This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Any reason why the image was removed? 141.157.200.16 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone provide photos for the XGI?
I think that XGI pic is fair game, as it is just a scan from the old Ruger ads.
Ruger is currently auctioning off a non-fireing XGI rifle.the page can be found here.If one of the photo's were to be used it would have to be in fair use as it is the clearest photo availible. Paulwharton 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why there is a paragraph on the Kel-Tec SU-16 in the middle of the History section of the article? This seems highly inappropriate. A mention of the SU-16 is one thing, this seems to be someone attempting to advertise. Elwood64151 13:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Removed.
I am disputing the statment that the accuracy of this rifle against the AR-15 to be inferior. Although I agree with the general statement that the mini-14 is less accurate than bolt action rifles it has been my experience that the mini-14 is as accurate if not more so than its competitor the AR-15. I have been in numerous shooting matches where I have shot against AR-15's with a Mini-14 and have found them to be comparable. Shooting skill along with comfortablility and accustomisation of a weapon are large factors in obtaining skill and accuracy. I don't think there is anything inherently superior from either rifle to give it an accuracy advantage over the other. This statment seems to consistant in various circles as this dabate has gone on for years. I propose we strike the statement from the article in the interest of POV. FrankWilliams 17:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The Mini-14 is generally considered an inaccurate rifle. Out of the box accuracy is typically 4 or 5 MOA (100yrds). The AR-15 and SKS are more accurate rifles than a Mini-14. This page needs an expert to review and make necessary changes.
Re: Accuracy of the Mini-14:
It is generally recognized that "out of the box" most (not all) Mini-14's have a slightly larger grouping as compared with an "out of the box" AR-15. In this regard, the AR-15 is consistantly a little more accurate. The main issue concerning accuracy of the Mini-14 is it's stock barrel. There are aftermarket companies that produce supperior barrels for this rifle than the factory barrel, and the Mini-14 can be made to be more accurate than an out-of-the-box AR-15.
The Mini-14 has kept a substantial following due mainly to the robustness of it's design. Unlike the AR format, the gas system doesn't blow directly into the chamber, thus fouling the bolt, chamber, carrier and other fire control parts. Also, the Mini-14 can function in a dirtier environment than the AR rifles, more like an AK-47. The receiver is CNC milled out of hardened steel, whereas the two part receivers of the AR are made of about 75% aluminum, with fire control parts, made of steel. The stainless steel version of the Mini-14 are excelent for marine applications, where concerns about corrosion are a factor.
The reason that the AR-15 is more popular among civilians is 1) because this is the format widely used by the US Military; and 2) the avialability of spare parts and accessories. Whereas the Mini-14 must be serviced by Ruger and spare parts are only avaialable directly from the factory, a civilian can build an AR rifle with all of the componants that are readily available after purchasing the lower receiver which is designated the "firearm" by BATFE. This can be compared to the success of the VHS over the Beta video recording formats; as well as IBM PC's over the Apple PC's. Ease of maintenance and availability again trump what some may consider superior design.
A small manufacturer is making close quarters battle stocks for the Mini-14 that allow it to accept many of the componants and accesories available for the AR15. Although still too costly for most civilian Mini-14 owners, it does have the capability of allowing the Mini-14 "plinking" rifle to regain more serious stature among law enforcement for use as special QCB tool.
I own both rifles, mini-14 and AR-15. The mini-14 is a very accurate rifle if you do your homework on the guns rifle twist and select the proper bullet for that given twist. The very fact that the rifle is based off the M-14 which is still in use as a sniper rifle should be proof of this. I know that the accuracy issues are manly from the pre-03 rifles because the rifling twist rate varied depending on the year it was made. For some years had 10:1 rate then switch to 7:1 rates and now with the new versions 9:1 rates. That is the problem. My mini has a twist rate of 10:1 and is as of 2009 is 25 years old. I was using the 55 gr M193 round giving me 4 to 5 in groups. I did my homework on the bullet spec to twist rate relationship and found out that a 62 gr lead core bullet match the 10:1 twist rate the closest. I tested this and found that my groups went from basically 4-5 in groups to 1-2 in groups. The fact that the 223 rem was designed for the AR-15 means that most of the 223 rounds you can buy were ment for common twist rate of the AR-15, 11:1 and 9:1. Accuracy of the Mini-14 suffers the most from this because most of your bullets weren't ment for the Mini-14's odd twist rates. The best thing ruger did for the Mini-14 was change the twist rate to 9:1 in all the post-03 rifles giving the Mini-14 out of the box accuracty. As for parts: true the mini suffers greatly, but just look at my rifle 25 years old (heavily used) and shooting 1-2 in groups. The argument over Mini-14 vs AR-15 is very interseting, but maybe there should be a gun that takes the designe advantages of both rifles and incorpurates that into its design. The AR-15 has its flaws too in regards to accuracy. During feeding the bullet is scared which will have a huge affect on accuracy which is my only complaint about the rifle. In the Mini-14 the bullet is virtualy untouched during feeding. Ruger did a very good job on designing the feeding cycle of the mini-14, stoner not so much on the AR-15. You have your pro and cons with both guns. The mags of the mini are harder to load compared to the AR. It will take lots of practice to be as fast on loading the mini as it is for the AR, however the AR mag cause lots of jams in the AR system. but that was just some interesting tid bids that have nothing to do with accuracy. the thing is you get an AR that costs as little as a mini and they will be shooting very equally; you get a mini that costs as much as an AR and they will shoot equally. a statement like this requires a person who is famillar with both rifles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulielmi2002 ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Reverted the large scale deletion without discussion. Discussion is usually required before deleting entire sections, otherwise it is considered vandalism. Yaf 01:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed half an article? What are you talking about? I'm sorry if you like trivia but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. K1ng l0v3 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The FBI decided to switch calibers after the 1986 shootout because it felt it was outgunned. Every single source I've linked has supported that, our own articles support that, every person who knows anything about it would support that if you asked. Why don't you stop removing sources that support the content and find some that meet your own standards? