "KCB-type bayonet", do you have a citation for this? I am serious, in FDF we are told that it isn't compatible with a bayonet (I assume standard FDF issue, ie. Rk 62) but I don't know what SAKO says. The rifle can be fed from other mags than the polymer ones btw, for example metal and drum mags, just to be clear.

Merry late-night christmas, - blankku


 * Again, effective distance is too wide an interpretation that's why we chose to go with the factory sight settings as an indicator of effective range.


 * "Stupid" term? Are you calling native english speaking firearms experts stupid? The "L-shaped" is used in literature like Janes and Soldier of Fortune....

I will research the sight system setup on the Rk 95, and include possible changes if I find it incorrect.

The PSO-1 reference was in the Encyclopedia of Modern Small Arms, published by Bellona which is affiliated with a military research institute. They probably used information from SAKO itself, so it is not fabricated I can assure you. The Finns use the PSO-1 sight so SAKO must have included the option to use it I can only assume. Same goes for the information about the M203, it is information from the manufacturer, so it is relevant.

Regarding the stock, I didn't use the term metallic, it is a metal tubular stock, you called it synthetic which is entirely incorrect. Even if it is coated in vinyl or somekind of plastic it is still a metal design, so I was correct all along.

The bayonet information comes from the same Encyclopedia, if you look at the gas block, it contains a bayonet lug used to mount a bayo.

Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

- Lol, don't research the sight setup man, I was thinking drunk, the night sights are of course in the intermediate position. Yeah, "L-shaped sight" is a stupid term, but fine, whatever, I can understand the need to use standards. It is only really vaguely L-shaped. You should refer to that encyclopedia generally in the article though, it has no references as is. I still think calling it a metal stock is misleading. You called it "metal" (material) and "tubular" (shape) with no mention of the polymer, sounds pretty metallic to me. OK, calling it polymer is just as incorrect. It has a really thick layer of the same (?) polymer as the handguard and pistol grip on it. But yeah, I don't want to move into wiki standards territory.

Some info about the receiver-mounted siderail: A small strip of rail (not picatinny-style) is attached to the left side of the receiver with three screws, and to that either a VV 2000 mount or a smaller Aimpoint/ACOG mount can be attached (those are the mounts that I know of and have personally seen, anyway), so the sights aren't really directly "mounted on a siderail".

OK, bayonet, grenade launcher and PSO-1 sight, if SAKO says so then fine, include it, I just think it's funny that those configs have never to my knowledge been used in the real world or even approved by the FDF. I know you are thinking standards and I understand that, but for your knowledge the Rk 95 isn't going to any other users than the junkyard, only a few thousand were manufactured 96-97 (IIRC) and the production capability was dismantled. Worn-out Rk 95 are already being salvaged for their buttstocks and fire selectors to upgrade Rk 62s, as a weapon it's pretty dead outside of the relatively new Picatinny rail gas block attachment.

You're obviously more knowledgeable than me on wikipedia standards so I'll leave it up to you if you want to make any changes. From what I've seen in this article they're pretty crap though. Oh and admit the error in the "cleaning kit" bit, the buttstock will only accept one specific type of 3-piece cleaning rod, nothing else. Like the PKM with its oil brush.

Cheers.

edit: My detective work revealed a pretty glaring inaccuracy I think (Jesus christ I really have nothing better to do): The "k" in "Rk 95 TP" should be capitalized! Both the Finnish Defence Forces site here: http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/index.dsp?level=63&equipment=38 AND the Finnish Defence Forces Soldier's Handbook 2006 page 92 capitalize it. I'm not sure but IIRC the FDF small arms handbook does it too. Isn't the rifle really called the SAKO M95 or something and the RK is the FDF designation. I've heard the name M95 somewhere but I don't know. I think it's funny that you don't want to include my section about FDF usage and tie everything to manufacturer statements if you are using the military designation anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blankku (talk • contribs) 09:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

- blankku —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blankku (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

SIG SG 550 accuracy
I found an elaborate web source on this assault rifle series which also deals with accuracy. The stated accuracy requirements are strict for a military assault rifle. I personally doubt if most normal soldiers are capable of shooting sub 1.3 MOA groups at 300 m outdoors. This kind of accuracy can only be exploited by well trained marksmen. The 10 shot GP90 10 cm at 300 m claim you removed can be found on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_550. This is the Wikipedia SIG SG 550 article in German, but it does not state any external reference on that. Since lots of Swiss people are native German speakers and lots of Swiss reservists have a SG 550 and an emergency supply of GP90 rounds at home the German article version is quite elaborate. A reference on the Swiss Guard current service arms was easily found. Brazilian use of the SG 550 series I could not verify. It is mentioned in the German article version but without a reference. Francis Flinch 10:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I do appreciate you taking this up here but any sort of claims about accuracy will always be subjective, a lot of manufacturers make claims about their factory approval testing and such, but I don't think this should be included in an encyclopedic, technical article. Accuracy can vary widely with the different ammunition, shooting techniques, grouping methods etc. In fact I own a civilian SG 550 hence my interest in maintaining a high standard, it is accurate, however my 24" AR15 (M16) is even more accurate and consistent, and the AR15 is a variant of the M16 service rifle, so again, I think it pointless to include this in the article as it will create debate and eventually the article will be reduced to a sorry state, resembling more a discussion forum for couch commandos rather than dry factual information. Thanks. Koalorka 01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

SIG SG 552 edits
Please take the time to read through my edits rather than reverting them out of hand. I gave a reason for each edit and they were, in no way, meant to remove content, only to trim redundant or unsourced content. If you're going to be a member of the community, please discuss this stuff. I don't generally revert somebody's edits if they have an established editing record. Talk about it before you revert GOOD edits which aren't overt vandalism or incorrect.--Asams10 06:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did read carefully through your edits and that's why I chose to revert them. Your edits were either incorrect or removed valid content such as the fact the SG 552's bolt carrier is integrated with the gas piston directly and it is a carbine class weapon. You seem unfamiliar with the AK series. The AK-47 is part of the AK family, and referring to the general family as only the AK-47 is incorrect. Please refrain from further edits before backing up your facts. Thank you. Koalorka 19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

