Talk:Kel-Tec P-32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] Holy POV Batman!

This article read like a discussions in the KTOG forum. C'mon people, let's cut the home-brew crap and list the facts. First of all, the P32 does not have a 'second generation.' That's the P3AT that has two generations. Start another article, fine, but don't confuse the sheep. People can wade through the crap on KTOG if they want to hear about wires in the magazine, the merits of a short barrel, or any of that other stuff.--Asams10 00:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a 2nd Generation design for the P-32. It was changed mainly for cutting the cost of manufacturing the slide, but ended up having a few other differences, the differences mentioned in the article, and one other, consisting of a milled-in recoil spring holder in the slide, whereas the 1st Generation had a separate piece that can get lost when you field strip it. Have reverted to one of your earlier edits, just prior to removing the 1st and 2nd Generation design sections. Suggest you visit a gun shop and see the difference for yourself. Yaf 02:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention it, but the flywire modification has a Kel-Tec part number, and can be ordered from Kel-Tec. This is not a KTOG-only thing, although they probably did get it done first. An aftermarket accessory sold by Kel-Tec is hardly "crap". Yaf 02:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a gun shop, but maybe my distributor has been buying from a different Kel-Tec. None of my pistols have had the P3AT style extractor as the article suggests. Milling the recoil spring guide into the slide vs. having a separate piece is only a minor change, IMHO. I don't generally take my guns apart so I haven't noticed this. At any rate, I don't think spending 20% of an article talking about first and second generation guns is appropriate. I'm reverting it back. I took time trimming the fat and you put it all back. Please don't get into a reversion war over this.--Asams10 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't bought any P-32 pistols in a while. I haven't put all the fat back. But have reverted what was in error. Yaf 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I haven't. You did, btw, put all of the fat and fluff back. This is Wikipedia, it isn't KTOG or KT-Range. 90% of that goes way over the head of the user who logs on to this site. Most of what I removed was POV and, well, the rest I was wrong about. It took some serious digging to find out I've been in a time warp.--Asams10 03:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just finished editing, to include your shorter version edits that were after the 1st and 2nd Generation discussion deletion, and which did improve the article. As for the article going over the head of readers, perhaps, but I did happen to hear a conversation at a gun show a few weeks back, where I heard this very article being quoted by a couple of guys :-) I didn't say a word, but I did find it interesting :-) Thanks for the removal of the fat. If there is still more fat, then lets get this removed, too. Thanks. Yaf 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup details

I moved stuff around, reworded, and removed some things. One section I removed dealt with a trigger pull technique that I find to be out-of-place in this article. I simplified the explanation of the operating style. From what I can tell, there is only one less part (count wise) in the G2 P-32. Blowbacks have greater recoil energy, proven by Julian Hatcher early last century. All 32's have low muzzle flash.

Break-in procedures are HIGHLY POV. True, a pistol that has been fired 200 rounds (of any ammo) will be more reliable but that's true of virtually all pistols. Few pistol manufacturers would recommend dry-firing. The "Limitations" section was highly POV and I tried to tame that down and incorporated it into the broader commentary section while at the same time removing redundancy.

It's largely the same article but should appeal to a greater audience. I tried to include what was in the original while removing much of the POV and limiting it to the commentary section. I think the sections are more logical, paragraphs more topical, and the order of the article correct. Thanks for your patience Yaf. I know this article was your Baby and I hope I've done it justice. Open source is wonderful, isn't it? --Asams10 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good now. I finished the one paragraph that somehow ended hanging in space, unfinished :-) Article is much tighter now. Thanks for your help in getting this article in order. It was the first article I did on WP, and I hadn't looked at it seriously in literally over two months. It needed to be shorter. Thanks. Yaf 05:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and Tone: Complete Renovation Needed

This article cites zero references and reads very much like an advertisement or testimonial. It needs to be appropriately referenced and cited, and all original research and unpublished opinions removed.

While I appreciate the depth and breadth you've been able to cover with just your knowledge of the subject, this isn't a gun mag or a review site. WP:NOR means you need cited, reputable sources for this article to continue to exist. Thank you for your editing. Bullzeye 08:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)