Talk:AR-15–style rifle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

RE: introductory statement, origin/use of "modern sporting rifle"

Using Google and Wayback you can find the exact term "modern sporting rifle" (or rifles plural) dating back to 1913 at the least (see: Western New England Magazine; Volume 3, No. 1). More recently, this term can be found in multiple books on firearms, magazine articles, marketing material, and other relevant publication throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Clearly the entire claim (and implication) that the term was "created" in or "dated" to 2009 is demonstrably false. Also, close variations such as "modern sporting firearm" or "gun" have been in use long before 2009, as have "sporting rifle(s)". See also: vis-a-vis "classic sporting rifle". If there are no objections on merit, I propose to delete this provably false statement that reeks of politicized viewpoint or advocacy smear against the firearm industry. -- Brewster1971 (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

In a way the 1866 Winchester developed from the 1860 Henry used by the Union Army in the America Civil War was a modern sporting rifle with a military heritage. (Well, it was modern for 1860s.) American sports shooters tend to sporterize military rifles in part because they are seen as more robust and easy to maintain than many civilian designs. Also military vets often see no need to relearn a weapons system (safety, handling, maintenance) just to take up recreational shooting target or hunting. Americans have a tradition of adapting the current military issue weapon to sporting purposes and the government through the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, Director of Civilian Marksmanship, Civilian Marksmanship Program has actively promoted civilian possession and training with military arms. Countries that fear revolution have a history of banning civilian ownership of military rifles or even rifles of military caliber, but America has a tradition of the military relying on volunteerism in the face of national emergency and see civilian familiarity with issue arm as an asset and not a liability. Modern sporting rifles based on the current military issue rifle is just American. Like civilian Jeeps and Humvees. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Modern sporting rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628234759/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819161911/http://www.lwrci.com/articles/GA-NOV-P48-55.pdf to http://www.lwrci.com/articles/GA-NOV-P48-55.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Use in mass shootings in the United States

