User talk:Pettifogger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] KMC URX

Oh, is that so? I have absolutely no real knowledge about the URX, so I threw in the most familiar interpretation I knew of (which was Universal Rail Extension). I have also heard of 'Uninterrupted Rail Extension" and "Uninterrupted Reciever Extension.'

I am currently operating under the understanding that the URX RAS can be individually purchased and installed onto existing M4s (otherwise, I would find it difficult for the military to consider adoption into SOPMOD Block II), and that KMC is requesting all commercial orders to have their uppers sent in for installation (As opposed to the LMT MRP, which, as you know, is completely integrated into the upper). Does this mean it (the URX) requires drastic modification to existing uppers?

As you can see, I am trying to write a URX article even before there is a RAS, FF RAS or SIR article. I just felt that there is absolutey no easily accessible information about this new platform. With this comes the need for photos. As of now, I have 1 photo of two KMC SR16s with the URX installed and using the new KMC USMC bayonet-lugged front sights. Other than that, I have nothing. Care to help?

In the future, if I am in the wrong, feel free to make the changes yourself.UPDATE: I found a few more photos, one of the rifle-length URX RAS, and several detaling M203 installation onto a carbine with the URX RAS installed.Tin soldier 22:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is actually quite a bit of publicly available information, since all my knowledge of the system comes from those sources. The RAS II URX is not integral to the upper receiver. Nor is the upper receiver modified in any way. The upper half of the URX serves as the barrel nut itself and requires specialized tools to install onto the upper receiver. Only Knight and a few dealers such as MSTN currently possess the tools to install the URX. This article by Corporal Kevin Boland of the Canadian Forces mentions the URX as "Upper Receiver Extension". Cpl Boland owns a SR-16 M4 with a RAS II URX Match. The rifle-length RAS II URX units are marked "RAS II URX Match". The photo that you posted came from a personal report of SHOT Show 2003 and is not in the public domain or by free license, and hence is in violation of Wikipedia policy. The KAC flip-up front sights are not exclusive to the USMC. Pettifogger 19:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good to hear. I actually got the photos from that exact page. Being the idiot that I am, I didn't bother to read it. The URX photo came from militarymorons; I will ask for permission, and, I if I fail to do so, please delete the photo (after all, I'm sure militarymoron just hates it when people see his photo). But, of course, if you feel that there is anything wrong, feel free to change it. This is, after all, wikipedia, and the goal is to provide correct information. You seem to enjoy telling me about my mistakes, but not touching the article itself: my interest in firearms is only passing; surely you know more, as you seem to be an active poster on AR15.com, so, again, feel absolutely free to edit, change, delete, modify anything that I write.
If they are not exclusive to the USMC (the sights), then where can I go to get one?
Right now, Knight's is only selling the sights on complete rifles. A new SR-15 E3 or SR-16 E3 should have one. The sight was designed to have a lower-profile flip-up sight than the standard rail-mounted model, to allow room for forward mounting of the Knightscope night vision device. The claim is that the flip-up front sight requires taper pins and that most gunsmiths don't have the proper tools. Hence, it isn't sold separately. There were tentative plans to release a model that used set screws, but without a bayonet lug. Of course, who knows now since KAC suffered extensive hurricane damage.Pettifogger 03:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any idea with the URX's if KAC/KMC is going to have only the M4 lenght and the 11" ones off the XM110, or if a goofy mid-length one is likely?

--TehLlama

[edit] G36 in the United States Military

  • Now, while i certainly agree that the G36 is not a widely issued weapon in the United States Military, it is used by certain units...the Marine Corps FAST, some army ranger units, and at least 3 green berets that were prominently featured on a recent television show on the History Channel about the hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Additionally, several internet photos and even one from the July edition of Soldier of Fortune magazine show a corpsman doing building assault drills armed with a G36. I'll continue to look for an internet source that says its used, as the pictures would probably violate some copyright rules (i'm not all too familiar with the photo rules here). There was however, no need to say i was being "silly." I won't re-add the information though without a source, as I should have had one initially. I notice from your posts that you've shown an interest in military weapon systems, did you serve?Batman2005 20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question re Bluebook

I just saw that you reverted something due to vandalism. I'm just curious - what was the vandalism and why can't I see it? I compared versions from the history page, and it looks all the same... Anyway, not a big deal - I'm just trying to learn the mechanics of Wikipedia. Ksm10 20:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user has edited the article so that the Learning Aids section was repeated twice. Pettifogger 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M4A1-CQBR.jpg

