| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
User talk:Evil Tim: Difference between revisions
Spartan198 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| (57 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
I tried to find many to ways to delete the picture but I can't and also I need this tip for future references. | I tried to find many to ways to delete the picture but I can't and also I need this tip for future references. | ||
== I tried uploading http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.2.jpg, http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.3.jpg and http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.0.jpg in The Devil's Brigade == | |||
But it won't work. Please fix it, don't delete it | |||
== Re: If you're wondering why Greg-Z undid your edits to those pages == | |||
Sorry, mate. When I find something like that, an urge to correct an article happens. -_-'' [[User:Ominae|Ominae]] ([[User talk:Ominae|talk]]) 09:35, 14 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
==More on the M6A3== | |||
Been doing a little more digging (went to the National Archives) on whether or not the M6A3 used steel or copper as the liner. | |||
I [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rrO-5a8PxG7rIarUp9qwOeNL_5513fXk scanned] (its on my google drive) an original copy of OP 1720 to figure out what was going on with the M6A5. M6A5 has a copper liner and penetrates 4.5-5 inches at 30 degrees. Paper estimates 5.25-5.75 inches (call in 5.5 inches or 140mm) if vertical. Also, the [http://bulletpicker.com/pdf/OP%201720,%20Shape%20Charge%20Ammunition.pdf same paper] notes that the Cavity Charge Container Mk. 1 (page 12), uses the steel liner of the "2.36 inch HE, AT rocket". Also found [http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a003689.pdf this paper] that explicitly list the bazooka as using a steel liner. | |||
So still nothing 100% on the M6A3's liner, but pretty decent circumstantial evidence. Oh, and just for the sake of completeness, the M6A4 is the A3 with a boresafe fuze that isn't quite so alarmingly sensitive | |||
Not really trying to one-up you in a nerdfight, but this has been bugging me for a year and I finally found the answer.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 15:51, 29 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
==Type 94 75 mm mountain gun== | |||
Was my page the Type 94 75 mm mountain gun just not categorized properly? I wonder why it was deleted. | |||
== Check my ID of the rifle in the movie == | |||
Hello, '''Evil Tim'''! Excuse me, I have some question: how do you think, is my [[Talk:Tuman buolbut taptal|ID]] of the rifle is correct or not? [[User:Pyramid Silent|Pyramid Silent]] ([[User talk:Pyramid Silent|talk]]) 05:00, 28 June 2018 (EDT) | |||
== BG-15 == | |||
Sorry about the BG-15 edits, I was unaware you were editing while I was, didn't mean to undo them on purpose. I found [https://img.valka.cz/attachments/4461/thumbs/BG-15.jpg this image] that might be a better choice, could you please confirm if this image is better for identification for both the 9th Company: Roots of Terror page and the main GP series page? | |||
--[[User:Ssantusky|Ssantusky]] ([[User talk:Ssantusky|talk]]) 11:30, 1 July 2018 (EDT) | |||
== BG-15 Airsoft == | |||
You're certainly right about the [https://www.airsoftgi.com/images/cawaklauncher.jpg CAW airsoft versions] (they don't have wooden grips) but they do have typical airsoft orange markings around the muzzle, which the image I showed you doesn't, so I don't know what to think. I haven't found anything on the wooden grips at all. Researching I came across BG-15 information using the book "US Grenade Launchers: M79, M203, and M320" by Gordon L. Rottman, which I used to update the GP series page. I also found on [http://www.military-today.com/firearms/gp_25.htm Military-Today.com] some information (which I also used to updated the GP series page) aside from images, [http://www.military-today.com/firearms/gp_25_images.htm particularly this one, which is the same image, but listed as a GP-25]. What do you think about all this? | |||
--[[User:Ssantusky|Ssantusky]] ([[User talk:Ssantusky|talk]]) 12:11, 1 July 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Military-Today == | |||
Thanks for the heads-up regarding Military-Today. I crossed referenced with the book I told you just in case, so I hope the updated BG-15 information on the main GP series page is OK. | |||
Is it alright then if I use that image I sent you for identification on the BG-15? | |||
--[[User:Ssantusky|Ssantusky]] ([[User talk:Ssantusky|talk]]) 12:40, 1 July 2018 (EDT) | |||
== The Truth About 9th Company == | |||
Hello Evil Tim, I wanted to let you know that I came across a strange Soviet wooden-gripped underbarrel grenade launcher (like the BG-15 you mentioned) while creating the page for the game [http://www.imfdb.org/index.php?title=The_Truth_About_9th_Company&oldid=1194383 The Truth About 9th Company]. Said grenade launcher also has a strange trigger guard lifted seemingly off an M203. Could you please verify? Thanks. | |||