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 14:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and merged it. From April to November there were 6 comments, 5 for and 1 against. -- Asams10 12:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Today I uploaded an image of the Mini-14 to replace the partial image in the infobox, but suddenly I find myself wondering if there is too much background in it, such as the packages with a brand name on the. I could crop the image and upload it in the place of the current one, but would rather not if it isn't necessary. Does anyone think this is necessary?-- LWF 23:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there really any need for this section since we have an infobox? Maybe the section just for the magazines should stay (or be added to the infobox), but I can't see any point of having the other information twice. While there is some information in it that is not in the infobox, I'm sure it can be added. Hayden120 02:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone knowledgeable about this weapon, and of course has reliable sources, needs to severely overhaul this article. The way it stands right now, it's primarily about the Ruger Mini 14. It mentions the AC556F once, and only to say that it's a variant of the Mini 14. Parsecboy 23:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I am going to try and re-write the article to be centered on the weapon in question. the two firearms while apearing Identicle are mechanically different firearms. Paulwharton 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
5.56x45mm NATO is a provably incorrect name for the cartridge. Its NATO designation, per STANAG, is 5.56mm NATO. The Wiki naming guidelines clearly state that they are not to be applied inflexibly. That apparently means little to those who worship form over substance. Emerson was right: A foolish consistency is indeed the hobgoblin of little minds.-- Ana Nim ( talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The 7.62mm version of the Mini-14 is the Mini Thirty, not the Mini-30, with the number spelled out. Easy fix. 202.165.204.253 ( talk) 07:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Mac
There is express DANGER in shooting .312 ammo in a Ruger that is chambered for the US .308 cal. breach pressures can reach explosive levels and kill you. Be sure of the ammo your shoting. Russian and most other NON-US ammo is .312". As far as I know no ruger mini-30's were chambered for this .312 ammo.
The Ruger Mini-14 manual states: "The RUGER® MINI-14® RANCH RIFLES are chambered for the .223 Remington (5.56mm) cartridge. The Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is designed to use either standardized U.S. military, or factory loaded sporting .223 (5.56mm) cartridges manufactured in accordance with U.S. industry practice." -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 19:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The external link to the AC-556 manual appears to be broken. I'm sure there is another location on the web that could be found with a little searching though. Just a heads up. 66.191.19.68 ( talk) 16:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it no longer the case that the Bermuda Regiment uses the Mini-14? There's a neat 1993 pic of it on WikiCommons.
I tend to agree with the removal of this by the IP editor. Should an article about a gun include a section detailing crimes in which it has been used? I really do not think so, does anyone else have any thoughts? O Fenian ( talk) 08:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I support this wholeheartedly. Crime section should not under any circumstance be included in a firearms article. The article is for information relating to the technical details and legitmate details of the firearm under discussion. Adding crime data insinuates a distinctly anti Second Amendment flavor that does not belong in the article. (The IP Editor that just nuked that section on the Mini 14 Article- It was promptly and erroneously restored.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.239.200 ( talk) 03:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I say that this section is "anti gun" propaganda. I looked up the wikipedia entry for knives as well as straight edge razors, and found no such similar entry. I am sure some editor has some very legitimate reason that will quell any such suspicions on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.82 ( talk) 13:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been running through the article making little tweaks here and there, citing things, calling for citations etc... in preperation for GA review. I feel this article is already quite good, and would fair well as a GA candidate. Can anyone else comment? - Deathsythe ( talk) 19:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that folks have tried to add this event to the list (with varying degrees of sourcing), and even the sourced ones have been removed as WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure I agree, given that it appears this was the primary weapon of a record-breaking shooting spree. I'm all for leaving out minor crimes, especially where the gun used didn't get much media visibility, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Check out the Stats.grok.se records: [1] this article's traffic has increased from not quite 1,000/day to 15,000/day. Due precisely to the media mention of the Mini-14, readers are coming here to learn more, and I fear that if we work to prevent the Utoya shooting being mentioned here it will start to look evasive or politically-driven. I submit we should have a brief, appropriate mention that the Mini-14 was used in the Utoya shooting, and include the most authoritative and politically neutral reference available. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 15:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page)., bullets who "expand" when entering the body (this I guess you know more about than I do), which are only allowed for game hunting in Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.182.148.132 (
talk) 17:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I would submit that, even if no new legislation were proposed, that this would be notable in that it appears this firearm is already associated, in the public perception, with this crime and vice versa, which is along the lines of the criteria of the loose WP:WikiProject Guns measure of notability for crimes/media. Not going for good-gun/bad-gun politics, just noting (although clearly we're at an early phase) it's looking like "Mini-14" is gaining some space in the public consciousness as "that gun used in Utoya". As a rough Notability parallel, the Walther PPK definitely needs to mention James Bond, since a large number of people, hearing the term, would say "that's the gun James Bond uses" and plenty of non-gun-savvy folks, if asked "what gun does James Bond use?" would say "Walther PPK". MatthewVanitas ( talk) 04:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
...causing the Socialist Democrats to review gun legislation in Norway and Sweden
. That is not entirely correct. It is causing the governments of Norway and Sweden to review gun laws, not the social democratic parties (who are not in power in Sweden). Bobbythemazarin ( talk) 19:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that under the Variants > Mini-14 Tactical subsection the article notes that these models of the rifle are marked as "Tactical Rifle" on the receiver. However I just purchased a Mini-14 Tactical and the receiver is still marked as "Ranch Rifle". Rifle is serial # 581-79094. Might be worth making a note that the Tactical model may have either marking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.223.186 ( talk) 01:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You can't talk about the Mini-14 without mentioning The A-Team...like Dirty Harry and his S&W .44 Magnum or James Bond (007) and his Walther PPK...they are inseparable. I suggest that we add the fallowing line (in bold) to the History section.