1) You think my figures are incorrect? You're wrong.  2) You seem completely ignorant of basic facts, such as the fact that the AKM and AK-47 share identical bolt carrier assemblies and, if you had ever handled the two side-by-side, you'd know this. 3) You are also completely ignorant of the world view of Wikipedia. Metric entries should be supplemented by American figures.  Heck, even SIG does this in their English language manuals. 4) SIG describes it as the "SIG SG 552 COMMANDO" in their literature. If you don't like my edits, ask for a mediation.--Asams10 03:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Add imperial measurements to the article, but use the data table. Wikipedia does not require every single technical article to have a series of 15 outdated or no longer used measurement units with every description. There's a worldwide system called SI. 2) You seem extraordinarily ignorant to some basic facts about the AK series and this is evident in the chaotic AK-47 entry. The AKM features some significant changes in the bolt/carrier assembly compared to the AK-47, if you'd like a list of these changes, I'd be glad to get back to you with that. 4). SIG does not exist. Which entity are you referring to? SIGArms Inc. of Exeter, NH? BTW, are you an airsofter? Koalorka 05:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I did add the measurements, you REVERTED THEM. There is nothing outdated about an inch, or do you think you're the only country in the world? Airsofter, no. Are you trying to insult my intelligence again? Yeah, list the changes to the AKM bolt carrier assembly from the AK-47 assembly. They are 100% interchangeable in my experience. Are you a bookworm? You don't seem to espouse any practical experience. We can continue to trade insults and barbs or you can relinquish ownership of this article and allow edits.--Asams10 06:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't own the article, it was a self-less contribution. Now what I don't like is lowering the quality of that stub to the abysmal state it was before. Your imperial measurements were included in the main body of the stub too, which seems pointless since they're already listed alongside the specs in the table. Practical experience? Those photos of the SG 552 in the gallery.... That's my personal SG 552. All I ask is you not bring the stub down to its previous state. If you have additional information by all means, use it to elevate stub, but your previous edit did seem pointless. Regards. Koalorka 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you have credentials. That's nice. I've got them too. The 550 series is derivative of the AK. That you doubt this clouds your credibility as an editor. Read this. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Now, having had the occassion to compare my AKM, my SG 551, a dealer's HK G36C, and an friend's FNC, I can say from firsthand experience that the FNC and SIG are CLEARLY derivative. The G36, however, is a completely different design based on the Armalite AR-18 (actually, unused Armalite patents). You love your gun, yes, but ownership of a firearm does not make you an expert on said firearm. The inch measurements stay as an aid to us 'rebels' and the AK reference stays. If you disagree, you'll lose in mediation. SIG??? Maybe not now, but then again, Ruger isn't Ruger either, it's "Sturm". Have a wonderful day.--Asams10 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The RPK is a derivative of the AK-47, as is the AK-74 and possibly even Galil or R4 (disputed). The SG 550 is NOT. An airsoft 551 copy that you own does not simulate the internals of a "real steel" as you call it SG 551. The SG 550's locking mechanism was loosely based on the AK concept but that's where the similarity ends. The gas system is dramatically different, as is the piston and recoil assembly layout. Two, totally divergent designs. Your insistence on this matter proves your ignorance ans stubbornness, while I'm committed to quality and fairness. I stand by my statement that you derive your information from questionable Google and internet sources. How about a solid reference backing up your claims about the SG 550's direct lineage from the AK? Saying the AK is a derivative of the AK is analogous to saying the AUG is related to the AR-15 as it is magazine-fed and gas-operated. Koalorka 18:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW you seem like an agitator as your past edit history and suspension indicate. Please abandon your personal frustration for the sake of fairness and quality. Thank you.Koalorka 18:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good tactic, when your logic is flawed and your position undefendable, attack the party you disagree with. You'd make a good politician. I'm obligated to warn you about the three revert rule and how you've violated it and you might want to stop. The RPK, by the way is a VARIANT of the AK-47, derivative is not a wholly correct term. Didn't I ask you if you were a native English speaker? It sounds like you have a poor technical grasp of the language and that might be the cause of your inability to contemplate that you could be wrong... you just might not understand. I'm out. It's your article. I'll be back to change it back as often as you revert my edits. Good luck. --Asams10 18:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So you're not going to dispute with "higher powers"? I thought your position was flawless, your superior reasoning and wit are self-evident, surly, I don't stand a chance.... BTW, you should know about the 3-revert rule, you've been suspended several times.... And thank you for the words of praise, you seem to emulate my "tactics" well, that is personal attacks after running out of reasonable arguments. Irony seems lost on you. Koalorka 20:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Higher powers? What are you talking about? And I didn't praise you at all (again, are you a native English speaker, you've never answered that?). --Asams10 03:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Rifles of Switzerland
Hello. To add an article to that category, all you need to do is add the tag to it. You should not also try to add the article link to the category page; the software will do that automatically. See, in general, Help:Category. Sandstein 05:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, thank you. Couldn't figure that out, cheers. Koalorka 05:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragunov article
I don't much like some of the work done on the SVD article recently. "Dragunov Sniper Rifle" is the most accurate translation of the rifle's name - "Dragunov SVD" is kind of redundant, much like "ATM Machine", even if it's a more popularly-encountered phrase on the internet.

My biggest complaints, however, are as follows.

Firstly, the image you posted is a Romanian PSL, also known as an FPK or Romak-3 depending on the source one takes. This is NOT actually a Dragunov rifle, per se - it's based on a Kalashnikov action and the furniture is different, while the Dragunov action is something of a hybrid between the Kalashnikov and Simonov actions (such as found on the SKS or PTRS). You can immediately tell the differences externally due to the Dragunov receiver's unique fire selector, as well as the shape of the area where the stock attaches. This is kind of ironic, actually, since the link to the PSL in the article specifically mentions that the PSL is often mistaken for an authentic Dragunov.