Where did you find this pic?--Sanandros 16:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And add the sources to the other 3 pics, wich are in the CQBR article, too.
The length comparison of the M4A1 and the CQBR was from a presentation at the National Defense Industrial Association convention. [1] The other pictures are from images on the Navy's website. [2][3][4] Pettifogger 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Dear Pettifogger,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Daniel Bryant 22:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China Lake Launcher edit

I only just noticed the AEG replica caption at the base of the Launcher picture. I was just wondering how you made the determination of it being an AEG replica? --Crimson30 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The original source for the image [5] was a Japanese Vietnam War reenactment enthusiasist's site. Everything on the website is a replica. The picture of the M60 even shows the wiring for a battery. The first paragraph below the picture is a description according to a SEAL Master Chief Petty Officer. The second paragraph below the picture specifically says the China Lake pump-action grenade launcher was made from "full scratch". It uses a Tokyo Marui mechabox, but he's also tried using the magazine of an old gas Ingram. Pettifogger 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MEUSOC pistol

I took another pic of the pistol with weaponlight this time and uploaded it. I also have an older (circa 1990 pistol with no light, should I upload that as well? Let me know your thoughts...thanks for the help on cleaning up the article and helping resolve the pic issue. Mike Searson 06:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the new picture that you uploaded is a MEU (SOC) pistol. It should have Pachmayr grips, a raised sight or Novak sights, and a flat mainspring housing. Of course, since the MEU (SOC) is a customized weapon from the then-Rifle Training Equipment now-Weapons Training Battalion unit, there's expected to be variation. However, the variations I've seen in pictures are using a skeletonized tactical hammer instead of a ring hammer, Novak sights instead of the custom raised sights, and front serrations on the slide. They haven't included use of Simonich gunner grips, or the original sights and mainspring housing.
For example, in the image on top, you can clearly see the raised sights, tactical hammer and front serrations.
In the image on the bottom, the second Marine from the bottom has Novak sights.
In any case, I think images should be added to the article if they show variation and if the variations are visible. If not, upload them to Wikimedia Commons anyway, which could always use more public domain pictures. Pettifogger 08:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That pistol and the other one were both built by a Fleet Armorer. I have big hands so I retained the arched mainspring housing. This armorer prefers the use of the MGW ring hammers made by a retired Gunnery Sergeant from A2 toolsteel. The pic I uploaded does have a new slide and I haven't had the proprietery rear-sight driven out of the old one yet(I had to replace the slide and wanted a new one that matched the black park on that US Property-marked frame). However, neither pistol has Pachmayr grips...the one uploaded has the Gunner Grips...(one of the earliest sets made)the pic of the pistol I have not uploaded has Pau Ferro hardwood grips with USMC medallions inset and all the replacement parts are stainless as opposed to the black parkerized. Here's a link to it, it has the USMC-made rear sight, 3-hole Videcki trigger and the original downturned memory grip safety as opposed to the newer "beavertail" as well: [6] If you think it will add to the article, I will upload it. (FYI: that MSH also has an experimental "internal" lanyard ring). If you want me to find an old pair of pachmayrs and put them on the gun it for authenticity for the picture, I can do that as well.

If you don't think it will help the encyclopedia, I won't upload it. I'm not that good a photographer, either. Mike Searson 13:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Marine, so what I know is only limited to what others have written. Like I wrote before, there's probably lots of variations and it's good to show the variations. Yours is a variation that I had not seen before. So is the one that you haven't uploaded yet. I think it would be good to see both. There hasn't been a picture of a stainless silver one yet, though I know they exist. I don't think it's necessary to put the Pachmayrs on, because there's pictures of MEU(SOC) pistols with the Pachmayr on. Someone just needs to add one to the article. The pictures so far are fine. They're framed properly and have good backgrounds. They just look a bit dark. Someone else can use Photoshop or something to fiddle with the light levels to make them appear brighter.

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Pettifogger. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colt Commando / CAR-15 merge

When you did the merge, did you deliberately leave several sections out? There's a lot of content that you didn't migrate... Georgewilliamherbert 00:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion page. Most of the information was merged, except for the low muzzle velocity information at the bottom. Much of the cut material was also speculative or inaccurate opinions. Pettifogger 01:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colaboration Request

Hello Pettifogger, I would like to request your help in updating and re-writing the Heckler & Koch HK11 page.Right now I am in the midst of updating a page that was orphaned. I have added a few much needed links and some base information but I need help. Could you please lend me your superior Wikipedia skills to my efforts? Paulwharton 22:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)