The Mini-14 was first introduced in 1974 by Ruger. Mini-14 is derived from the military M14 rifle implying a miniature version of the M14. Ruger used the M14 as a model for the new rifle while incorporating numerous innovations and cost-saving engineering changes. The Mini-14 proved popular with small-game hunters, ranchers, law enforcement, security personnel and target shooters. Hollywood helped to drive the Mini-14's popularity by showcasing the stainless folding stock Mini-14 in the original A-Team TV Show and it's brief cameo in The A-Team Movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 ( talk) 02:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there really a need for a crimes section in this article? To me, that just screams an anti-gun bias. If a crime is committed, what does it matter what the weapon is? Really. Violent crime will happen whether the weapon is a gun, a baseball bat, or even a bulldozer. I haven't noticed any other weapon pages with this type of info included, so what is the purpose of it here, other than being a soapbox for someone who would like to see tighter restrictions on firearms ownership?-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 22:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The Mini 14 is NOT specified to fire 5.56 NATO ammo. Ruger specifies "sporting" or "military standard" 5.56 only, read the manual. Then look at your receiver, it says .223 Remington, that is the ONLY ammo spec stamped on it. Do a quick search and you will find warnings from Colt and Winchester that 5.56 NATO fires at much higher chamber pressures than .223 and are NOT safely interchangeable. Who knows what 5.56mm "sporting rounds" or "military standard" means, never seen that on a cartridge box. While before I knew this I put plenty of 5.56 NATO through my mini 14, I now know why they were MUCH LOUDER than the .223 marked rounds... may work fine for 10,000 rounds (like anyone could afford that) but maybe 10k+1 plants a bolt frag in your head. Check on it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.187.226 ( talk) 02:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the guy above is wrong. Except for the target models, it says right on the manufactures spec sheet and web site “Caliber: 5.56mm NATO/.223 Rem.” — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Twsarch (
talk •
contribs) 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Rifles with 5.56x45 chamber dimensions that safely handle both 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington are often marked .223 Remington out of political correctness. It is best to consult with the manufacturer and follow their recommendations on use of 5.56 in a .223 rifle. Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Many of the photos of the AC-556 as they appear in Jane's guides and in marketing literature depict small rifle grenades with the rifle. Should we include a very short, sourced, reference to the capability and type of grenades available for the system? Does anyone know where we could dig up a decent source for this? I'll check a few standard texts. Thanks. --Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 03:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Should there be a reference to the straight-pull, bolt-action only Minis produced in limited numbers for the UK market? [3] A bit esoteric, but it would be a variant nonetheless.--Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The other calibers section regarding the XGI and AK-magazine Mini-30 may need a second look. While the experimental XGI is something that should indeed be covered, the sourcing for the statement is Security Arms. Even more suspect is an alleged AK-magazine fed variant made for the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command. Do we know if the aforementioned site has any editorial oversight?
As far as I know, the XGI was never produced due to accuracy and reliability issues, not from a lawsuit filed by Springfield armory. A reliable source either way would be good. Also, I cannot find any other reference to an AK-mag version of the Mini-30 anywhere else besides the aforementioned site. Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 02:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Why on Earth would the U.S. Navy Special Warfare Command, even think about issuing Mini-30's to units who operate behind enemy lines, when it has wharehouses filled with AK-47's? It sounds like an urban legend to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 ( talk) 02:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Sturm, Ruger only gave in to calling it a "Mini-14" (parenthesis intact) only after constant disinformation and confusion over the rifle's actual name being the Ruger Ranch Rifle, a varminter-class .223 (.22) firearm.
Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club#Ruger Mini-14. benzband ( talk) 09:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Just removed a mass of undocumented/unreferenced material which amount to promotion/PR for Ruger. Regards, Tapered ( talk) 23:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Is this the right source? I can't find any mention of ghost rings in the chapter on the Mini-14. But I only checked the Google version linked from this citation - could it be in a different edition? Rezin ( talk) 21:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Guess the correction I had made a few years ago didn't stand the test of time. The French users of the AC-556 aren't the Gendarmerie (they are military so they use FA-MAS rifle). The French users are the CRS (Compagnie Républicaines de Sécurité), which are the riot control elements of the Police Nationale (French Police, works only in cities). The French AC-556s were bought from Ruger somewhere in the 1970s and their local designation is the Mousqueton AMD, after the name used for short bolt-action rifles carried by the Gendarmerie at the start of the 20th century. The AC-556 was previously used by the special forces group GIGN (replaced by the HK 53 in the 80s) and the Direction de l'Administration Pénitentiaire (Prison services)(replaced by the HK G36 in the 2000s).
The CRS officers are easily identified by the big white shield with CRS they wear on the lest side breast of their uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.130.184.47 ( talk) 15:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, is it relevant to state in the article that Anders Behring Breivik used a Ruger Mini-14 in his massacre on Utoya island? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/norway-shooters-mini-14-t_b_911155.html Bobbythemazarin ( talk) 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Unless anyone can give me a good reason not to I'm going to go ahead and add that information. ẈỄ'ḸḼ ṪḜḀṘ ỶƠṴṜ ṠǾṸḶ ḀṖẤṘṮ... Ǐ Đŏ Ñőť Ŗëșρθ₦ḏ Ẁ€ḷḹ Тό Ḉṟḭṭịḉḯṧṃ 23:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a mention of the 1986 FBI Miami shootout, I'd personally argue that it was a rather high profile crime involving the weapon, especially the effect it had on policies of the FBI and for law enforcement in general. 95.109.103.15 ( talk) 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This article isn't for memorializing.
This image is essentially
undue weight in this article and doesn't belong.