Secondly, the section on the Tigrs is gone. Giving that your average Wikipedian who would like to use one of these fine rifles would be much more likely to encounter a Tigr than the authentic Dragunov, it seems senseless to super-shrink the Tigr section and the useful comparison image.

Speaking of images, you'll have to forgive my cynicism, but, did you really make those images you've uploaded and inserted into the page? They look more like the kind of professionally-edited pictures used on online gun sites and shops, as opposed to a digital camera shot of a rifle in your own home or elsewhere. I know it's not good form to make such accusations, but it seems highly suspicious. Perhaps you'd care to upload a self-made image of just the PSO-1 scope for that section? It would put my mind to rest, among other things.

I'm not just going to start reverting articles I don't like for whatever reason, so I'd like to discuss this with you further before we start moving ahead in whatever directions there are. Thanks. MalikCarr 09:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, first off thanks for taking this up here prior to amending anything. I moved the entire page to Dragunov SVD as I disagree with the naming scheme chosen for the previous article, an accepted standard in military literature and even Wikipedia is the weapon's official, abbreviated military designation - SVD, just like we don't call the M3 submachine gun the full official US-government title "United States Submachine Gun, Cal. .45, M3" or the MP5 - Maschinenpistole 5, it is an official commercial or factory designation yes, and it is mentioned in the article, however this would require that we redefine and rename most military firearm designations, such as the PPS, PPsH, SVT-40, AK, AKM, AK-74 etc. and this is just for Soviet designed weapons.... Now, the chosen title "Dragunov SVD" I'm not satisfied with either, the page should simply be called SVD, but there is a disambiguation link page that carries this name and I'm not sure if I'm authorized to make such changes. But if you can find a way to simply call the page SVD, this would be correct and receive my full support.

Now regarding the photo, I do admit, I made a mistake posting the PSL picture, I realize that it is a divergent design and shares only a superficial, external resemblance with the SVD, I posted it as an interim solution until I could find a proper, higher-resolution photograph of an actual SVD. The photo is a personal property of a friend of mine who sells deactivated guns, he has access to a professional lighting arrangement and I do have his consent, in fact he supplied me with most of these photos. Your suspicions are reasonable. I'm also a licensed firearm owner, so I do occasionally photograph my own firearms for use here.

I agree with you on the Tigr, I will restore most of the content, since it was quite informative and include it into the variant section. I will also restore some of the other small snippets of information my article fails to mention, such as the naming and types of proprietary projectiles developed for the SVD. The only problem is, how do I access the previous page's history? Since this page was moved by simply copy/pasting the information into a blank page without transferring the corresponding history. Looking forward to further informative input! Cheers. Koalorka 17:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can field this one :) Search for "Dragunov Sniper Rifle" in the search box (without quotes, of course), and you will be redirected to the SVD article. However, a link to the redirect page will be at the top. Click that and then fish through the history for what you need-- it's how I changed the picture back. Jtrainor 19:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, move complete. I update the article with previous photos, which are good, but if someone can a find a higher resolution, clear background image of the SVD or SVDS, that would rock. Also included ammunition information as promised and linked the Tiger article. And I managed to successfully move the page under SVD without destroying any other pages. Looks pretty good know, let me know what else I can do. Koalorka 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being diplomatic about this! Usually this type of overture causes a messy edit war, so give yourself a pat on the back for being reasonable.
 * Anyway, the article looks more or less fine now - we have a proper image, and the article name is more logical. Now, if I were you, I'd put the line about "abbreviation of Snaiperskaya Vintovka Dragunova, or “Dragunov Sniper Rifle”" in the beginning of the article; maybe something like this: "The SVD (Russian: Снайперская винтовка Драгунова, Snaiperskaya Vintovka Dragunova), "Dragunov Sniper Rifle", is a 7.62 mm semi-automatic sniper rifle..." and so on. Given that the Soviet sniper concept more closely represents our own designated marksman setup, you may want to link to the designated marksman article when the text "sniper rifle" is used - this way we preserve the Soviet meaning of the text while still pointing Wikipedia users in the proper direction for follow-up research.
 * Another suggestion I'd posit would be the wording around the PSO-1 - though provided as a standard accessory, the SVD's side rail (can be considered a dovetail mount depending on whom you ask) can accept other Soviet accessories, such as a higher-magnification 8x and 9x scope. I'm not sure if it can mount reflex sights (such as the Kobra) designed for the Kalashnikov, but I think the rail is the same, so who knows. You can check out other Kalashnikov and Dragunov optics here: . My suggestion for the wording around the PSO-1 section would be something along these lines: "The rifle features mechanically adjustable iron sights with a sliding tangent rear sight (with a maximum 1200 m range setting), and is usually issued with a removable PSO-1 optical sight on a standard side rail mount (at a total length of..." and continue as is from there. I would mention that the most common 4x PSO-1 is not the only version, and ones with a higher magnification and relief are manufactured and used.
 * How's that sound? MalikCarr 00:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, that sounds pretty reasonable, I was planning on a Russian abbreviation, but had trouble placing it into the text, but you've pretty much nailed it. I believe there was a link to the DMR concept from the previous version, I don't think I got rid of that because I knew it illustrates the purpose of this rifle quite clearly, as a squad support weapon with extended range, rather than a pure "sniper" rifle, but I will entertain your idea. Will also amend the PSO-1 section to more accurately reflect the quick-detachable and modular nature of the mounting system. BTW feel free to add anything you might find my current version is lacking, this is a collaborative effort after all. Cheers. Koalorka 03:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not intend to start a dispute with you or anyone on maximal effective range of riflesystems, effective range for me being the maximum range at which a high probability exists to deliberately hit a point target and not a (manufacturer provided) maximum sighting range with optical sight.

