Talk:AR-7

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Contents 1 Still a stub? 2 Military? 2.1 Israeli Use 2.2 Redundant Info 3 Documentation 4 AR-7 Criticisms 5 How to section

[edit] Still a stub?

Does this expanded stuff still only count as a stub? 129.89.94.54 07:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

without more features, such as a chart, more sources, etc, it will be considered a stub. I will be adding those features soon. CynicalMe 04:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It needed the reformatting, too. I slightly modified references to the AR-5, I have no evidence the AR-7 was designed for a military aircrew survival weapon, rather than as a novelty for the civilian market. Tychocat 07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military?

I have no idea why this weapon would be included in a military listing. As far as I can tell, it had no military adoption, and its only relevance is that it was derived from a military design. If being derivative in some fashion is all it takes to be classed as "military", then the MilHist project now becomes a universal catalog of firearms. Tychocat 07:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad. For some reason, I was convinced that the -7 had been adopted by the USAF at some point, but now I realize I have no reason to think that. I'm going to do some more research and see if I can find any additional info. Thanks. CynicalMe 09:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I found another stub for the AR-7 which had almost identical information, I've redirected it here.

2. I've found several sites, including the Henry Repeating Arms site, which claim the AR-7 was developed by stoner for the US Air Force. Of course, this does not mean it was ever adopted by them. Here are the links. Let me know what you think. CynicalMe 09:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.henryrepeating.com/survival.cfm

http://www.henryrepeating.com/survival_guntests.cfm

I'm familiar with the AR-7 stub you reference, I wrote a lot of it. Tell ya what, if you're comfortable with it, since we have a documentable source, you can put in that the AR-7 was *developed* for the Air Force (cite the Henry website as your reference) but there's no evidence it was adopted. That's fair and accurate, and I'm guessing that was how the Henry ad-writers were trying to spin the non-adoption. Regards, Tychocat 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if they are not confusing the AR-7 with its big brother, the AR-5, which was adopted by the USAF as the MA-1. --D.E. Watters 01:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. I think it's just spin, as Tychocat said. CynicalMe 01:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I found a site which seems to confirm this. There is a link in the article. CynicalMe 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that they are just repeating the commonly held misconception, confusing the AR-5's adoption for the similar AR-7. One would think that the folks at ArmaLite would know whether the AR-7 design was intended for the USAF or the civilian market. --D.E. Watters 22:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I agree with you completely. CynicalMe 22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Use

After some further research, it looks like there was a variant produced under Armalite license by the Bricklee Trading Company and purchased by the Israeli military. It became the "Israeli Pilot's Survival Rifle" (citation in article) CynicalMe 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction. As I wrote in the article, these were not produced by BTC, but rather re-imported by them. CynicalMe 03:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Info

If you read the first few paragraphs you'll see that the fact that this weapon can be broken down to 4 component parts is repeated from one paragraph to the next but with different wording.

[edit] Documentation

The SMLE bolt-action rfile was not the basis of the "Star Wars" stormtrooper blasters, the weapon used as the basis of the prop was the Sterling SMG 9-mm. L2A3. See http://uniquecanes.com/new/item_replicas_starwars_stormtrooperE11.php for details. Also, again, citations and references for everything added, please. Tychocat 12:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you had read the comment more closely, you'd have notice that it claimed the cutdown SMLE were the basis for the blaster used by the Jawa. In addition, the Sterling SMG was correctly identified as the Stormtrooper blaster. --D.E. Watters 15:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, but I'm not sure we need the references to other weapons in the AR-7 article.CynicalMe 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies to Dan for my hasty reading of his original addition. I have a lot of respect for the work you put into your website, and would not mean to demean the effort or expertise it represents. I still would have removed the SMLE reference just because it was a bit afield, but obviously should have read it twice before acting. Sorry. Tychocat 06:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, User:24.45.183.219 was responsible for that addition, not me. --D.E. Watters 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that IP-user added the paragraph on starwars guns, then I moved it to the pop culture section.CynicalMe 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Grovel, grovel. Tychocat 11:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AR-7 Criticisms

This was my fault, I should have earlier caught and corrected the unverified and undocumented statements in this paragraph. Done. Tychocat 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to section

The section on aftermarket modifications includes detailed instructions on such topics as adding a sling. The instruction are detailed enough to include parts and catalog numbers. This should be edited down in such a way as to not read like a instruction manual while preserving any encyclopedic content. F-451 (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to fix it, although it could still use some work, and it needs some citations. One part I removed entirely was already located in the next section up, and I've reworded the parts that seemed especially like a how-to guide.--LWF (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And on the subject of more work, the section is starting to look rather sparse on information without all the extra fluff, perhaps now it should be retagged as needing expert attention? Any thoughts? F-451 (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)