Relevant policy states "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter..."
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Does this image belong in Traffic collision? After all, there's not even a section on injuries caused by traffic accidents.
Tapered ( talk) 12:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Something that you've written further up the page, "One of the dispute resolution forums would be appropriate. I'm trying to decide which...." seems to indicate that you have no intention of accepting or abiding by the current consensus. Is that right? If so, there is no real reason to continue discussion with you as that wouldn't be in good faith on your part. I think there are six editors that have agreed on the removal of the image from the article so far and you haven't made a convincing argument to keep it in. Go ahead and file for
dispute resolution and let them come in and look the situation over. They may be able to help you at this impasse.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.... here is the entire RfC discussion...
Should the "Criminal Use" section contain a photo of the Plaque of the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre victims?
Tapered ( talk) 23:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Ruger Mini-14. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
How come we have a section devoted to this firearms use on a fictional TV show but no mention of a very famous use in real life? Felsic2 ( talk) 18:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Given the recent edits to the page I would guess that there are objections and you shouldn't restore the material without discussion. Springee ( talk) 22:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see [6]. The exact edits that you want to make have just been reverted 10 times by 5 different editors resulting in IP user 86.153.166.89 being blocked. And, as you are fully aware of this, even commenting on said users talk page, [7] don't pretend that there are no objections and restore the edits. -- RAF910 ( talk) 00:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There can be No Compromise as there is NO Encyclopedic value to adding a gratuitous body count to this page or any other page on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should read WP:Advocate, WP:Not listening & WP:Winning.-- RAF910 ( talk) 14:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is going nowhere. Enough is enough...If you think that you have consensus, then make the edits and live with the consequences.-- RAF910 ( talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
RAF910 please, what is your reason for reverting my edits ? My edits seem in accord with the guidelines and other articles. Would you have better wording?
After I scanned the discussion in this talk page, I did not make the same edits as the IP you mentioned. No "body counts", no repeat of the incident descriptions, which I don't think need to be repeated in this article, used neutral wording, not imflammatory, (to me) added criteria for 2 incidents, following the /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use guidelines, as I understand them, and applied my edits in the similar text pattern, I believe, as I read in these articles; Sig MCX, Bushmaster_XM-15, Carcono
Sorry, I did not clarify the talk page in my edit comment. I was referring to comments in the WP:Guns project talk page, and did read the discussion in this talk page first. Now if I did, I did not mean to irritate you or anyone; and have no agenda, my interest is building an encyclopedia. I think uses, good and bad, belong in this article, like other articles and subjects, in an encyclopedia. I only listed 2 incidents instead of the original 4 incidents since only 2 seemed appropriate to me to be in this article after my research. Thank you, CuriousMind01 ( talk) 16:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Project page talk page excerpts I was referring to in my edit comment:Draft Example: Notoriety: The Mini 14 was used in the: 1986 FBI Miami shootout, École Polytechnique Massacre, Byron_David_Smith_killings and Utoya mass shooting incidents."CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC) That'd be sensible. Felsic2 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I would support a bulleted list of article links for incidents (both positive and negative) with notability sufficient for separate wikipedia articles. See Also might be a more neutral list title option than Notoriety or Popular culture. Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Pls add wikilink to .300 AAC Blackout in article Ruger_Mini-14#300_Blackout. thx 80.187.99.70 ( talk) 09:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ruger Mini-14. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Ruger Mini 14 article add this text? CuriousMind01 ( talk) 14:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The Ruger Mini 14 was used in these incidents:
I added criteria, the 2 results per: WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use. I did not think it was necessary to repeat the incident details within the 2 articles.
The article has a popular culture section, with a use on a TV series. No incidents or other use are in the article.
There are sources in the 2 incident articles, I repeated some sources and added additional sources here:
Sources
|
---|
1986 FBI Miami shootout
École Polytechnique Massacre Rathjen, Heidi; Montpetit, Charles (1999). December 6: From the Montreal Massacre to Gun Control. Toronto:. McClelland & Stewart. ISBN 0-7710-6125-0.
|
added section CuriousMind01 ( talk) 14:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
1. Miguel Escopeta re: "No major changes in firearm laws occurred", The Canada Firearms Act, 1995 was enacted. You seem knowledgeable in these subjects. What does "major" mean here? Thank you, CuriousMind01 ( talk) 13:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Miguel Escopeta: "No major changes in firearm laws occurred" is not a standard based on any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If it were, this article would be much, much shorter. 19:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I submitted a request for closure: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Request_for_Administrator_to_Close_RfC_Talk:Ruger_Mini-14.23Rfc:_Add_major_incidents_to_article The Legobot removed the RFC template CuriousMind01 ( talk) 11:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "TOC limit; rm nn variants from infobox; c/e; rm excessive external links -- official site is sufficient; rm ext links from body. Please let me know if there are any concerns." -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I previously removed hidden text from the Criminal Use section:
"READ FIRST: Entries in this section must abide by the criteria in WP:Firearms#Criminal_use."
This is counter to Wikipedia policies and practice. There is no such requirement to follow the recommendations at WP:GUNS, and the outcome of the 2016 RFC was to include details of shootings in the Criminal Use section for this article.
The hidden text was recently added to the article again. Please discuss here. – dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The page contains a number of citations to ruger.com. I tagged the article accordingly; please let me know if there are any concerns. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This article states that a different weapon was used, but I do not know how to edit wikipedia to satisfy its criteria. /info/en/?search=Byron_David_Smith_killings#Incident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.4.46 ( talk) 04:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Not sure what you are asking. The linked article seems to support the use of a mini-14. Springee ( talk) 23:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Would it be allright to add a "In the media" section in this article? The Ruger Mini-14 was heavily featured in the 80's series THE A-TEAM! -- Exodianecross ( talk) 02:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Any reason why the image was removed? 141.157.200.16 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone provide photos for the XGI?