Using a sight that is capable of aiming at a distance X does not automatically mean or guarantee the riflesystem to which it is paired can be practically employed at point targets at that distance. In daily life not only the sights of the riflesystem but also lots of other components like the employed ammunition and external and terminal ballistics govern its maximum effective range. Most .308-caliber sniper rifles using 7.62 x 51 NATO (this is the closest western equivalent to the cartridge the SVD uses) or more powerful .300 Winchester Magnum cartridges have maximum ranges stated in the 800 - 1200 m range in Wikipedia.

If you or anyone else can provide Doppler radar data of the SVD projectiles external ballistic behaviour (speed-range pairs and dispersion data) out to 1300 m, I and a probably lots of marksmen, engineers and scientists will be most interested in those figures. According to one of the best long range external ballistics simulation tools available for the general public (Prof. Pejsa’s external ballistics mathematical model) the 7N1 projectile fired at 830 m/s V0 has a supersonic reach of ≈ 940 m under standard atmospheric sea level conditions. Going subsonic is problematic, since around Mach 1 rifle projectiles normally exhibit dispersion problems, but maybe someone designed and produces .308-caliber projectiles for the SVD and proved in front of a Doppler radar that no transonic transition dispersion occurred.

A brief analysis of the PSO-1 telescopic sight manual learns that it sports a 1000 m range finding reticle and a bullet drop compensation (BDC) feature that compensates for bullet drop at different ranges in 50 m increments. When the BDC has reached its maximum range setting (850 m according to the manual, but that is ammunition and environmental and meteorological circumstances dependent) it offers additional chevron marks for extra long range usage in 100 m increments. Logic dictates that if the chevrons where intended for engaging point targets more chevrons would be needed because bullet drop between 1000 and 1300 m is significant (in the order of 14 m or 8 170 cm tall persons for 7N1 cartridges according to Pejsa’s external ballistics mathematical model).

All this does not mean that a SVD or similar riflesystem is not dangerous or useless at 1300 m. I only think that it is questionable if a capable marksman can consistently engage point targets at 1300 m with such a riflesystem. Shooting at area targets (harassment fire, etc.) up to 1300 m seems realistic for a capable marksman.

Note: The G1 ballistic coefficient (BC) used in the 7N1 projectile simulation was 0.498 found at 7.62x54r.net and the deceleration constant was set at its default value 0.5 due to my lack of actual test firing data. If this BC is correct this still makes a < 4 % deviation of the model simulation possible (BC’s are somewhat debatable).

Francis Flinch 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Koalorka, why'd you remove like half the edits I made to the article? I thought they were pretty good... MalikCarr 06:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not notice those were your edits at first, but was surprised to find some of that yours after receiving valuable information on editing the article form you. Not to offend you, but comparing the SVD's appearance to that of the SVT didn't quite seem like your typically high standard of editing. Koalorka (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just trying to make the article as comprehensive as possible. At any rate, it's been a while since I've reviewed my Hogg books, but I do believe the Dragunov has more in common in terms of gas system with the Simonov and Tokarev rifles than the Kalashnikov. Nevertheless, if you disagree, I won't push the point for the time being. I would like to revert my edits in the header about spelling and furniture, however. MalikCarr (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree about the commonality with the SVT, but neither did I mention in my article about it being influenced by the AK. It's a unique weapon in its own right and I think we should leave it at that. Koalorka (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure thing it's a unique weapon, but it's unique in the form of an amalgamation of existing designs with original components, and I think this ought to at least bear a passing mention, even if we're not going to name any specific guns. I'll fuck around with it a little later tonight, let me know your thoughts when we get there. MalikCarr 03:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And what firearm isn't an amalgamation of existing ideas and designs? I think it should stay as is in this regard and in other articles unless it has been confirmed that designers used a certain firearm as a specific model in their work. Koalorka 03:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess that's a valid point. I'll just bring up the topic of cosmetic similarities of the receiver and leave it at that, then. MalikCarr 22:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