--[[User:Ssantusky|Ssantusky]] ([[User talk:Ssantusky|talk]]) 06:35, 3 July 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Making redirects. == | |||
How can I make a page-redirect? Because in the entire site I dont find any info on how make a redirect. Is something only admins can do? --[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 06:49, 25 July 2018 (EDT) | |||
:Thanks for the simple explanation.--[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 06:58, 25 July 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Far Cry 4 M79 Osa link == | |||
There is no link to the [[M79 Osa]] page in the M79 Osa section on [[Far Cry 4]]. Would you kindly unlock the page so we can add a link in? --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 22:14, 25 July 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Re: Used file deleted == | |||
Thanks! I really forgot about this feature. [[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 03:42, 12 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Hi I need help in deleting the black side bars of http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_6.jpg == | |||
I tried removing the black side bars in Microsoft paint but it keeps coming back | |||
== Reuploaded the new no black side bars version with http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_8.jpg == | |||
Can you please delete http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_6.jpg from my account? | |||
== Striker-12 == | |||
Are you sure [[:File:Striker12.jpg|this file]] is an original striker? I see the Striker-12's thumb tab on it. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 03:15, 20 October 2018 (EDT) | |||
I talked to some of my friends on the Gun wiki. They pointed out [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSxz7SuLwUg this video], which showcases a Striker with the thumb tab, rear lever (kinda hard to see but it's there), semi-auto fire, and automatic ejection. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiMQ981lph0 This] YouTube video showing a Striker (which I liked a lot) also shows what seems to be a Striker-12 with thumb tab, a much more obvious rear lever, semi-auto fire, wind-up key, and automatic ejection, though it is named incorrectly. I personally think that Striker-12s with rear levers did exist. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 03:23, 20 October 2018 (EDT) | |||
So... can I redo my undid edits? I'll be sure to mark the new Penn Arms name. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 03:29, 20 October 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Re: SVDK == | |||
I'm not saying is a EXACTLY a .50 caliber but get close to. (Like .308 and 7,62x51mm are not the same thing). I'm continental European so I will tell you honestly than I would like to know how a inch is. (I think is something like 0.254 of difference judging by the fact that the .45 ACP is a 11.45mm) --[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 13:23, 10 November 2018 (EST) | |||
==Shadow of the Tomb Raider== | |||
Any idea what this thing is supposed to be? It's Lara's standard pistol from the new game, and all I could come up with is some M1911/Hi-Power/S&W semi-auto frankengun. | |||
[[File:STR smith 2.jpg|600px|thumb|none|]] | |||
[[File:STR smith 5.jpg|600px|thumb|none|]]--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 23:06, 26 November 2018 (EST) | |||
== FG42 == | |||
I meant to ask this earlier, but I didn't because procrastination. Anyway, I've noticed at least a couple of instances where you've claimed that the [[FG42]] would in some way destroy itself if fired in sustained full-auto. I'm curious as to where you got this information, because, no offense, but it sounds like complete BS. The FG42 was meant from the get-go as a hybrid rifle/LMG, so I highly doubt that it would've gone through the German ordnance department's testing if it'd break when you tried to use it the way it was intended; even if this was the case, by the time they got around to the 2nd pattern (with the normal-looking pistol grip), they probably would've ironed that out. I guess it ''could'' be an overheating problem, but even then, exactly how you're going to overheat an open-bolt rifle with a 20-round magazine to the point of it exploding before either locking it up in a miserable jam, running out of ammunition, or setting the handguard on fire isn't really clear. In fact, there was a Forgotten Weapons video that recently got re-uploaded (because Youtube's rules don't make any sense) showing Ian firing an actual, original FG42 in full-auto, showing neither evidence nor fear of catastrophic failure of a gun that wound up selling for 159 grand. ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x6LibuC4N0 Here's the video, if you're interested.]) If anything, it sounds like wartime/post-war propaganda more than anything else; i.e. "Oh, that fancy new rifle that the Nazis've got? Nah, don't worry about that! Sure, a hybrid machine gun/rifle ''sounds'' pretty advanced, but we've done some testing, and they don't even work! In fact, if they try to ''use'' one as a machine gun, it'll blow itself to bits! HA! See how much better our engineering is than theirs, men? If this is what they're arming their troops with, then we'll have Berlin by Christmas! (Brought to you by the people who claimed that the [[Sturmgewehr 44]] could be irreparably destroyed by dropping it on the floor.)" Thoughts? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 17:39, 5 December 2018 (EST) | |||