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Use of AR-15 Style Rifles in Mass Shootings
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The content below was added by a sock of a blocked editor [[1]] The subject of this article is a highly noteworthy category of firearms. The below proposed content is entirely compliant with Wikipedia policy and guideline; inclusion of this aspect of the subject is required by Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and the exclusion of all mention of this aspect is a severe policy violation. The sources are among the most highly reliable and noteworthy available, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Time, U.S. News & World Report, and USA Today. These sources are much more noteworthy than most of the sources currently in the article. The use of the subject of this article in mass shootings is objectively, as measured by coverage in noteworthy reliable sources, the single most noteworthy aspect of the subject of this article. According to the The New York Times, as of February, 2018 AR-15 style rifles were used in five of the six most deadly mass shootings in the United States between 2012 and 2018 (the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut; the 2015 San Bernardino attack in California; the 2017 Las Vegas shooting in Nevada; the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting in Texas; and the 2018 Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida). According to The Washington Post, AR-15 style rifles were used in five of the most deadly mass shootings between 2012 and 2018. In February 2018 the Los Angeles Times included the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting in Florida in reporting that AR-15 style rifles were used in the six most recent of the ten most deadly mass shootings in modern United States history. According to The Wall Street Journal in 2018, AR-15 style rifles were used in six of the ten most deadly mass shootings in modern United States history. According to Time magazine, AR-15 style rifles were used in six of the ten most deadly mass shootings between 2008 and 2018. USA Today identified twelve mass shootings in the United States that involved AR-15 style rifles between February 1984 and February 2018. AR-15 style rifles have been described as "the weapon of choice" of perpetrators of mass shootings by The New York Times, CNN, U.S. News & World Report, and USA Today. References The article currently grossly fails to neutrally summarize the 2017 USA Today source, drawing out only the NRA's estimate of the number of AR-15 style rifles owned in the US, while conspicuously ignoring the lead of the source: the use in mass shootings. straw poll If you oppose the above proposed content, kindly propose an alternative summarization of these noteworthy reliable sources.IMAParent (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC) blocked sock editor [[2]] Support -- relevant per WP:WEIGHT. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC) OPPOSE --Limpscash (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC) @Limpscash: How would you summarize these sources? IMAParent (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Support -- Although the repetition in your text should be seriously reduced, and more context added that most firearm-related homicides in the US are from handguns.--Pharos (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Comment -- If this article is going to talk about the use of modern sporting rifles in mass shootings, and provide reliable statistics such as these, it should also talk about the role of MSRs in overall U.S. gun violence. In the U.S., many people are shot every year. The large majority of those shootings are not mass shootings, and I'm under the impression that most individual gun crimes are done with handguns. Can we provide statistics showing, out of all the people in the U.S. who were shot in recent years, what percentage were shot with MSRs? I believe the percentage will be quite low, but I haven't looked into this myself. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC) It seems like it's about 5% for rifles in overall U.S. gun violence, though MSRs aren't broken out, and a substantial number of firearms homicides are from an unidentified weapon. It would be appropriate to include the relevant numbers.--Pharos (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I would say that the role in mass shootings is notable on its own, regardless of mass shootings in general. –dlthewave ☎ 19:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC) For whatever it's worth, here's a quote from a recent Associated Press article: "On average, more than 13,000 people are killed each year in the United States by guns, and most of those incidents involve handguns while a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm. Still, the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings, including..." — Mudwater (Talk) 15:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Oppose--RAF910 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Agree with Pharos and Mudwater. This is our article for "AR-style" or "AR-15 style" rifles, which are widely covered in regards to mass shootings, so it isn't unreasonable to include that here with the proper context. ansh666 19:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Oppose - mass-shootings already have their own articles, all relevant info is, or should be, in that page and not needlessly duplicated on other articles. If we start adding info about just one shooting incident to one tenuously-connected article, we'll be opening a literal Pandora's box (figuratively speaking). We'll have to add info on numerous firearms-related incidents to multiple articles, throwing many of them out of balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewolfchild (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC) @Thewolfchild: If we would be opening a Pandora's box, it would be a metaphoric and not a literal one. And here's a wink to indicate that I know that you're not using the word "literal" in the literal sense: — Mudwater (Talk) 19:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Qualified support for the inclusion an unemotional paragraph listing the notable crimes these rifles have been used to commit, there is precedence in the Derringer article with the mention of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Inclusions of statistical comparisons of firearm types used in mass shootings, firearms types used in all gun crimes and legal firearms usage vs illegal firearms usage is irrelevant. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Support WP:DUE, relevant, all these articles are specifically and entirely about these guns and how they are used in mass shootings. Not just random articles where these guns are mentioned. Don't need to repeat 6 out 10 three times though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Support though I probably don't have a vote. Please also change AR-15 to redirect here. People who want to learn about a specific brand of rifles can choose it from the list. 2400:2410:9021:8D00:449F:4B57:9997:FB3D (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suspect Wikipedia is used to try an create language usage. Can someone please show sources that show that the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" is used anywhere nearly as much as "AR-15" and derivatives? - 91.10.1.207 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ha, good question, with a direct bearing on WP:COMMONNAME. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• There are all sorts of technicalities involved, since "modern sporting rifle" and "AR-15 style rifle" aren't exactly the same thing depending on who you ask, but I agree that the latter would be a much better title given WP:COMMONNAME and the content of the article. ansh666 18:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. This page "...was created to define the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" which is most commonly associated with generic AR-15s." Whatever, else it does is happenstance. --RAF910 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• I've boldly moved the article to AR-15 style rifle, which was previously a redirect to this article. This is the WP:COMMONNAME for this style of weapons. For sources, please see Slate article from 2016:

• Modern sporting rifle is a euphemism that the gun industry created in 2009 to describe modular semi-automatic rifles. The phrase is an artful attempt to recast weapons such as the MCX and the AR-15 (and its variants) as all-American toys. Never mind “quiet and deadly” and “close-quarters battle”: Modern sporting rifle conjures up images of aristocrats riding with their hounds, vacationers knocking clays out of the sky, and ruddy-faced athletes enjoying their autumns in Carhartt jackets and mud-spattered ATVs. The term is a genius act of marketing, meant to bring these deadly weapons into the mainstream and keep them there. It’s also disingenuous hokum that exists to cloud debate, like calling a used car “pre-owned.” Omar Mateen Had a “Modern Sporting Rifle”

Also here:

• Unlike fully automatic weapons — which have been almost completely banned in the U.S. for decades — the AR-15 and other rifles like it are semi-automatic, meaning a single press of the trigger fires one bullet. Other manufacturers, such as Smith & Wesson, list their versions of the AR-15 under the "modern sporting rifle" category. "AR-15s are not the problem, manufacturers say".
• Its versatility is part of what makes the AR-15 appealing. With the capability of shooting 30 rounds in a matter of seconds, the semi-automatic rifle is marketed by several gun groups as a “modern sporting rifle.” "Why more people are buying AR-15 rifles"

I believe that "AR-15 style rifle" is a better choice for the article title, per WP:COMMONNAME. I first encountered that issue at #Modern sporting rifle? and believe that "AR-15 style rifle" is much more intuitive for the general reader. See for example pageview stats for Colt AR-15 while AR-15 was a redirect to the Colt page. People were clearly looking for info on "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" or similar. Please also see the discussion at WikiProject Firearms: #Why the generic page is not called AR-15.