M16 edits
Can you please explain your recent edit to M16. You removed "Service Rifle" from the description, yet it is still included as a "Service Rifle" in the Service Rifle article. I see no reason why it should have been changed. Thanks for your input. DAMurphy 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, well "service rifle" as a weapon class really has no meaning, it doesn't define the weapon it just indicates that it's operational with a particular force. The M1 Garand was also a service rifle, as was the German Mauser Kar 98k, obviously - completely different designs in terms of layout, design, intended use etc etc. I've seen this in several other US firearm articles, why? Cheers. Koalorka 04:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. That's fair.  I cannot disagree with that. Thanks DAMurphy 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 17:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Webley Revolver photo
Thanks for adding the image of the Webley Revolver to the article's page. I've had to revert it because the image you've supplied is actually a Webley Mk III in .38/200, which is a completely different handgun to the infobox's topic, the .455 calibre Webley Mk VI. It's an understandable mistake, as the various Webley revolvers do look very similar to each other. The image you've added to the Jungle Carbine article is excellent, however- great work, and thanks for contributing it! --Commander Zulu 08:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry. I was simply told that it was a Webley, not aware of the numerous variants, didn't mean to disrupt the fine article. If I find a proper photo I'll let you approve it first before I make any changes next time. Best regards. Koalorka 10:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not move articles without consulting with project members first
I know they like us to "Be Bold", but I'd greatly appreciate it if you refrained from moving articles without consulting with everyone at WPGUNS or WPMILHIST first- we decided some time ago that the designation for firearm calibres was "AxB (Name)", not "A x B mm (name)". For example, the cartridge 7.62x54R is so named because that's what it's called by almost everyone- NOT 7.62 x 54R mm (which makes no sense at all as a name, FWIW). Your enthusiasm is greatly appreciated, but it might be an idea in future to put changes up for discussion rather than just moving article names, especially as they're a major pain to get moved back to where they should be once they've been moved. --Commander Zulu 14:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, yeah sorry, should have brought that up first. AxB is OK I guess but you should at least include the metric measurement. I saw the debate regarding naming and sadly most of the people taking part in that are mistaken, therefore I can't really accept the consensus achieved. This should be revisited. I.e. the Soviet 7.62x39, nowhere have I seen this format to describe that particular ammunition. It's just wrong according to the template. It's either 7.62x39 mm or 7.62x39 mm M43. Koalorka 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The metric measurement is implied by the decimal point and the multiplication symbol- if we have 7.62x54Rmm, then we'd need to have .303" British, .45" Automatic Colt Pistol, and .577" Snider, which is patently silly and not how those calibres are referred to. Despite whether or not you personally think it's "correct", the fact is the rest of us all reached a consensus on the matter some time ago, and it's not appropriate for you to go around buggering up article names because you personally disagree with it. You're welcome to discuss the matter on the appropriate talk pages (preferably with the WPGUNS and WPMILHIST members as well), of course. As to you never having seen the calibre "7.62x39" referred to as such, I respectfully suggest you find some new reference texts- the only reliable reference using the "7.62 x 39 mm" format I have found is Jane's, who are very much in the minority. Every single reference text in my collection- from Ian Hogg to W.H.B. Smith to Ian Skennerton- uses the AxB format, without the "mm". Bear in mind Wikipedia is an international article, and isn't based purely on the way things are done in the US (where the Metric System is not the standard measurement system). I know you feel a lot of the people involved in the discussion were "Mistaken", but the people in the WPGUNS and WPMILHIST projects have a lot of knowledge on the subject- some of us have had works published on various firearms or history related subjects- so I don't think they're likely to be "Mistaken" as much as holding a viewpoint differing from yours. There's a few issues here I've had to accept I can't win on (like including the metric designations next to imperial cartridges, so you get ".303 British (7.7mm)" or ".45 ACP (11.4mm)" in some articles), so don't feel too bad- besides, WP would be a dull place without the occaisonal academic disagreement ;-) --Commander Zulu 04:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding SG 530 operation
Full Circle indicates that roller-delayed blowback applied to only the original SG 530 prototypes. In Small Arms of the World (12th Ed.), a photograph of a field stripped SG 530-1 shows what appears to be a separate gas piston and gas plug. SAotW, JIW (3rd Ed), and FC all specify that the use of gas operation/roller-locking in the SG 530-1 is a departure from the earlier SG 510. JIW and other sources indicate that the change was forced upon the designers by the poor performance of earlier 5.56mm prototypes modeled after the SG 510. D.E. Watters 21:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting twist in the 540's development. However, how does this system operate? If you're familiar with the mechanics behind a roller-locking delayed blowback system you'd find it hard to somehow make use of a gas system. Is the gas piston rod connected to the bolt carrier? If so, you don't need rollers to delay the breech since gas bled off through the gas tube will reduce the pressure inside the barrel and breech eliminating the need for rollers. This is where I'm confused. Would you be able to provide a photograph, I don't have access to Jane's IW. I'm genuinely curious on this one. Regards. Koalorka 21:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I currently don't have a scanner that will work with my computers. (The last computer that worked with it was retired earlier this year.)  Really, it shouldn't be hard to understand.  The development of roller locking preceded roller delay.  It is matter of changing the angles of the locking piece.  Back in the '60s, Theodor Löffler of Rheinmetall received US patents for a gas-operated, roller-locked rifle conversion based on the G3.  They briefly marketed it as the Rh4.  Use Google Patents with the search terms: Rheinmetall Loffler rifle.  (As a side note, Löffler was previously employed by CEAM in the late '40s along with Vorgrimmler, developing experimental roller-delayed assault rifles for the French.  The French preferred Löffler's designs over Vorgrimmler's.  This probably helped to cement Vorgrimmler's decision to leave France to go to work for CETME in Spain.)  D.E. Watters 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

M249 SAW Redirect
I noticed you were reverted on the 249 redirect, I personaly agree with you on this issue and was wondering if you want to put a disscusion on the Talk about a merge ForeverDEAD 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

MP5 and the United States Military
For your information, all service branches of the United States military uses the MP5 submachinegun, not just the U.S. Navy SEALs. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweapons/l/aainfantry2.htm

"The MP5-N fires from a closed and locked bolt in either the automatic or semiautomatic modes. This gun is recoil operated and has a unique delayed roller locked bolt system, a retractable butt stock, a removable suppressor, and illuminating flashlight integral to the forward hand guard. The flashlight is operated by a pressure switch custom fitted to the pistol grip. This is the same basic weapon used by the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and other world-class counter-terrorist organizations.

The present inventory includes both suppressed and non-suppressed versions of the MP5. The basic configuration of this weapon makes for an ideal size, weight,and capable (accuracy, lethality, reliability, etc.) close quarters battle weapon system.

This weapon is manufactured by Heckler and Koch and is presently fielded to Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance Companies and Marine Security Force Battalions, and Special Operations Units, such as Army Rangers, Delta Force, and Navy SEALS.. It is currently considered the main weapon in the close quarters battle (CQB) environment.

Length: Collapsed stock: 19.29 inches (49 centimeters) Extended stock: 25.98 inches (66 centimeters) Weight: 7.44 pounds (3.38 kilograms) (w/30 round magazine) Bore diameter: 9mm (.355 inches) Maximum effective range: 328.1 feet (100 meters) Rate of fire: 800 rounds per minute Unit Replacement Cost: $894" -TabooTikiGod 05:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed that edit because it made it seem that the MP5 was a common issue weapon with regular forces. The above units are specialized, small and have access to whatever weapons they see fit, among them the MP5. Koalorka 22:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility
Hi. this edit was inappropriate. There may be times when other users are annoying, but please do not resort to insults and profanity against them, even in cases of vandalism. Please see Civility for a valuable guideline, and Vandalism for suggestions for dealing with particularly problematic users. Hope this helps. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