I think that XGI pic is fair game, as it is just a scan from the old Ruger ads.
Ruger is currently auctioning off a non-fireing XGI rifle.the page can be found here.If one of the photo's were to be used it would have to be in fair use as it is the clearest photo availible. Paulwharton 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why there is a paragraph on the Kel-Tec SU-16 in the middle of the History section of the article? This seems highly inappropriate. A mention of the SU-16 is one thing, this seems to be someone attempting to advertise. Elwood64151 13:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Removed.
I am disputing the statment that the accuracy of this rifle against the AR-15 to be inferior. Although I agree with the general statement that the mini-14 is less accurate than bolt action rifles it has been my experience that the mini-14 is as accurate if not more so than its competitor the AR-15. I have been in numerous shooting matches where I have shot against AR-15's with a Mini-14 and have found them to be comparable. Shooting skill along with comfortablility and accustomisation of a weapon are large factors in obtaining skill and accuracy. I don't think there is anything inherently superior from either rifle to give it an accuracy advantage over the other. This statment seems to consistant in various circles as this dabate has gone on for years. I propose we strike the statement from the article in the interest of POV. FrankWilliams 17:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The Mini-14 is generally considered an inaccurate rifle. Out of the box accuracy is typically 4 or 5 MOA (100yrds). The AR-15 and SKS are more accurate rifles than a Mini-14. This page needs an expert to review and make necessary changes.
Re: Accuracy of the Mini-14:
It is generally recognized that "out of the box" most (not all) Mini-14's have a slightly larger grouping as compared with an "out of the box" AR-15. In this regard, the AR-15 is consistantly a little more accurate. The main issue concerning accuracy of the Mini-14 is it's stock barrel. There are aftermarket companies that produce supperior barrels for this rifle than the factory barrel, and the Mini-14 can be made to be more accurate than an out-of-the-box AR-15.
The Mini-14 has kept a substantial following due mainly to the robustness of it's design. Unlike the AR format, the gas system doesn't blow directly into the chamber, thus fouling the bolt, chamber, carrier and other fire control parts. Also, the Mini-14 can function in a dirtier environment than the AR rifles, more like an AK-47. The receiver is CNC milled out of hardened steel, whereas the two part receivers of the AR are made of about 75% aluminum, with fire control parts, made of steel. The stainless steel version of the Mini-14 are excelent for marine applications, where concerns about corrosion are a factor.
The reason that the AR-15 is more popular among civilians is 1) because this is the format widely used by the US Military; and 2) the avialability of spare parts and accessories. Whereas the Mini-14 must be serviced by Ruger and spare parts are only avaialable directly from the factory, a civilian can build an AR rifle with all of the componants that are readily available after purchasing the lower receiver which is designated the "firearm" by BATFE. This can be compared to the success of the VHS over the Beta video recording formats; as well as IBM PC's over the Apple PC's. Ease of maintenance and availability again trump what some may consider superior design.
A small manufacturer is making close quarters battle stocks for the Mini-14 that allow it to accept many of the componants and accesories available for the AR15. Although still too costly for most civilian Mini-14 owners, it does have the capability of allowing the Mini-14 "plinking" rifle to regain more serious stature among law enforcement for use as special QCB tool.
I own both rifles, mini-14 and AR-15. The mini-14 is a very accurate rifle if you do your homework on the guns rifle twist and select the proper bullet for that given twist. The very fact that the rifle is based off the M-14 which is still in use as a sniper rifle should be proof of this. I know that the accuracy issues are manly from the pre-03 rifles because the rifling twist rate varied depending on the year it was made. For some years had 10:1 rate then switch to 7:1 rates and now with the new versions 9:1 rates. That is the problem. My mini has a twist rate of 10:1 and is as of 2009 is 25 years old. I was using the 55 gr M193 round giving me 4 to 5 in groups. I did my homework on the bullet spec to twist rate relationship and found out that a 62 gr lead core bullet match the 10:1 twist rate the closest. I tested this and found that my groups went from basically 4-5 in groups to 1-2 in groups. The fact that the 223 rem was designed for the AR-15 means that most of the 223 rounds you can buy were ment for common twist rate of the AR-15, 11:1 and 9:1. Accuracy of the Mini-14 suffers the most from this because most of your bullets weren't ment for the Mini-14's odd twist rates. The best thing ruger did for the Mini-14 was change the twist rate to 9:1 in all the post-03 rifles giving the Mini-14 out of the box accuracty. As for parts: true the mini suffers greatly, but just look at my rifle 25 years old (heavily used) and shooting 1-2 in groups. The argument over Mini-14 vs AR-15 is very interseting, but maybe there should be a gun that takes the designe advantages of both rifles and incorpurates that into its design. The AR-15 has its flaws too in regards to accuracy. During feeding the bullet is scared which will have a huge affect on accuracy which is my only complaint about the rifle. In the Mini-14 the bullet is virtualy untouched during feeding. Ruger did a very good job on designing the feeding cycle of the mini-14, stoner not so much on the AR-15. You have your pro and cons with both guns. The mags of the mini are harder to load compared to the AR. It will take lots of practice to be as fast on loading the mini as it is for the AR, however the AR mag cause lots of jams in the AR system. but that was just some interesting tid bids that have nothing to do with accuracy. the thing is you get an AR that costs as little as a mini and they will be shooting very equally; you get a mini that costs as much as an AR and they will shoot equally. a statement like this requires a person who is famillar with both rifles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulielmi2002 ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Reverted the large scale deletion without discussion. Discussion is usually required before deleting entire sections, otherwise it is considered vandalism. Yaf 01:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed half an article? What are you talking about? I'm sorry if you like trivia but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. K1ng l0v3 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The FBI decided to switch calibers after the 1986 shootout because it felt it was outgunned. Every single source I've linked has supported that, our own articles support that, every person who knows anything about it would support that if you asked. Why don't you stop removing sources that support the content and find some that meet your own standards? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 14:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and merged it. From April to November there were 6 comments, 5 for and 1 against. -- Asams10 12:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Today I uploaded an image of the Mini-14 to replace the partial image in the infobox, but suddenly I find myself wondering if there is too much background in it, such as the packages with a brand name on the. I could crop the image and upload it in the place of the current one, but would rather not if it isn't necessary. Does anyone think this is necessary?