Please let me know if there are any concerns. I would be happy to start an RM if needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow K.e.coffman, you're letting it all hang out. Good. RAF, I have no idea what you mean with "term most commonly associated with generic AR-15"; I don't think anyone, outside of your project maybe, hears "AR-15" and thinks "OH THAT'S THAT MODERN SPORTING RIFLE FOR SPORT!" I do find it amusing that you said, or quoted, "generic AR-15", which would also be appropriate. Nor do I know what the referent is of "it" or what you mean with happenstance. In the meantime I hope that you understand the reasons for the move and the terminology; I think we can do more for our reader in terms of redirects and hatnotes, but this is a good start. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I know I said "AR-15 style rifle" above, but I'm not sure if "style" or "type" is more prevalent. I'm pretty sure I've seen both used. But frankly that's descending into unnecessary pedantry. ansh666 22:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to AR-15 style rife. Furthermore, I think Modern sporting rifle shouldn't be a redirect to here - it should be a DAG or short stub - as it refers to several different types of rifles - e.g. SIG MCX [3] - as I understand it MSR can refer to almost any modern assault rife "dumbed down" to US retail regulatory requirements. AR-15 derivatives are perhaps the largest segment of this market - but not exclusively so.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Note, there is also some pre-AR-15 use of this term - [4][5][6].Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move This is what it is most commonly known as, and I really fail to see the issue as to why it should not be called this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support the move, I think it better describes the rifles. Additionally I think the use in mass shootings section strikes the right balance. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC).
• Support move. Surprised to see this done boldly, I thought I would have to build a pile of convincing evidence to make a strong case to ensure passage. I laid a bit of the groundwork for this when I created the redirect from this title on 12 January 2018 and am happy to see it moved over the redirect with a minimum of drama. Modern sporting rifle should redirect here as the primary topic for that "official" industry-coined name. Feel free to create Modern sporting rifle (disambiguation) for other uses. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support the move Far from convinced the "modern sporting rifle" is a common name for an AR15-type rifle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Wbm1058: Thank you for having set up the redirect. Of note, even the discussion at WikiProject Firearms is using the heading “Use of AR-15 Style Rifles in Mass Shootings” (not “Use of Modern Sporting Rifles”…) so it was a no brainer. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support the move @K.e.coffman: There was a very long and drawn out discussion on this see here and here, and I think this is the right move. Much clearer. Agree with the WP:COMMONNAME argument. Appreciate the work that you and especially, User:wbm1058. I imagine this move is going to continue to stir the controversy though. Shaded0 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

improper move

This move was done improperly. The editor that moved this page title did so without consensus, and knowing full well this is a controversial subject that is still being debated even now. The editor should have posted a move request per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial and sought consensus. Having four (4) like-minded editors quickly add "support" after the fact is exactly the type of local consensus that can lead to further disputes that I noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. A move such as this should be posted for a set duration, giving the community an opportunity to discuss it and hopefully achieve a more solid, community-wide consensus. - ^theWOLFchild 18:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Bold moves are not disallowed; there wasn't anything "improper" about it. The subsequent discussion validated the move. The term "Modern sporting rifle" is a non-neutral choice and is controversial as an article title. Neither is it a WP:COMMONNAME for this type of rifle:

• "Modern sporting rifle is a euphemism that the gun industry created in 2009 to describe modular semi-automatic rifles. The phrase is an artful attempt to recast weapons such as the MCX and the AR-15 (and its variants) as all-American toys." Omar Mateen Had a “Modern Sporting Rifle”, Slate

The page was moved to the previous name against Talk page consensus, which seems clear to me. Please also see WP:MRNOT: "Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page." K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

All your reasoning for moving it is based on your opinion, which is clearly biased. You knew full well there are ongoing discussions, debates even, over this very page name, among the other related issues. You are not new here, you know when a page move is controversial or not, or is likely to be contested, (which I have now done) in which case, you do not move the page (and you certainly don't move it again). You need to post a proper page move request. The mere fact that you've cited these guidelines yourself shows you are aware of all this. Claiming it was "validated after the fact" (by four (4) other like minded editors) is not how consensus works. You need to give others an opportunity to participate in any discussion before the page is moved. The page needs to go back to it prior name, and the policies & guidelines on page moves need be followed. - ^theWOLFchild 02:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirects

We still have a lot of errant redirects for general AR-15 related stuff going to specific model AR related articles instead of this one. Can we get a list and start updating all the links so people are not direct to the wrong article? PackMecEng (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Some to start with from here:

AR 15

AR-!%

Ar-15

AR-15 Rifle

AR-15 semi-automatic rifle

AR15

AR=15

Would it be okay for me to starting making the changes to those? PackMecEng (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Those should all go to Colt AR-15, though maybe some are questionable (do we need AR-1% and AR=15 spelling/shift mistakes?).Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Why would general AR-15 related searches goto a specific model page and not this one? PackMecEng (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Because AR-15 refers to a specific gun model. "AR-15 style" encompasses a wide range of guns some of which are not that similar to the AR-15, without the style suffix one would assume one is referring to an actual AR-15 (or very close clone, not a far cousin).Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I get the idea that "AR-15" is a trademarked name thus anything that is listed as "AR-15" should redirect to the article about the trademarked item. However, if we assume most people are searching for the generic term then we aren't helping when we send them here. Instead I would suggest that the links either go to the generic page (AR-15 already does this) or they go to the disambiguation page. We have already seen what happens when you drive general AR-15 traffic to the AR-15 (TM) page. Springee (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that these should all redirect to AR-15 style rifle to eliminate confusion. Would it be appropriate to narrow the scope of this article to only include rifles that use the same design? –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I would keep this open to AR based designs. So designs where a mfr changed say the gas system or cartridge type would be in scope. Part of what could make this a good article is including variations from the basic design. Basically I would err on the side of inclusion. Springee (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have created an RFD on these redirects and how this discussion relates to earlier consensus on the redirects, so that this can all be discussed in one place. It can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 24#AR-15. Please note that I have no opinion on this issue. Thanks, Dekimasuよ! 21:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, early WP:SNOW close. — JFG ^talk 17:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Modern sporting rifle → AR-15 style rifle – see talk discussions and recent moves in log. An editor has requested that the article be renamed. - ^theWOLFchild 02:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to AR-15 style rife. Furthermore, I think Modern sporting rifle shouldn't be a redirect to here - it should be a DAG or short stub - as it refers to several different types of rifles - e.g. SIG MCX [7] - as I understand it MSR can refer to almost any modern assault rife "dumbed down" to US retail regulatory requirements. AR-15 derivatives are perhaps the largest segment of this market - but not exclusively so.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Note, there is also some pre-AR-15 use of this term - [8][9][10].Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move This is what it is most commonly known as, and I really fail to see the issue as to why it should not be called this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support the move, I think it better describes the rifles. Additionally I think the use in mass shootings section strikes the right balance. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC).
• Support move. Surprised to see this done boldly, I thought I would have to build a pile of convincing evidence to make a strong case to ensure passage. I laid a bit of the groundwork for this when I created the redirect from this title on 12 January 2018 and am happy to see it moved over the redirect with a minimum of drama. Modern sporting rifle should redirect here as the primary topic for that "official" industry-coined name. Feel free to create Modern sporting rifle (disambiguation) for other uses. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move Much more widely known name. Which not the industry name for the category, it will get people to the right place easier this way. PackMecEng (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move to AR-15 style rifle. Wikipedia should not cater to the agenda of the manufacturers. What if they call it "Sweet child-loving rifle"? It is more than enough this crazy moniker is mentioned at all. Mikus (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move searching modern sporting rifle seems to mainly bring up gun manufacterer websites, and the news results I find are mainly about how gun manufacturers are trying to make it be called modern sporting rifle. Meanwhile ar-15 style rifle appears clearly the WP:COMMONNAME Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move "(modern) sporting rifle" in books refers to either a Winter biathlon rifle or Summer Olympics rifle = .22 Long Rifle In ictu oculi (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting--thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, rifles actually used in competitive sports. Sporting rifle is a red link, but it's a partial-title-match with some articles: All pages with titles containing sporting rifle – wbm1058 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move better title. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Thewolfchild, wut? It was moved. You moved it back. I can only hope that the overwhelming number of supports already gives you cause to reflect. Needless to say, I also think that this should be called "AR-15 style rifle" or whatever, per COMMONNAME and common sense. Even the NSSF uses the term twice as often as that euphemism "modern sporting rifle". "And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!" Not a lot of fun to get shot with, but hey. We're rugged individuals. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: "Reflect" on what? This "overwhelming support" didn't appear until after I posted the RM. I actually don't care if the page is named either way, (notice I didn't post any opinions or !vote in the straw-poll). I just know that K.e.coffman had no business making a controversial page move (and with such POV-ish reasoning), while discussions were still ongoing, and without support from the community, and as Dennis Brown just pointed out; moving a "name this page has had for years". (And once that page move was contested, he certainly shouldn't have moved it again). It's clear he wasn't going to post an RM like he should have, so I did. There should be an opportunity for the community to discuss this, and a clear consensus formed before any such move, (not a quickly thrown together "consensus" by 4 like-minded and recently involved editors, after the fact). If the move goes thru (and it looks like it will), then hopefully K.e.coffman will "reflect" on his needless page-move-warring and combative POV-attitude, realize that that we have these page move guidelines for a reason, and that this is a community... of more than 4 people. But, I'm pretty sure you already know all this. I think your issue is that you're under the mistaken belief that I want the original name. As long as the name is NPOV, and the community supports it, then I'm fine with it being renamed... properly. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 18:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, but the page-move warring is yours: you moved it back, despite the fact that you said you didn't care. You could have just started a conversation without moving it back. There is nothing in our procedures that dictates you have to move it back and then start this. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