:Ah, okay, I hadn't heard that bit about the actual source of the StG thing, I'd always thought that that was just a rumor. Anyway, I can understand the issue with the FG42, though I still think we ought to include it in the Machine Gun category - after all, if we classified things based on how they ''performed'' instead of their characteristics and design intent, then, for example, the [[L86A2]] would be more at home in [[:Category:Sniper Rifle]] than in [[:Category:Machine Gun]] (being issued and treated like a DMR, despite being meant and designed with features of an LSW), and something like the [[Breda Modello 30]] probably wouldn't even go into [[:Category:Gun]]. So, would adding the category be okay? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 21:35, 6 December 2018 (EST) | |||
::True, but it's hardly the only one. I mean, to name a few, we've got the aforementioned L86, things like the [[Galil ARM]] and [[M27 IAR]] that aren't much more than normal assault rifles with a few LMG features, the [[Chauchat]] that'd lock up and refuse to fire if you used too much sustained fire (and often saw use as a sort of battle rifle in practice), and even things like the [[Federov Avtomat]] (which, in spite of intent, had far more in common with an assault/battle rifle than a proper machine gun) and the downright laughable [[M14 rifle|M14E2 SAW]] (which fits this description pretty much perfectly - an implausible design brief that didn't pan out like it was supposed to, and essentially just resulted in a select-fire battle rifle with a bipod and a few other features that'd be more at home on a machine gun). I'll leave the final decision up to you, but were it up to me, I'd at least add the category and make a note on the page of how it was meant as a light machine gun, but turned out to be inadequate in that role, and was mostly just used as a battle rifle instead. Now, if you'd excuse me, I noticed a few other things missing from that category page that ought to be added. Sincerely, [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 22:17, 6 December 2018 (EST) P.S.: Maybe we should create a Discord. At any rate, it'd make discussions like these a bit easier. | |||
== User:Wuzh == | |||
This guy's been taking a lot of liberties on the site lately, including so far as to more-or-less on his own decide to at some point conduct a massive site-wide addition of a template of every page with 'the' at the start and wholesale moving a whole subcategory of firearms on the site. Frankly this is rubbing me the wrong way - not so much doing it but that he's doing these big edits without giving any leave for those of you who run things to even address any of this. Bah, well, there it is, bringing it to your (and a few others) attention. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 23:02, 12 December 2018 (EST) | |||
Hi, I wish to update on the situation. Me and StanTheMan have directly messaged each other and have settled the conflict. I apologize over my rashness at executing my proposals without proper discussions first and will to change my behavior in the future. The situation should be settled for now. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 23:59, 12 December 2018 (EST) | |||
== Beta C-Mag deletion == | |||
I uploaded and used the image of the Beta C-Mag instead of the greenish image of the G36 in MG36-identical configuration because there is often a fundamental difference between that image and these video games' railed MG36. Practically, the "MG36" in these games is a G36 with a G36C rail and bipod handguard (considering our the current definition of the MG36). By itself, without even taking the C-Mag into consideration, that is a very unusual configuration. I have not been able to find any images of real firing full-length G36s with G36C rails, let alone G36 with G36C rails and the bipod handguard. Thus, the airsoft image serves as the perfect illustrating image for the gun models in these games. This model is fundamentally different from a "MG36-mock-up-model" since it is not a normal G36 trying to look like a MG36. It is a "video game MG36", with G36C rails and bipod handguard and Beta C-Mag. | |||