SA80
The thing I don't understand is why you removed a lot of the information. In the first sentence you removed '(Small Arms for the 1980s)', you removed all mentions of reliability issues, which believe it or not is fact and needs to be stated. It is not an opinion. Many articles state past problems with weapons such as the M16 rifle. You removed info about its history and the choice of caliber. The variants section was significantly dumbed down without subsections so it looks like a messy group of small paragraphs. What I am finding is you have a problem admitting that there are issues with the weapon. All criticisms have been removed without a trace. It is fact and needs to be addressed. Along with those sections firearm articles should contain, there should also be a 'Service history' section to educate how good the weapon actually is. How many 'opinions' of soldiers do you need before it becomes fact? Hayden120 (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your civility, but again you confuse the purpose of an encyclopedic entry. It is not supposed to be a collection of random experiences and opinions or user testimonies. I do understand that the weapon had problems in its initial configuration, that were later addressed, and this is implied in the L85A2 paragraph, when it lists the improvements. I wouldn't use the M16 article as an example, it contains a LOT of inaccuracies, and the layout is just horrific. We've got a group of guys working on some kind of update which you will probably see in a few weeks. The history was abbreviated into something a little more reasonable and I condensed the number of variant and prototypes listed to those that actually spawned the actual L85/L86. Was it unreasonable to omit another 6 irrelevant and confusing XLXXX model numbers designed for left-handed use? If you insist, I can return portions of the design history and integrate them into the current article. A criticism and "Service History" type section have no place in a encyclopedia entry, they can only be subjective. If you like to discuss weapons then perhaps you can do so on an online forum or discussion board. Regards. Koalorka (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The issues of the SA80 are very well known and they belong in the article. If not, a visitor may read the page and believe there were never any problems. Even if these problems were only in initial models, they should still be in the article. Why are you so concerned about having information about the poor history of the rifle? Do you work for the UK government to help recruit soldiers? Hayden120 (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * These issues are identified implicitly in the L85A2 paragraph which states the reliability problem and the subsequent update to the weapon meant to address these problems. The mechanical parts involved or upgraded have been listed. And no I am not an British MOD associate, I'm simply interested in military technology and elevating Wikipedia standards. Regards. Koalorka (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just want to chime in here because a lot of detailed information on the development of the L85 that I had added was removed as well. I understand that separate article for the XL64/XL65 has been created and trimmed and readded the information to fit with the new text.  I don't see how its irrelevant when its part of the design process.  The fact that left-handed models were developed and subsequently not adopted is a key piece of information in my mind, as are detailed specifics of the design process.  On the matter of the criticism of the SA80 series, its part of the history of the system.  The criticism and debate is an important part of the historical record relating this system and I feel that it is important to note this.  It created a further storm when the cost of upgrading what many felt was a defective system was brought into the picture.  I think its important to not let it get out of hand, but as a key piece of the SA80 story the criticisms and the decision to upgrade I feel are essential to presenting a clear picture of the system.  Project guidelines concerning these things are not etched in stone, and while criticisms sections for every article are unwarranted, it is a key piece of the SA80 story.  This is why we even create articles such as the Stryker vehicle controversy.  -- Thatguy96 (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What in particular do you feel should be restored to the article that is not listed in the SA or L65 and would be relevant to the design phase? I feel that the L65 entry is more than adequate in addressing the convoluted history of these series of prototypes while the SA80 article provides the necessary amount of information on the historical development of what would become the L85. If I missed something please let me know. WRT history, I feel that sociology-related information could be linked through the References or Further reading sections. The point of all this is eliminating subjective content. Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to withdraw my input. The article is dominated by a horde of disruptive airsoft couch commandos. You have your criticisms back. Funny, that the previous version has not even the slightest mention of the rifle's operating principle, design or ergonomics. But the crowd has spoken and demanded the "discussion forum" back. Koalorka (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to say I reverted it back to the developed version that can have a good criticisms section put into it that's in keeping with the encyclopedic nature of the article. I do not feel it was productive or even reasonable on your part to just wholesale revert and throw away the work that you and others had done collectively.  All that was being fought over was adding criticisms in and instead of figuring out a productive situation you entered into a revert war.  I find it somehow ironic that you then consider those of us who modified it without tossing any large portion of your additions to be the ones who are "arrogant" and "stubborn."  For what I felt should be in the development section that wasn't covered in the XL64/65 article, simply see what I merged into your new text. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's considerably better but I still cannot agree to the issue of user feedback in an entry, I have brought the issue up with the Wiki Firearms team. I'll will refrain from removing it for now until we establish a consensus. You have a point about the development history, it's quite convoluted but relevant and interesting. The only thing that still bothers me is the aesthetics, the variants should not have their own headings, that I will change. Regards. Koalorka (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Having the sub headings looks neater and more organised. If you don't agree, can you at least add dot-points or something to separate them distinctly? Hayden120 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

FN FNC pictures
How does the page look to you? Both before and after your revert,I know not all pages display the same way for all users, so it might be fine for you in both versions, but at a pretty standard resolution on a 17" monitor, I get a great chunk of whitespace to the left of the infobox, the position of the ipicture in the version you prefer forces all text that comes after the markup for the picture to appear after the infobox, making an awkward looking page. If you don't get this problem in your preferred version and both versions look display cleanly to you, would you consider reverting your revert, in any case I'll have a look at it on some other computers first, to see how it appears on different monitors and at different resolutions. KTo288 (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So far I've displayed it on my 19" desktop and 2 wide screen laptops with no such problems. Could be a combination of your screen size, resolution and text size. Koalorka (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Went to the help desk and apparently its got nothing to do with my monitors, but with my browser and how the browser wraps text around infoboxes, I've been pointed to a how-to page of how to layout a page so that it will display in a way that should be acceptable for all browsers and settings. Sorry if my edits appeared to be perverse. KTo288 (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility 2
Hi. I found this edit pretty inappropriate. If you have any good arguments for keeping little flag icons on articles about guns (when pretty much every other project has got rid of them), I'd love to hear them. But implying I personally have to prove something to you, in fact bringing personalities into it at all, is counter-productive. As it happens, I am an admin and have made in excess of 40 000 edits, so I have done a fair bit of encyclopedia writing in my time. But that doesn't matter and it would be the same if I was a newbie; let's discuss the stylistic argument on its merits, period. It's better. --John (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalise? Why?
Sorry, my english is very poor...

