Talk:Makarov PM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
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. |
Shouldn't the history of the firearm indicate adoption date and end of service life?
- Please sign your comments on Talk pages according to the Wikipedia standard using 3 or 4 ~ characters. Deon Steyn 11:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] In popular culture
I have removed this section, because it does not belong in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia help pages on "what wikipedia is not", one of which is a list of trivia). Some firearms have sections like this, because it's an important part of the firearms history like James Bond and his Walther PPK. The appearances listed on this page do not qualify as such. Feel free to add this type of information to the List of firearms in video games and List of firearms in films pages. Deon Steyn 11:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revision Needed
Several posts in this article are in need of citation and are likely not factually accurate. I have notated them, and I am adding in additional information regarding the factual errors in this discussion page. I am not editing the front page, because I believe it to be important that people see that an attempt is being made to police the overwhelmingly great number of factually inaccurate firearms pages on Wikipedia.
In order:
1) Source? It is laughable to describe the TT as "unreliable", as it is laughable to describe any Russian firearm as "unreliable". Russian gun designers have, historically, sacrificaed all other concerns in order to improve that one criteria.
2) Source? Although this is definitely an additional benefit of the cartridge, is there a reliable source which establishes this as such a fundamental point of the decision, that it should be listed exclusively (or primarily) here?
3) The Makarov pistol remained in service until 2003, and is still in service. Adoption of the Yarygin pistol has been extremely slow, due to the cost involved.
4) Source? Those governments that continue to use them, do so because primarily because they cannot justify the cost of upgrading.
5) Source?
6) The adoption of the Yarygin pistol was in 2003, not "the late 1990s".
7) The PM pistol is a mechanical variant of the Walther PP, not PPK.
8) Define the term "elegant"?
9) Source? How many parts does the PM pistol contain?
10) 10 and 12-round magazines were developed for the PMM pistol (note two "M"s), which is a different pistol.
11) - 13) This MUST be cited. Who is/are the gun writer(s) in question? Can a copy of this test be produced? Also, firing 9mm Makarov ammunition in a .380ACP/9mm Kurz pistol is impossible without significant alteration of the pistol via machining, as is discussed in the previous section. This is contradictory.
Also, the following line is not specific to the PM pistol. Although it is prudent advice, does it bear inclusion in this specific article?:
"As with all firearms, proper maintenance, the Rules of Gun safety, and using only the properly chambered round are imperative.
14) Source? This statement is correct for certain countries of manufacture, but should be cited nonetheless.
15) Source for this procedure?
16) Source? Although this is occasionally correct, it contradicts with a previous section which maintains that such ammunition cannot be fired from a PM pistol.
17) Sources for these figures?
18) Source for comparative muzzle velocities?
19) The name is "9mm PMM". This name given is an American colloquialism.
20) Source? Although an armor-penetrating round was developed and produced (and still is produced), there must be a source which justifies using the term "often" (which implies a majority of production or utilization).
21) Source for this figure?
22) - 25) Sources for this claim of stratification? Also, the latter sentence is excessively wordy and adds nothing to the knowledge base of the article.
Also, I have removed the "matrix.dumpshock.com" link- this is a link to a video game website, and is not appropriate or pertinent to the article.
Roundeyesamurai 07:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with your intentions, but I think you may have done a little too much citation-needed stuff and not enough else. If you know something is incorrect, you should correct it and cite the new fact, not ask for a citation. Be bold, etc.; throwing twenty-five requests for sources up doesn't improve the article, it just lets the reader know that they are in fact looking at a mess. 128.113.229.143
Thank you for attending to this discussion, "128.113.229.143".
My entire intention in doing this was, exactly as you see, to allow the reader to know that they are looking at a mess, instead of believing that the information given may have some factual accuracy when it does not.
Frankly, the factual accuracy of firearms pages on Wikipedia is inexcuseably poor- so poor, in fact, that I generally recommend people NOT utilize Wikipedia for firearms-related information, because they will invariably recieve wildly incorrect information. I want to very clearly and unabashedly illustrate this point, without any possibility of misunderstanding on the matter. Wikipedia prides itself on the factual accuracy of other areas, and this area should be no different.
As far as editing myself- Frankly, I have work and a family, I don't have the time to sit in front of the computer for several hours to fix other people's mistakes. If the original author of the article (or whomever wrote in the atrociously bad information) is called upon to fix his own mistakes by my method, then it has worked. Likewise, if someone such as yourself finds a duty within themselves to fix the article, then I would be grateful.
A note regarding the article: Using "Modern Firearms And Ammunition" as a source for technical information is a good idea. However, utilizing that website for non-technical information (such as a source for the intentions of the Soviet Army in replacing the TT pistol) is not a good idea. Maxim Popenker runs a good website; however, his information is obviously second-hand, uncited, and Popenker himself (unless I am sorely mistaken) has no credible historical, engineering, or significant military credentials. He runs what is, for lack of a better term, a fan site (and a very good one, one I use myself), but the information is not of the type or style appropriate to use as a source on Wikipedia.
Roundeyesamurai 00:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you just wanted to tag it as a mess, then fair enough.
- As for world.guns.ru, I noticed that much; I was just hoping that the Army's reasons for replacing the Tokarev weren't too subject to individual bias (although given that someone called it unreliable, who knows). Lack of an external safety and bulk seem clear enough things, at least; would it still need an additional citation if the comment on the 7.62x25mm round's stopping power were removed, or do the other two claims also need additional/better citations?
- Unfortunately, I know very little about firearms themselves, let alone firearm history and design; I like to clean things up, and I do have plenty of free time, but I don't know that I could really do anything more for the page. Technical articles are best overhauled by someone who knows the subject well enough to know where to start looking for citations. 128.113.195.82
I have moved 12.77.5.75's comment from the middle of my post, to the bottom here, since it is exceptionally rude to cut into the middle of another user's post.
Post by "12.77.5.75" (note that it is unsigned):
- No. There a small number of PM's which were chambered for original 9x18mm Makarov cartridge with larger magazine wells for larger capacity magazines. I have personally handled a couple and the chambers were not threaded. The double-stack magazine versions of the Makarov sometimes had feeding problems and were not as reliable as the original.
You may "have personally handled" such pistols- but this is Wikipedia. If you do not have a source of information from a party other than yourself, or anything to establish that this is correct, then it is not admissible.
Roundeyesamurai 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
