FANDOM

AugFC

aka Steven James Urkel DeWitt

General
  • I live in the Zone, Pripyat, Ukraine
  • My occupation is solving crimes
A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Hey, I'm the dude who expanded the Type 56 Carbine article, I'm just wondering why you removed the Trivia section?  I put hours into digging up info for that article yesterday and for whatever reason, when somebody deletes something I wrote, they don't notate in the edit history so I can't know why nor can I change my edits in the future.

      Loading editor
    • Sorry, I should have elaborated on the reason I removed it. Your edits to the general article looked good, but the trivia points you added were not really in line with this Wiki's encyclopedic style:

      The first three points were opinionated and contentious, and not typically the sort of thing we want to include in our articles. Stuff like that is fine for personal blogs but for articles, we try to write from a completely neutral, fact-based perspective. On top of that, these points were basically US-centric and mostly irrelevant to readers outside the US.

      The fourth point - I'm not sure what the relevancy of this trivia was supposed to be. We unfortunately don't have official production figures for a lot of guns, so I don't think the Type 56 is special in this regard. But maybe if there's some special underlying circumstance, this would become notable.

      Trivia, as a rule, is really only reserved for really notable footnotes, such as the fact that a Carcano rifle was used to assassinate John F. Kennedy, or that the MP40 was commonly known as the "Schmeisser", et cetera.

      Otherwise I have no problem with the majority of your edits, keep up the good work.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, I don't remember what the trivia actually was to be frank, but if it at all involved production numbers, it is notable because it is a WIDE misconception that 24,000,000 Type 56 SKSs were ever built because most people don't understand how to read the serial numbers.  It may only be of considerable interest to myself, but I know somebody has one of these and is looking to find something out about it, and Gun Wiki is one of the first results that pops up when searching for a firearm, so I want to take literally over 20 hours of research I had just to date mine, and turn it into 20 minutes for someone else, at most.  Additionally it would be notable because unlike all of the common variants, the Chinese SKSs are extremely mysterious, there really just isn't as much open information about them like the Russians or Yugos might have.  The markings are odd, there's no traditional year stamp, or stars, it's all vastly different from most SKS models.  But I understand, I just did a thorough combing of the Type 56 Carbine article to clear it up and make it easier to gather key points from.  

      Thank you for the compliment, and especially the constructive criticism.  I'll continue to do what I do, and I'll try to be a little less US-centric (Aftermarket parts I believe was one point of trivia).

        Loading editor
    • Nonetheless I did remove the bits just now about the misconception of production numbers, and removed the new trivia section cuz it had to do with serial numbers, so i moved the facts to the Markings section.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi, I was interested in this article but it was deleted by you, could you clarify why it was deleted? "Irrelevant" doesn't really help.

      Loading editor
    • After some consensus, we deleted it; it was basically one of two prototypes for the Type 11 machine gun; we'll get some information back up onto the actual Type 11 article itself since in all reality it's just a Type 11 with a barrel shroud.

        Loading editor
    • It was an article about a pre-production version of the Type 11 LMG which was, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same gun. It didn't have much information that wasn't already covered on our Type 11 page.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • What did i do thats wrong?

      Loading editor
    Grunty89
    Grunty89 closed this thread because:
    Case closed.
    22:55, October 4, 2019
  • Not to be funny, i want to warn readers the M16A3 is not a official M16 variant because the fully automatic M16A2 is commonly called M16A3. There are 4 official M16 variants including M16, M16A1, M16A2 and M16A4.

    Imfdb has this policy on M16s

    In the real world, the fully automatic version of the M16A2 is known as the M16A3, however, because nearly all movie "M16A2s" fire full automatic, it is not IMFDB policy to designate these rifles as "M16A3s" when identifying them in movies, since in nearly all cases they are intended to pass for M16A2s.

    http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/M16_rifle_series

      Loading editor
    • IMFDB's rules are irrelevant here, we cover real-world topics only.

        Loading editor
    • Turzy310 wrote: Not to be funny, i want to warn readers the M16A3 is not a official M16 variant because the fully automatic M16A2 is commonly called M16A3. There are 4 official M16 variants including M16, M16A1, M16A2 and M16A4.

      Imfdb has this policy on M16s

      In the real world, the fully automatic version of the M16A2 is known as the M16A3, however, because nearly all movie "M16A2s" fire full automatic, it is not IMFDB policy to designate these rifles as "M16A3s" when identifying them in movies, since in nearly all cases they are intended to pass for M16A2s.

      http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/M16_rifle_series

      Also, how on earth do you think that IMFDB's policy means that the M16A3 is "unofficial"? It has nothing to do with this. That note is present there to prevent users from identifying M16s as A3s just because they're shown as full-auto in movies. Real M16A3s were mainly issued to US Navy SEALs and Seabees, and are almost unlikely to be seen in movies, unlike the M16A2, which is often seen converted to full-auto in movies.