As a result, I find that greenish image of a normal G36 in MG36 configuration ("MG36-mock-up-model") to be unnecessary on those pages since they look nothing like the "video game MG36", and should be removed. As to why I replaced them with the Beta C-Mag, it's because the airsoft "video game MG36" had a normal magazine, so a Beta C-Mag is needed to illustrate the mag. Can you revert the file deletion please? Thanks. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (EST) | |||
:OK then. Can I remove the "MG36-mock-up" image from those pages for the reasons I stated above? --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 09:13, 20 December 2018 (EST) | |||
== Log in issue == | |||
It's a drive space issue, we're running out. I cleaned up some files but will need to perform an upgrade to the main drive. --[[User:Bunni|bunni]] ([[User talk:Bunni|talk]]) 14:20, 26 December 2018 (EST) | |||
== M47 Dragon == | |||
I finally found a source for Dragon penetration, [https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm3-06.11%2802%29.pdf FM -06.11], page 308 of the PDF. As for Javelin, [https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B3M4078%20Introduction%20to%20Crew%20Served%20Weapons.pdf?ver=2015-05-07-103621-683 THIS] Marine Corps document says "well" in excess of 30 inches (760mm) | |||
Of course there's a dozen different opinions on Dragon, [https://books.google.com/books?id=VHQGvsiDUOsC&pg=RA2-PA52&lpg=RA2-PA52&dq=m47+dragon+penetration&source=bl&ots=oRJ-2rL4KC&sig=fLxhfKsnFoDJgR0EBL6KosuDT0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzrvfrkIPdAhXoYN8KHW6rDNk4FBDoATAAegQIABAB#v=onepage&q=m47%20dragon%20penetration&f=false Infantry Magazine] outright states 20 inches. ''In 1975''--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 21:28, 9 March 2019 (EST) | |||
:Interesting. Got any good links on that? Not saying I don't believe you, just that there's fifteen different opinions on the Dragon depending on who you ask. Also base Dragon's pen is so low the designer was massively incompetent.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 05:48, 10 March 2019 (EDT) | |||
:: That's fine, no hurry.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 16:04, 11 March 2019 (EDT) | |||
::: Actually found a [https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a082061.pdf live-fire test] of the warhead. How did a missile that bad ever enter service? Just A2 variant M72 LAWs would do better!--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 11:30, 12 March 2019 (EDT) | |||
== Dissolve the M16/M4/M4A1 with M203 sections? == | |||
Hello Evil Tim. I posted a section on the M16 talk page about dissolving the "M16/M4/M4A1 with M203" sections, as I do not think those sections are needed, and they add inconsistency. The talk page section can be read [[Talk:M16_rifle_series#Dissolve the M16/M4/M4A1 with M203 sections?|here]]. What do you think about the proposal? Is it OK? --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 14:04, 22 May 2019 (EDT) | |||
== Incomplete Metal Gear Solid 2 article == | |||
Hello Evil Tim, I noticed the MGS2 article has been tagged as incomplete for some time. You seem to have edited it a lot, do you know if there is anything left to do on it, or can it be tagged as complete by now? Same as with the MGS3 article, I just wanted to know what's incomplete about them, as they seem pretty complete by now.--[[User:Ssantusky|Ssantusky]] ([[User talk:Ssantusky|talk]]) 05:41, 14 September 2019 (EDT) | |||
== The Watermarked Kard Image == | |||
In the [[File talk:KRISS Kard.jpg|file talk]] for the deleted Kard image, a point was brought up that the gun shown in that image shows a specific version of the Kard not shown in any other known photographs, and it is also the version modeled in several games. I would make the argument that the image needs to be brought back to illustrate that specific Kard, regardless of the watermarks. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 10:00, 18 December 2019 (EST) | |||
== New Dragon research == | |||
I posted a [[Talk:M47_Dragon#Some_actual_sources|bunch of stuff]] on the Dragon missile talk page, I've been doing a lot of research and would like to update it, wanted to run it by you since you've done most of the page.--[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (EDT) | |||
== Forum account disabled == | |||
My account on the forum seems to be disabled or something. Can you take a look? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 00:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:11, 20 January 2023
Earlier discussions: User Talk:Evil Tim/Archive 1, User Talk:Evil Tim/Archive 2
Look I need help in deleting File:Leprechaun rifle 10.jpg.
I found a better quality picture and edited it in Microsoft paint. I opened many pages and articles on how to delete the old but it was so hard and complicated. I didn't want to talk to you because I feel embarrassed because I don't want someone else to keep doing my work for me, I wanted to learn so I can do it by myself at the next situation
How do I delete the image file itself but not in the article?