-- LWF 23:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there really any need for this section since we have an infobox? Maybe the section just for the magazines should stay (or be added to the infobox), but I can't see any point of having the other information twice. While there is some information in it that is not in the infobox, I'm sure it can be added. Hayden120 02:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone knowledgeable about this weapon, and of course has reliable sources, needs to severely overhaul this article. The way it stands right now, it's primarily about the Ruger Mini 14. It mentions the AC556F once, and only to say that it's a variant of the Mini 14. Parsecboy 23:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I am going to try and re-write the article to be centered on the weapon in question. the two firearms while apearing Identicle are mechanically different firearms. Paulwharton 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
5.56x45mm NATO is a provably incorrect name for the cartridge. Its NATO designation, per STANAG, is 5.56mm NATO. The Wiki naming guidelines clearly state that they are not to be applied inflexibly. That apparently means little to those who worship form over substance. Emerson was right: A foolish consistency is indeed the hobgoblin of little minds.-- Ana Nim ( talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The 7.62mm version of the Mini-14 is the Mini Thirty, not the Mini-30, with the number spelled out. Easy fix. 202.165.204.253 ( talk) 07:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Mac
There is express DANGER in shooting .312 ammo in a Ruger that is chambered for the US .308 cal. breach pressures can reach explosive levels and kill you. Be sure of the ammo your shoting. Russian and most other NON-US ammo is .312". As far as I know no ruger mini-30's were chambered for this .312 ammo.
The Ruger Mini-14 manual states: "The RUGER® MINI-14® RANCH RIFLES are chambered for the .223 Remington (5.56mm) cartridge. The Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is designed to use either standardized U.S. military, or factory loaded sporting .223 (5.56mm) cartridges manufactured in accordance with U.S. industry practice." -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 19:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The external link to the AC-556 manual appears to be broken. I'm sure there is another location on the web that could be found with a little searching though. Just a heads up. 66.191.19.68 ( talk) 16:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it no longer the case that the Bermuda Regiment uses the Mini-14? There's a neat 1993 pic of it on WikiCommons.
I tend to agree with the removal of this by the IP editor. Should an article about a gun include a section detailing crimes in which it has been used? I really do not think so, does anyone else have any thoughts? O Fenian ( talk) 08:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I support this wholeheartedly. Crime section should not under any circumstance be included in a firearms article. The article is for information relating to the technical details and legitmate details of the firearm under discussion. Adding crime data insinuates a distinctly anti Second Amendment flavor that does not belong in the article. (The IP Editor that just nuked that section on the Mini 14 Article- It was promptly and erroneously restored.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.239.200 ( talk) 03:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I say that this section is "anti gun" propaganda. I looked up the wikipedia entry for knives as well as straight edge razors, and found no such similar entry. I am sure some editor has some very legitimate reason that will quell any such suspicions on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.82 ( talk) 13:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been running through the article making little tweaks here and there, citing things, calling for citations etc... in preperation for GA review. I feel this article is already quite good, and would fair well as a GA candidate. Can anyone else comment? - Deathsythe ( talk) 19:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that folks have tried to add this event to the list (with varying degrees of sourcing), and even the sourced ones have been removed as WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure I agree, given that it appears this was the primary weapon of a record-breaking shooting spree. I'm all for leaving out minor crimes, especially where the gun used didn't get much media visibility, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Check out the Stats.grok.se records: [1] this article's traffic has increased from not quite 1,000/day to 15,000/day. Due precisely to the media mention of the Mini-14, readers are coming here to learn more, and I fear that if we work to prevent the Utoya shooting being mentioned here it will start to look evasive or politically-driven. I submit we should have a brief, appropriate mention that the Mini-14 was used in the Utoya shooting, and include the most authoritative and politically neutral reference available. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 15:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page)., bullets who "expand" when entering the body (this I guess you know more about than I do), which are only allowed for game hunting in Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.182.148.132 (
talk) 17:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I would submit that, even if no new legislation were proposed, that this would be notable in that it appears this firearm is already associated, in the public perception, with this crime and vice versa, which is along the lines of the criteria of the loose WP:WikiProject Guns measure of notability for crimes/media. Not going for good-gun/bad-gun politics, just noting (although clearly we're at an early phase) it's looking like "Mini-14" is gaining some space in the public consciousness as "that gun used in Utoya". As a rough Notability parallel, the Walther PPK definitely needs to mention James Bond, since a large number of people, hearing the term, would say "that's the gun James Bond uses" and plenty of non-gun-savvy folks, if asked "what gun does James Bond use?" would say "Walther PPK". MatthewVanitas ( talk) 04:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
...causing the Socialist Democrats to review gun legislation in Norway and Sweden
. That is not entirely correct. It is causing the governments of Norway and Sweden to review gun laws, not the social democratic parties (who are not in power in Sweden). Bobbythemazarin ( talk) 19:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that under the Variants > Mini-14 Tactical subsection the article notes that these models of the rifle are marked as "Tactical Rifle" on the receiver. However I just purchased a Mini-14 Tactical and the receiver is still marked as "Ranch Rifle". Rifle is serial # 581-79094. Might be worth making a note that the Tactical model may have either marking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.223.186 ( talk) 01:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You can't talk about the Mini-14 without mentioning The A-Team...like Dirty Harry and his S&W .44 Magnum or James Bond (007) and his Walther PPK...they are inseparable. I suggest that we add the fallowing line (in bold) to the History section.