        Loading editor
    • The first M16A3s (Colt Model 901) literally were just M16A2s converted to full-auto, right down to the "M16A2" markings on the receiver, so being an M16A2 converted for automatic fire doesn't necessarily not make it an M16A3. The flat-top M16A3 didn't come about until later.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • This article here may be from a few months ago but on the patents it looks as if they are looking into a rotating bolt delayed blowback for its operation to handle gas pressures of hypervelocity ammo. What do you think?

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • What specifically makes you think that it's a Pakistani AKMS? It clearly has a smooth receiver cover, an RPK-type rivet pattern in front of the dimples, a solid trunnion, holes in the gas tube, an older AK-pattern gas block, and what most definitely appears to be a hooded front sight like the Type 56, none of which are characteristics of the AKM/AKMS (which, from what I've searched, apply to the the Pakistani clones as well).

    Also, there's this, which you created in the past (it was temporarily merged with the AK page later). You might have noticed that I changed the info on the current RPK page, since the image is not that of an actual RPKS-74 (which is just a folding stock variant of the RPK-74), although I assume that it was an artifact of when googling you could find the specific image being labeled "RPK-74S" (is it even an alternate designation of the PM md. 93 or something?)

      Loading editor
    • The book I scanned the image in from specifies that it's a Pakistani model. It is also listed as such in the Royal Armouries collection.

      Pakistan uses the Type 56 so it's no surprise that their domestically-made Kalashnikov clones borrow traits from the T56.

        Loading editor
    • What was mainly weird to me is why it was referred to as "AKMS". But if that's how they called it then fine. And by your lack of comment on the RPK issue, I assume you're fine with keeping the image labeled as md. 93?

        Loading editor
    • I can't remember where the RPKS-74 name came from exactly, but I trust that the PM md.63 designation is correct. I don't know enough about RPK variants to comment.

        Loading editor
    • This reply has been removed
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I'm pretty sure most people know which country we're talking about if we just say "United States."

      Loading editor
    • Sure, but it's about consistency. Besides, it really doesn't take much effort to write "of America" in the infobox.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry to get into the conversation, I'm not from the United States. I'm just saying that anyone understands the terms "United States", adding "from America" or the initials "USA". They are exactly the same. 

        Loading editor
    • To be honest, there are actually 3 americas. North America, Central America (and the Caribbean) and South America (and the Falkland Islands).

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • The citation here:

    https://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/manuals/Madsen%20Machine%20Rifle%20Main%20Characteristics.pdf

    Is an evaluation which impies .303 Madsens can be purchsed directly from DRS, even though the report is dated a good 13 years after Rexer closed down.

      Loading editor
    • 002
      It would appear you're right, I just checked a back issue of Small Arms Profile and found reference to the Madsen in .303.

      However it is worth noting that these were built only for trial purposes and I have not been able to find data that indicates they ever saw any sales.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hey there AugFC,

    I was wondering why the page I added, Targets4Free was deleted?

    I feel it's a valuable resource for the gun community / knowledgebase for those looking for that kind of website. 

      Loading editor
    • Because it was essentially an advertisement, and we don't make articles about other websites.

        Loading editor
    • I mean isn't every other article about other organizations? Wikis are supposed to be knowledge bases, right?

      But I do understand. Is there any way it could go back up, so long as I'm able to make it not as "shilly"?

        Loading editor
    • XtremeConditions wrote: I mean isn't every other article about other organizations? Wikis are supposed to be knowledge bases, right?

      But I do understand. Is there any way it could go back up, so long as I'm able to make it not as "shilly"?

      While yes, we do cover other organizations, we don't normally cover organizations of that type. Besides, I highly doubt people will be looking for organizations of this type on this Wiki; they'll most likely be looking for companies which manufacture actual guns and similar products and not companies manufacturing, well, targets.

      This comes from editing experience and whatever insights I've seen on this Wiki for the last couple of years. Just my two cents.

        Loading editor
    • Right, sure, I totally understand. Well, thanks for letting me say my piece. 

      Would you happen to know any other place where it would be more suitable, just out of curiosity? The many "directories" have been close to useless in my experience. 

      Just happen to be having issues getting off the ground. Thanks for your time!

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Why was users taken out the FN FAL? I know all armed forces in the world.

      Loading editor
    • We don't need a comprehensive list of every country that uses the FAL. It takes up half the page and is just copied from Wikipedia.

        Loading editor
    • Turzy310 wrote: Why was users taken out the FN FAL? I know all armed forces in the world.

      I second AugFC's comment.

      You may think you "know" all the armed forces in the world, but from your edits, it really seems like you don't, because these were all carbon-copied from Wikipedia. In addition, the addition of users isn't needed as it clutters up the entire article; knowing how a firearm actually works is much more beneficial than knowing every single army that uses the firearm. Knowing how a firearm actually works is also much better than asking "how did x nation get x firearm" and "can you buy x firearm"...

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.