I tried to find many to ways to delete the picture but I can't and also I need this tip for future references.
I tried uploading http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.2.jpg, http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.3.jpg and http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:TBD_1.0.jpg in The Devil's Brigade
But it won't work. Please fix it, don't delete it
Re: If you're wondering why Greg-Z undid your edits to those pages
Sorry, mate. When I find something like that, an urge to correct an article happens. -_- Ominae (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2018 (EDT)
More on the M6A3
Been doing a little more digging (went to the National Archives) on whether or not the M6A3 used steel or copper as the liner. I scanned (its on my google drive) an original copy of OP 1720 to figure out what was going on with the M6A5. M6A5 has a copper liner and penetrates 4.5-5 inches at 30 degrees. Paper estimates 5.25-5.75 inches (call in 5.5 inches or 140mm) if vertical. Also, the same paper notes that the Cavity Charge Container Mk. 1 (page 12), uses the steel liner of the "2.36 inch HE, AT rocket". Also found this paper that explicitly list the bazooka as using a steel liner.
So still nothing 100% on the M6A3's liner, but pretty decent circumstantial evidence. Oh, and just for the sake of completeness, the M6A4 is the A3 with a boresafe fuze that isn't quite so alarmingly sensitive
Not really trying to one-up you in a nerdfight, but this has been bugging me for a year and I finally found the answer.--Mandolin (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2018 (EDT)
Type 94 75 mm mountain gun
Was my page the Type 94 75 mm mountain gun just not categorized properly? I wonder why it was deleted.
Check my ID of the rifle in the movie
Hello, Evil Tim! Excuse me, I have some question: how do you think, is my ID of the rifle is correct or not? Pyramid Silent (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2018 (EDT)
BG-15
Sorry about the BG-15 edits, I was unaware you were editing while I was, didn't mean to undo them on purpose. I found this image that might be a better choice, could you please confirm if this image is better for identification for both the 9th Company: Roots of Terror page and the main GP series page? --Ssantusky (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2018 (EDT)
BG-15 Airsoft
You're certainly right about the CAW airsoft versions (they don't have wooden grips) but they do have typical airsoft orange markings around the muzzle, which the image I showed you doesn't, so I don't know what to think. I haven't found anything on the wooden grips at all. Researching I came across BG-15 information using the book "US Grenade Launchers: M79, M203, and M320" by Gordon L. Rottman, which I used to update the GP series page. I also found on Military-Today.com some information (which I also used to updated the GP series page) aside from images, particularly this one, which is the same image, but listed as a GP-25. What do you think about all this? --Ssantusky (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2018 (EDT)
Military-Today
Thanks for the heads-up regarding Military-Today. I crossed referenced with the book I told you just in case, so I hope the updated BG-15 information on the main GP series page is OK. Is it alright then if I use that image I sent you for identification on the BG-15? --Ssantusky (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2018 (EDT)
The Truth About 9th Company
Hello Evil Tim, I wanted to let you know that I came across a strange Soviet wooden-gripped underbarrel grenade launcher (like the BG-15 you mentioned) while creating the page for the game The Truth About 9th Company. Said grenade launcher also has a strange trigger guard lifted seemingly off an M203. Could you please verify? Thanks. --Ssantusky (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2018 (EDT)
Making redirects.
How can I make a page-redirect? Because in the entire site I dont find any info on how make a redirect. Is something only admins can do? --Dannyguns (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
Far Cry 4 M79 Osa link
There is no link to the M79 Osa page in the M79 Osa section on Far Cry 4. Would you kindly unlock the page so we can add a link in? --Wuzh (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
Re: Used file deleted
Thanks! I really forgot about this feature. Greg-Z (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
Hi I need help in deleting the black side bars of http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_6.jpg
I tried removing the black side bars in Microsoft paint but it keeps coming back
Reuploaded the new no black side bars version with http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_8.jpg
Can you please delete http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Mercenary_rifle_11_6.jpg from my account?