I don't understand your position, in the article for the fire arm MP5, I including a veridic information. In Catalonia, we have a Mossos d'Esquadra, a police force. Mossos d'Esquadra are develop a special intervention group (GEI). He is using the mp-5. Why you quit my information?

Thank you for your answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xibiru (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have no doubt that the Police force you mention in Catalonia use the MP5, but please list this information under Spain, not as a separate entry in Catalonia. Thanks. Koalorka (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But, the list is the users, not states! The administration controlled Mossos d'Esquadra is "Generalitat de Catalunya", not Spain. I don't see the problem. Thanks. xibiru


 * Xbiru I understand that but if we were to list every city, or province or federal state than we would have a list 4x as long as the entire article! I have nothing against Catalonia or you, just please list it under Spain, because Catalonia is a territory in Spain. Thank you. Koalorka (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cartridge nomenclature
Hi,

I have seen the users User:Koalorka and User:Lightmouse have been laboriously renaming and accordingly editing and reverting several articles on rifle cartridges from German origin in undoubtedly good faith. If you would like to use the AxB format for metric cartridges (as often seen in Anglo Saxon countries and others wrote is a standing Wikipedia convention) in a civilian context that is fine by me, but please consider renaming the articles to 8x68S, etc. so Wikipedia readers without specialist knowledge of cartridges do not get confused or be tempted to create unnecessary dangerous situations. If you hate the interspacing in the original European A x B format and choose to get totally rid of interspacing, please consider how 6.5x54MannlicherSchönauer instead of 6.5x54 Mannlicher Schönauer looks for a reader.

It is a pity that in some Anglo Saxon countries European A x B rifle cartridges are allotted colorful nomenclature and mm additions and these find their way into Wikipedia. I also realize most editors in Wikipedia English are probably not from Europe or can read European languages, so I assume they are unaware a rifle cartridge like an 8x68mm Spitz has never existed in its country of origin or in any other CIP regulated country. Besides being not CIP conform the name 8x68mm Spitz is rather irresponsible to use. The letter S in 8 mm cartridges from German origin provides gunsmiths, ammunition traders and users information on the particular bore dimensions to avoid dangerous situations with bullets that do not have the correct diameter, since several 8 mm bores with varying dimensions are in existence.

The CIP cartridge nomenclature format for metric rifle cartridges is: A x B plus Possible Additions (like R, RS, S, IS, Lapua, Swiss, Messner Magnum, etc.). The addition of the name of a company or person who created a cartridge, country, etc. does occur. These additions sadly do not follow logical rules. Mr. Brenneke for instance actually got the honor of the official addition of his name for creating the 6,5 x 64 Brenneke and 9,3 x 64 Brenneke (CIP uses the, as decimal separator, but that looks awkward in English). To complicate matters there really is no 7 x 64 Brenneke or 7 x 64 mm (Brenneke), etc.. CIP only knows a 7 x 64 without any further additions. The sad part for Mr. Brenneke is that the 7 x 64 happens to be his commercially most successful cartridge design.

Your, mine, a gun writers, Wikipedia’s or the ideas of anybody else on European rifle cartridge nomenclature is utterly irrelevant in CIP member states. CIP rulings have arbitrary legal status there for all civilians. Military organizations like NATO can deviate from CIP, since governmental organizations do not have to comply with CIP rulings and standards and can do whatever the seem fit with fire arms and ammunition.

If you have serious questions on how CIP names a cartridge, I can look it up on the CIP CD-ROM. Sadly copyright prevents me from adding any official CIP lists, data sheets, drawings, etc. from that CD-ROM to Wikipedia. If you are interested in purchasing a CIP CD-ROM, I advise you to contact the CIP approved Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House in the United Kingdom.

Francis Flinch (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am from Europe and I previously listed cartridge names in A x B mm NAME format, but WP:MILHIST came to consensus whereby all articles on English Wikipedia that use the metric system would be AxBmm NAME. You do provide some valid points and I say you should make your case on that debate. It is not up to me, I'm just enforcing the standard and trying to make this a standard. Koalorka (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The WP:MILHIST discussion I read was very military cartridges orientated. I have made the nomenclature contribution in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. For an universal encyclopedia like Wikipedia, that tries to use verifiable facts from reliable sources, I think it would be nice to use the cartridge nomenclature stated by the civilian ammunition standards organization (CIP / SAAMI) responsible for the country of origin. Arguments like that an European cartridge elsewhere or in another language might be differently named are not very sound, since the United Kingdom is a CIP member state. How we treat Chinese cartridges etc. remains unclear, but maybe China has its own ammunition standards organization. Francis Flinch (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Francis that's the whole point of standards, but I do see your point about the obscure 8 mm Spitz and other wildcat cartridges. Feel free to revert some of those as long as they adhere to WP:MILHIST, so the AxBmm convention would remain. Koalorka (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw you changed the name of an article to 7.62x53mmR. I noticed this is not entirely according to the AxBmm NAME format. Did the format WP:MILHIST preferred change recently and where can one find further reading on this WP:MILHIST consensus? The 8mm Spitz must be a term of art. The 8 x 60 (S, R, RS) as CIP terms them are CIP ruled cartridges and can be found on the CIP CD-ROM. Francis Flinch (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