The Mini-14 was first introduced in 1974 by Ruger. Mini-14 is derived from the military M14 rifle implying a miniature version of the M14. Ruger used the M14 as a model for the new rifle while incorporating numerous innovations and cost-saving engineering changes. The Mini-14 proved popular with small-game hunters, ranchers, law enforcement, security personnel and target shooters. Hollywood helped to drive the Mini-14's popularity by showcasing the stainless folding stock Mini-14 in the original A-Team TV Show and it's brief cameo in The A-Team Movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 ( talk) 02:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there really a need for a crimes section in this article? To me, that just screams an anti-gun bias. If a crime is committed, what does it matter what the weapon is? Really. Violent crime will happen whether the weapon is a gun, a baseball bat, or even a bulldozer. I haven't noticed any other weapon pages with this type of info included, so what is the purpose of it here, other than being a soapbox for someone who would like to see tighter restrictions on firearms ownership?-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 22:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The Mini 14 is NOT specified to fire 5.56 NATO ammo. Ruger specifies "sporting" or "military standard" 5.56 only, read the manual. Then look at your receiver, it says .223 Remington, that is the ONLY ammo spec stamped on it. Do a quick search and you will find warnings from Colt and Winchester that 5.56 NATO fires at much higher chamber pressures than .223 and are NOT safely interchangeable. Who knows what 5.56mm "sporting rounds" or "military standard" means, never seen that on a cartridge box. While before I knew this I put plenty of 5.56 NATO through my mini 14, I now know why they were MUCH LOUDER than the .223 marked rounds... may work fine for 10,000 rounds (like anyone could afford that) but maybe 10k+1 plants a bolt frag in your head. Check on it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.187.226 ( talk) 02:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the guy above is wrong. Except for the target models, it says right on the manufactures spec sheet and web site “Caliber: 5.56mm NATO/.223 Rem.” — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Twsarch (
talk •
contribs) 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Rifles with 5.56x45 chamber dimensions that safely handle both 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington are often marked .223 Remington out of political correctness. It is best to consult with the manufacturer and follow their recommendations on use of 5.56 in a .223 rifle. Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Many of the photos of the AC-556 as they appear in Jane's guides and in marketing literature depict small rifle grenades with the rifle. Should we include a very short, sourced, reference to the capability and type of grenades available for the system? Does anyone know where we could dig up a decent source for this? I'll check a few standard texts. Thanks. --Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 03:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Should there be a reference to the straight-pull, bolt-action only Minis produced in limited numbers for the UK market? [3] A bit esoteric, but it would be a variant nonetheless.--Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The other calibers section regarding the XGI and AK-magazine Mini-30 may need a second look. While the experimental XGI is something that should indeed be covered, the sourcing for the statement is Security Arms. Even more suspect is an alleged AK-magazine fed variant made for the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command. Do we know if the aforementioned site has any editorial oversight?
As far as I know, the XGI was never produced due to accuracy and reliability issues, not from a lawsuit filed by Springfield armory. A reliable source either way would be good. Also, I cannot find any other reference to an AK-mag version of the Mini-30 anywhere else besides the aforementioned site. Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 02:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Why on Earth would the U.S. Navy Special Warfare Command, even think about issuing Mini-30's to units who operate behind enemy lines, when it has wharehouses filled with AK-47's? It sounds like an urban legend to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 ( talk) 02:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Sturm, Ruger only gave in to calling it a "Mini-14" (parenthesis intact) only after constant disinformation and confusion over the rifle's actual name being the Ruger Ranch Rifle, a varminter-class .223 (.22) firearm.
Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club#Ruger Mini-14. benzband ( talk) 09:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Just removed a mass of undocumented/unreferenced material which amount to promotion/PR for Ruger. Regards, Tapered ( talk) 23:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Is this the right source? I can't find any mention of ghost rings in the chapter on the Mini-14. But I only checked the Google version linked from this citation - could it be in a different edition? Rezin ( talk) 21:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Guess the correction I had made a few years ago didn't stand the test of time. The French users of the AC-556 aren't the Gendarmerie (they are military so they use FA-MAS rifle). The French users are the CRS (Compagnie Républicaines de Sécurité), which are the riot control elements of the Police Nationale (French Police, works only in cities). The French AC-556s were bought from Ruger somewhere in the 1970s and their local designation is the Mousqueton AMD, after the name used for short bolt-action rifles carried by the Gendarmerie at the start of the 20th century. The AC-556 was previously used by the special forces group GIGN (replaced by the HK 53 in the 80s) and the Direction de l'Administration Pénitentiaire (Prison services)(replaced by the HK G36 in the 2000s).
The CRS officers are easily identified by the big white shield with CRS they wear on the lest side breast of their uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.130.184.47 ( talk) 15:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, is it relevant to state in the article that Anders Behring Breivik used a Ruger Mini-14 in his massacre on Utoya island? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/norway-shooters-mini-14-t_b_911155.html Bobbythemazarin ( talk) 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Unless anyone can give me a good reason not to I'm going to go ahead and add that information. ẈỄ'ḸḼ ṪḜḀṘ ỶƠṴṜ ṠǾṸḶ ḀṖẤṘṮ... Ǐ Đŏ Ñőť Ŗëșρθ₦ḏ Ẁ€ḷḹ Тό Ḉṟḭṭịḉḯṧṃ 23:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a mention of the 1986 FBI Miami shootout, I'd personally argue that it was a rather high profile crime involving the weapon, especially the effect it had on policies of the FBI and for law enforcement in general. 95.109.103.15 ( talk) 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This article isn't for memorializing.
This image is essentially
undue weight in this article and doesn't belong.