Striker-12
Are you sure this file is an original striker? I see the Striker-12's thumb tab on it. --Wuzh (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
I talked to some of my friends on the Gun wiki. They pointed out this video, which showcases a Striker with the thumb tab, rear lever (kinda hard to see but it's there), semi-auto fire, and automatic ejection. This YouTube video showing a Striker (which I liked a lot) also shows what seems to be a Striker-12 with thumb tab, a much more obvious rear lever, semi-auto fire, wind-up key, and automatic ejection, though it is named incorrectly. I personally think that Striker-12s with rear levers did exist. --Wuzh (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
So... can I redo my undid edits? I'll be sure to mark the new Penn Arms name. --Wuzh (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
Re: SVDK
I'm not saying is a EXACTLY a .50 caliber but get close to. (Like .308 and 7,62x51mm are not the same thing). I'm continental European so I will tell you honestly than I would like to know how a inch is. (I think is something like 0.254 of difference judging by the fact that the .45 ACP is a 11.45mm) --Dannyguns (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2018 (EST)
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Any idea what this thing is supposed to be? It's Lara's standard pistol from the new game, and all I could come up with is some M1911/Hi-Power/S&W semi-auto frankengun.
--Mandolin (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2018 (EST)
FG42
I meant to ask this earlier, but I didn't because procrastination. Anyway, I've noticed at least a couple of instances where you've claimed that the FG42 would in some way destroy itself if fired in sustained full-auto. I'm curious as to where you got this information, because, no offense, but it sounds like complete BS. The FG42 was meant from the get-go as a hybrid rifle/LMG, so I highly doubt that it would've gone through the German ordnance department's testing if it'd break when you tried to use it the way it was intended; even if this was the case, by the time they got around to the 2nd pattern (with the normal-looking pistol grip), they probably would've ironed that out. I guess it could be an overheating problem, but even then, exactly how you're going to overheat an open-bolt rifle with a 20-round magazine to the point of it exploding before either locking it up in a miserable jam, running out of ammunition, or setting the handguard on fire isn't really clear. In fact, there was a Forgotten Weapons video that recently got re-uploaded (because Youtube's rules don't make any sense) showing Ian firing an actual, original FG42 in full-auto, showing neither evidence nor fear of catastrophic failure of a gun that wound up selling for 159 grand. (Here's the video, if you're interested.) If anything, it sounds like wartime/post-war propaganda more than anything else; i.e. "Oh, that fancy new rifle that the Nazis've got? Nah, don't worry about that! Sure, a hybrid machine gun/rifle sounds pretty advanced, but we've done some testing, and they don't even work! In fact, if they try to use one as a machine gun, it'll blow itself to bits! HA! See how much better our engineering is than theirs, men? If this is what they're arming their troops with, then we'll have Berlin by Christmas! (Brought to you by the people who claimed that the Sturmgewehr 44 could be irreparably destroyed by dropping it on the floor.)" Thoughts? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2018 (EST)
- Ah, okay, I hadn't heard that bit about the actual source of the StG thing, I'd always thought that that was just a rumor. Anyway, I can understand the issue with the FG42, though I still think we ought to include it in the Machine Gun category - after all, if we classified things based on how they performed instead of their characteristics and design intent, then, for example, the L86A2 would be more at home in Category:Sniper Rifle than in Category:Machine Gun (being issued and treated like a DMR, despite being meant and designed with features of an LSW), and something like the Breda Modello 30 probably wouldn't even go into Category:Gun. So, would adding the category be okay? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2018 (EST)
- True, but it's hardly the only one. I mean, to name a few, we've got the aforementioned L86, things like the Galil ARM and M27 IAR that aren't much more than normal assault rifles with a few LMG features, the Chauchat that'd lock up and refuse to fire if you used too much sustained fire (and often saw use as a sort of battle rifle in practice), and even things like the Federov Avtomat (which, in spite of intent, had far more in common with an assault/battle rifle than a proper machine gun) and the downright laughable M14E2 SAW (which fits this description pretty much perfectly - an implausible design brief that didn't pan out like it was supposed to, and essentially just resulted in a select-fire battle rifle with a bipod and a few other features that'd be more at home on a machine gun). I'll leave the final decision up to you, but were it up to me, I'd at least add the category and make a note on the page of how it was meant as a light machine gun, but turned out to be inadequate in that role, and was mostly just used as a battle rifle instead. Now, if you'd excuse me, I noticed a few other things missing from that category page that ought to be added. Sincerely, Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2018 (EST) P.S.: Maybe we should create a Discord. At any rate, it'd make discussions like these a bit easier.