9x19mm Parabellum
I noticed you redirect 9 mm Luger Parabellum to 9x19mm Parabellum per this discussion. While this isn't bad, it's advisable to move the page instead of copying and pasting it into a new article (this preserves the history and talk pages). --Philip Laurence (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes I do know but I could not move it with the move feature as an article by that name already existed, so I had to copy and paste. But I also copied the Talk section with every article I was forced to move this way. Koalorka (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well on the move page it says if the page already exists you have to request a move. --Philip Laurence (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, to allow the history to be synchronized. Well if Ana Nim hadn't so hastily thrown it back there would be no problem. Koalorka (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The cartridge was never known as 9x19mm Parabellum. It has been known as 9x19mm, 9mm NATO, 9mm Parabellum, and 9mm Luger, among others. It is simply incorrect to combine 9x19mm with 9mm Parabellum and come up with a new name sui generis. Please cite some authority that this is a correct name before reverting corrections.--Ana Nim (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it that almost every source of reference literature has it listed as such (with small variances), the slides on my Walther, HK and Glock pistols read 9x19mm Para, 9mm Parabellum etc. The official name is 9x19mm Parabellum in Europe where the cartridge originated. This is also the most logical choice for a name since the names you list are mostly abbreviations of the full 9x19mm Parabellum designation, used for convenience (since it isn't always possible to list the full name on a short pistol slide etc.). This has been debated and agreed on through consensus. Koalorka (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus and there is none on the MILHIST page. Check out the discussion in the WikiFirearms Project page and you'll see that not only is there no consensus on standard names, the issue is still being discussed. So, you're not complying with a resolved consensus, you're trying to create one where none exists. As to what the slides of pistols say, that is hardly authoritative. Glock long marked slides ".40" because they did not want to acknowledge the S&W name in the cartridge, and mark ".357" so as not to acknowledge SIG. That doesn't change the names of the cartridges. --Ana Nim (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We did come to a conclusion several weeks ago with the metric system. AxBmm NAME. This is the most universal format we could compromise on. Don't get me wrong, I used to be a huge proponent of A x B mm NAME but there was too much opposition, this is a compromise and it is not inaccurate, so that's what we're going with. Koalorka (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... was being a bit of a dick
The British Ministry of Defence designates the L86 as a 'Light Support Weapon'. The Minimi is their 'Light Machine Gun'(first link a search found here) There have been edits to this effect, wouldn't really be surprised if you hadn't checked up on them, no offence intended. Modern equipment and uniform of the British Army also worth checking. John Nevard (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I'm very much aware of the fact that they call it the L86 LSW, but it still is a light machine gun class weapon, I thought I made that clear in my last edits. Just like the Americans have a Squad Automatic Weapon, which is a MINIMI light machine gun. And the L86 is by all means a light machine gun, it's optimized for sustained fire, doesn't necessarily have to be belt-fed in the typical machine gun sense. Koalorka (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, it comes under the traditional definition of light machine gun, but it's used in the role of Light Support Weapon as designated by the UK MOD, and is named as such. John Nevard (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, John, yes exactly. Where did I say that it wasn't? Koalorka (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, it could have been where you constantly reverted to a version that described it as the 'L86 Light Machine Gun? John Nevard (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there has been some misunderstanding. Koalorka (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

5.56 mm
Hi there, I noticed you made some edits to the Singapore-made small arms articles. Here we don't use the 5.56 mm NATO round; we still use the older non-NATO M193 round. One reason might be the massive inventory of 1 in 12" M-16s produced under license about 20-30 years ago. Perhaps you might want to look into that? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I know that 5.56x45 mm redirects to the NATO article, but it might be misleading to say that we actually use the NATO round. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, the M193 is also a NATO round. The 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge includes both the 62 grain SS109/M855 and the 55 grain M193. Cheers. Koalorka (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I thought that only the 62 gr round was considered "NATO". --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, the 62 grain is the latest NATO standard, but many still use the lighter 55 grain with older rifles that have slower twist rates in the barrel rifling. The SS109 or M193 designation refers to the bullet type, likewise there are tracer and incendiary rounds that all belong in the 5.56x45mm NATO family. Koalorka (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Page move
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. —Random832 19:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision history of 7.5x55mm Schmidt Rubin
Can the users Koalorka and/or Lightmouse please restore the history page that got erased by article whist renaming the article to its current 7.5x55mm Schmidt Rubin title.Francis Flinch (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When someone performs a copy-and-paste rename, as Koalorka did, instead of properly moving the article to the desired name or requesting a move at Requested moves, it messes up the history and requires an admin to fix. I will merge the histories.  Koalorka, please do not perform copy-and-paste movies. TomTheHand (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry wasn't aware of that and then Lightmouse reverted it without consultation, making it even more confusing. Koalorka (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your move from the original title (7.5 x 55 Schmidt Rubin) to 7.5x55mm Schmidt Rubin was fine, but then when Lightmouse moved it to 7.5 x 55 mm Schmidt Rubin you should have used the move button to move it back, or listed it at Requested moves, instead of copying and pasting the content from the new name onto the redirect at the old. TomTheHand (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

PP-90 smg
If you have any other sources for the PP-90 please add them to the article. But without them please do not just revert edits that fit the known sources. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot to list the book I used. Will have the bibliography up tomorrow. Koalorka 05:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

SA80
Hi, I noticed you undid my edit here. Care to explain why? Help:Reverting explains that we really only use this blunt tool to combat vandalism. As my edit was not vandalism, I invite you to self-revert. Best wishes, --John (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You removed the flag icon despite opposition from the entire Wiki Firearms group. Koalorka (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. That still wouldn't make the revert ok, even if it were true, which it isn't. Can you please restore the other changes you removed from the article, or I will have to take this further. Thanks. --John (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with your other edits but you have no support to remove the flag. Koalorka (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree with you about the flag, but restoring my other edits will prevent me from having to take this further. Please be more careful in future. Thanks. --John (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean you disagree? You disagree with the fact that you have absolutely no support from the firearms editing community to remove the flag icons? I don't know how to restore parts of an edit, if at all possible. Koalorka (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I will restore the edit myself. Please, please in future do not revert good faith edits. In general don't do things if you don't understand what you are doing. Thanks. --John (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that you fail to comprehend the concept of consensus. Nice try at a mild insult though. Thanks! Koalorka (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't see any insult there. It's very simple. Don't revert except in cases of vandalism, and everything will be fine. --John (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)