Relevant policy states "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter..."
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Does this image belong in Traffic collision? After all, there's not even a section on injuries caused by traffic accidents.
Tapered ( talk) 12:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Something that you've written further up the page, "One of the dispute resolution forums would be appropriate. I'm trying to decide which...." seems to indicate that you have no intention of accepting or abiding by the current consensus. Is that right? If so, there is no real reason to continue discussion with you as that wouldn't be in good faith on your part. I think there are six editors that have agreed on the removal of the image from the article so far and you haven't made a convincing argument to keep it in. Go ahead and file for
dispute resolution and let them come in and look the situation over. They may be able to help you at this impasse.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.... here is the entire RfC discussion...
Should the "Criminal Use" section contain a photo of the Plaque of the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre victims?
Tapered ( talk) 23:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Ruger Mini-14. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
How come we have a section devoted to this firearms use on a fictional TV show but no mention of a very famous use in real life? Felsic2 ( talk) 18:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Given the recent edits to the page I would guess that there are objections and you shouldn't restore the material without discussion. Springee ( talk) 22:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see [6]. The exact edits that you want to make have just been reverted 10 times by 5 different editors resulting in IP user 86.153.166.89 being blocked. And, as you are fully aware of this, even commenting on said users talk page, [7] don't pretend that there are no objections and restore the edits. -- RAF910 ( talk) 00:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There can be No Compromise as there is NO Encyclopedic value to adding a gratuitous body count to this page or any other page on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should read WP:Advocate, WP:Not listening & WP:Winning.-- RAF910 ( talk) 14:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is going nowhere. Enough is enough...If you think that you have consensus, then make the edits and live with the consequences.-- RAF910 ( talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
RAF910 please, what is your reason for reverting my edits ? My edits seem in accord with the guidelines and other articles. Would you have better wording?
After I scanned the discussion in this talk page, I did not make the same edits as the IP you mentioned. No "body counts", no repeat of the incident descriptions, which I don't think need to be repeated in this article, used neutral wording, not imflammatory, (to me) added criteria for 2 incidents, following the /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use guidelines, as I understand them, and applied my edits in the similar text pattern, I believe, as I read in these articles; Sig MCX, Bushmaster_XM-15, Carcono
Sorry, I did not clarify the talk page in my edit comment. I was referring to comments in the WP:Guns project talk page, and did read the discussion in this talk page first. Now if I did, I did not mean to irritate you or anyone; and have no agenda, my interest is building an encyclopedia. I think uses, good and bad, belong in this article, like other articles and subjects, in an encyclopedia. I only listed 2 incidents instead of the original 4 incidents since only 2 seemed appropriate to me to be in this article after my research. Thank you, CuriousMind01 ( talk) 16:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Project page talk page excerpts I was referring to in my edit comment:Draft Example: Notoriety: The Mini 14 was used in the: 1986 FBI Miami shootout, École Polytechnique Massacre, Byron_David_Smith_killings and Utoya mass shooting incidents."CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC) That'd be sensible. Felsic2 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I would support a bulleted list of article links for incidents (both positive and negative) with notability sufficient for separate wikipedia articles. See Also might be a more neutral list title option than Notoriety or Popular culture. Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Pls add wikilink to .300 AAC Blackout in article Ruger_Mini-14#300_Blackout. thx 80.187.99.70 ( talk) 09:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ruger Mini-14. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Ruger Mini 14 article add this text? CuriousMind01 ( talk) 14:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The Ruger Mini 14 was used in these incidents:
I added criteria, the 2 results per: WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use. I did not think it was necessary to repeat the incident details within the 2 articles.
The article has a popular culture section, with a use on a TV series. No incidents or other use are in the article.
There are sources in the 2 incident articles, I repeated some sources and added additional sources here:
Sources
|
---|
1986 FBI Miami shootout
École Polytechnique Massacre Rathjen, Heidi; Montpetit, Charles (1999). December 6: From the Montreal Massacre to Gun Control. Toronto:. McClelland & Stewart. ISBN 0-7710-6125-0.
|
added section CuriousMind01 ( talk) 14:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
1. Miguel Escopeta re: "No major changes in firearm laws occurred", The Canada Firearms Act, 1995 was enacted. You seem knowledgeable in these subjects. What does "major" mean here? Thank you, CuriousMind01 ( talk) 13:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Miguel Escopeta: "No major changes in firearm laws occurred" is not a standard based on any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If it were, this article would be much, much shorter. 19:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I submitted a request for closure: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Request_for_Administrator_to_Close_RfC_Talk:Ruger_Mini-14.23Rfc:_Add_major_incidents_to_article The Legobot removed the RFC template CuriousMind01 ( talk) 11:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "TOC limit; rm nn variants from infobox; c/e; rm excessive external links -- official site is sufficient; rm ext links from body. Please let me know if there are any concerns." -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I previously removed hidden text from the Criminal Use section:
"READ FIRST: Entries in this section must abide by the criteria in WP:Firearms#Criminal_use."
This is counter to Wikipedia policies and practice. There is no such requirement to follow the recommendations at WP:GUNS, and the outcome of the 2016 RFC was to include details of shootings in the Criminal Use section for this article.
The hidden text was recently added to the article again. Please discuss here. – dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The page contains a number of citations to ruger.com. I tagged the article accordingly; please let me know if there are any concerns. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This article states that a different weapon was used, but I do not know how to edit wikipedia to satisfy its criteria. /info/en/?search=Byron_David_Smith_killings#Incident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.4.46 ( talk) 04:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Not sure what you are asking. The linked article seems to support the use of a mini-14. Springee ( talk) 23:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Would it be allright to add a "In the media" section in this article? The Ruger Mini-14 was heavily featured in the 80's series THE A-TEAM! -- Exodianecross ( talk) 02:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)