Talk:Remington 870

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: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
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

1 Competition
2 Different image?
3 The image
4 Merge
5 Variants

[edit] Competition

I don't think this line really belongs: "Currently, only the Mossberg 500 provides genuine competition to the 870. Manufacturers like Winchester, Benelli, Browning, have been left far behind in sales.". It needs a citation, as last I heard Benelli was far outselling the 500s and 870s in the budget defense/tactical type shotgun, and the tone is just too NPOV in my opinion. You'd also need to define what constitutes "genuine competition", as that's pretty subjective by itself. --Junky 19:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different image?

The Air Force M870 picture is a pretty poor picture (lousy lighting), and of pretty obscure 870 variant. What would be a good typical 870 variant for the photo and does anyone have or can take a good image for this article? A simple express or police model seems like the best choice to me. --Junky 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think that a simple picture of a Wingmaster style shotgun being used to shoot trap would be a fitting picture and show that this shotgun has more than just the "tactical" side. 70.131.221.160 (User spyder) 03:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it's been, what, 2.5 years since this comment was put in here? Find us a free or public domain picture of an 870 and put it in. This is Wikipedia, you're in charge. Be bold. --Asams10 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The image

Please see my reply to resolve this whole sourced/unsourced dilemma. Also keep in mind that I mean you no harm! I'm just trying to enforce policy. - Tronno ( t | c ) 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no internet source. It was captured from a US Air Force web site. It is sourced... not all pictures stay somewhere on the internet. It's in the 2002 issue of Airman Magazine.--Asams10 19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So did it come from the website or the magazine? If it's from the website, post a link (if the site no longer exists, use the Wayback Machine). If it's from the magazine, say so in the image description page, and provide the issue number. You have to cite sources, man. - Tronno ( t | c ) 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to disagree with me about whether or not it needs that link or that information. There is no RULE that says I have to do it and I've already given credit to the source. There is no internet link and, unless you can prove I stole it, there is no reason to discuss this further. It can stay.--Asams10 21:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I found a page named Remington M870 Tactical. I believe that if the information can be verified that the page should be merged with this one. --Paulwharton 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As the creator of the article, I have no problems with the merge. I assure you that the information regarding the weapon is accurate. Also, I'd given up on finding a free use image many months ago, and haven't spent much time looking since then. If anybody reading this has one or could locate one, it would be much appreciated. Gamer Junkie 06:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this article IS about the tactical models--according to it, the only barrels available for the 870 are 10 to 18 inches. What's really needed is info on the sporting models. scot 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For one no one has thought to link to the base page on the Remington 870. All that is shown is the parts diagram.I am going to add a link to Remingtons 870 mainpage. --Paulwharton 21:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please merge them. M870 Tactical is just a variant; the article is barely a stub.RandallC 11:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variants

It seems there's currently a disagreement about adding some new material to the Variants section. I'm starting this Talk page section to encourage interested editors to explain their opinions here. I'll start. In general I think this article could be considerably longer than it is currently. In my opinion a full paragraph about each of the five main variants would be quite appropriate. But, these hypothetical paragraphs should be written in a very neutral, encyclopedic tone. They shouldn't sound like a marketing web site or an enthusiasts magazine. For example, the paragraph for the Police Magnum could say something like this: "The Police Magnum has a shorter, more cylindrical, police style fore-end, and is made with synthetic or wood stocks, and parkerized or blued finishing. It has an all metal trigger group, heavier springs, and a more shock absorbent recoil pad. The gun has been manufactured with various sights, magazine extensions, and other optional features. Barrel lengths of less than 18 inches are available to police agencies and the military." That's just a rough draft, I'm sure that other editors could improve on it. Of course, reliable references would help too. Then the other four variants could have similar paragraphs. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion about what I'm suggesting, about the Variants section in general and the Police Magnum in particular? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, what you've just said is incorrect. There are, literally, hundreds of variations and any hard-and-fast statements are going to be incorrect. Remington doesn't stick to or enforce any standards. They produce models that mix pieces and parts from all variations as well as produciton improvements such as MIM parts, plastic parts, chrome plated parts, locking safeties, and the like. To put anything more in these sections would be imprecise and unencyclopedic. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of variations, but they fall into approximately five groups, including Express, Wingmaster, and Police. This is already reflected in the article. My suggestion is to expand the existing descriptions of each model, from half a sentence to one paragraph. If this is done right, it will make an already good article even better, by adding additional useful, factual information. An example is the proposed paragraph for the Police Magnum in my original post in this section. Similar paragraphs could be used to expand the other four bullet points in the current article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that all of the information you're adding is wishy-washy. It is all generalized. Nothing but the name "Police" for instance sets the Police model apart from the Wingmaster or Express. Over the years, what is now a Poice might have been what the Express was or a dozen or so Wingmasters.

To be more constructive, you could say how the models were marketed as most of the model designations were marketing tools and did not change the firearms in measurable ways. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)