User:Wuzh
This guy's been taking a lot of liberties on the site lately, including so far as to more-or-less on his own decide to at some point conduct a massive site-wide addition of a template of every page with 'the' at the start and wholesale moving a whole subcategory of firearms on the site. Frankly this is rubbing me the wrong way - not so much doing it but that he's doing these big edits without giving any leave for those of you who run things to even address any of this. Bah, well, there it is, bringing it to your (and a few others) attention. StanTheMan (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2018 (EST)
Hi, I wish to update on the situation. Me and StanTheMan have directly messaged each other and have settled the conflict. I apologize over my rashness at executing my proposals without proper discussions first and will to change my behavior in the future. The situation should be settled for now. --Wuzh (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2018 (EST)
Beta C-Mag deletion
I uploaded and used the image of the Beta C-Mag instead of the greenish image of the G36 in MG36-identical configuration because there is often a fundamental difference between that image and these video games' railed MG36. Practically, the "MG36" in these games is a G36 with a G36C rail and bipod handguard (considering our the current definition of the MG36). By itself, without even taking the C-Mag into consideration, that is a very unusual configuration. I have not been able to find any images of real firing full-length G36s with G36C rails, let alone G36 with G36C rails and the bipod handguard. Thus, the airsoft image serves as the perfect illustrating image for the gun models in these games. This model is fundamentally different from a "MG36-mock-up-model" since it is not a normal G36 trying to look like a MG36. It is a "video game MG36", with G36C rails and bipod handguard and Beta C-Mag.
As a result, I find that greenish image of a normal G36 in MG36 configuration ("MG36-mock-up-model") to be unnecessary on those pages since they look nothing like the "video game MG36", and should be removed. As to why I replaced them with the Beta C-Mag, it's because the airsoft "video game MG36" had a normal magazine, so a Beta C-Mag is needed to illustrate the mag. Can you revert the file deletion please? Thanks. --Wuzh (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (EST)
- OK then. Can I remove the "MG36-mock-up" image from those pages for the reasons I stated above? --Wuzh (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2018 (EST)
Log in issue
It's a drive space issue, we're running out. I cleaned up some files but will need to perform an upgrade to the main drive. --bunni (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2018 (EST)
M47 Dragon
I finally found a source for Dragon penetration, FM -06.11, page 308 of the PDF. As for Javelin, THIS Marine Corps document says "well" in excess of 30 inches (760mm)
Of course there's a dozen different opinions on Dragon, Infantry Magazine outright states 20 inches. In 1975--Mandolin (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2019 (EST)
- Interesting. Got any good links on that? Not saying I don't believe you, just that there's fifteen different opinions on the Dragon depending on who you ask. Also base Dragon's pen is so low the designer was massively incompetent.--Mandolin (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2019 (EDT)
- That's fine, no hurry.--Mandolin (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2019 (EDT)
- Actually found a live-fire test of the warhead. How did a missile that bad ever enter service? Just A2 variant M72 LAWs would do better!--Mandolin (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2019 (EDT)
- That's fine, no hurry.--Mandolin (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2019 (EDT)
Dissolve the M16/M4/M4A1 with M203 sections?
Hello Evil Tim. I posted a section on the M16 talk page about dissolving the "M16/M4/M4A1 with M203" sections, as I do not think those sections are needed, and they add inconsistency. The talk page section can be read here. What do you think about the proposal? Is it OK? --Wuzh (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
Incomplete Metal Gear Solid 2 article
Hello Evil Tim, I noticed the MGS2 article has been tagged as incomplete for some time. You seem to have edited it a lot, do you know if there is anything left to do on it, or can it be tagged as complete by now? Same as with the MGS3 article, I just wanted to know what's incomplete about them, as they seem pretty complete by now.--Ssantusky (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
The Watermarked Kard Image
In the file talk for the deleted Kard image, a point was brought up that the gun shown in that image shows a specific version of the Kard not shown in any other known photographs, and it is also the version modeled in several games. I would make the argument that the image needs to be brought back to illustrate that specific Kard, regardless of the watermarks. --Wuzh (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2019 (EST)
New Dragon research
I posted a bunch of stuff on the Dragon missile talk page, I've been doing a lot of research and would like to update it, wanted to run it by you since you've done most of the page.--Mandolin (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (EDT)
Forum account disabled
My account on the forum seems to be disabled or something. Can you take a look? Spartan198 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)