TBH, I thought/hoped the first move would initiate the RM. But that said, I will take your comment under advisement, along with the current environment, recent events, and the overall big picture. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to AR-15 style rifle or similar title. This article is clearly about rifles similar to, related to, or derived from the AR-15, and thus "AR-15 style rifle" is a descriptive common name. I've seen conflicting usage of "modern sporting rifle", so perhaps there is a distinction between the two and there could be a separate article with that title. Either way, "AR-15 style rifle" makes more sense as a title for this article as it currently exists. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Seems to me clear consensus for a move, and it should be done. Not one user has objected.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's an RM, so it needs to be left open more than two days. It should close in a week. Not everyone edits Wikipedia every day, and waiting a few days isn't hurting anyone as it has been under this name for years. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • But our readers are not finding the article. That is the overriding concern. Under the circumstances, with no chance this will fail support, I think it's ripe to close. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 style rifle redirects here, so if readers are searching on that term they will still find the article. Letting this run for the full week, which is standard procedure at WP:RM for anything not considered a "technical request", helps to build a stronger consensus and avoid later attempts to reverse the move on the basis of a "limited consensus". – wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support move; AR-15 style rifle is the most popular term for this object. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support but I would prefer the title be "AR-15 pattern rifle" since "pattern" vs "style" is the term more often used in my experience. Also, my understanding is Modern Sporting Rifle refers to more than just AR pattern rifles (Sig MCX for example). I would suggest a Modern Sporting Rifle page should still exist once this is settled. Since the page in question is AR-15 specific it should change. Springee (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move Modern sporting rifle is obviously an attempt at obfuscation through euphemism. EDIT: The above assessment was made after I was redirected to this page after searching for AR-15 and assumed that this was the title of the page for that specific rifle. I still support the move, but do recognize it's more of a murky issue of terminology than someone just trying to influence opinion. The redirect should be fixed though. Searching for AR-15 should take one to the actual AR-15, with the clear disambiguation disclaimer in place.SweetNeo85 (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move Seems a no-brainer, for reasons stated above. -- naught101 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move Although some references use "pattern" instead of style, the vast majority of expert references use the word "style," as in, "AR-15 style rifle." Furthermore, as there are significant variants from the original Colt AR-15, these variants do not follow the tight control indicated by the use of the word "pattern," but rather, the more loose association indicated by the use of the word, "style." By "expert references," I refer to the vast majority of firearms support organizations as well as firearms manufacturers and firearms-centered publications. The overwhelming concensus throughout the firearms community is clear that these should be called, "AR-15 style rifle."Clepsydrae (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move "Sporting?"- I guess it is "sporting" when you shoot AR-15 style rifle, however, NOT "sporting" when you get shot by the AR-15 style rifle.---A ri gi bod (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move because "AR-15 style rifle" is the most common term. AR-15 is a trademark, so I can see the desire to avoid that term, but "modern sporting rifle" is a category occupied entirely by AR-15-style rifles. However, AR-15 should not redirect here, and this article should have a clearer disambiguation note, such as "This article is about rifles based on the Colt AR-15. For the original rifle, see Colt AR-15. For other uses, see AR-15 (disambiguation)." Roches (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support the current title is very POV and inaccurate. I only found this page by accident. Legacypac (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move Professional and technical literature about AR-15 style rifles, as well as popular magazines for gun hobbyists, almost always use the terms "AR-15 style rifle" if they are being precise with their language. They will sometimes say things like "an AR-15 rifle made by Daniel Defense", which is not entirely accurate but is nonetheless common in casual writing or conversation. The term "modern sporting rifle" is politically-motivated and purposefully unclear. The term "modern sporting rifle" is also not very common, which in and of itself should disqualify it from being the title for a Wikipedia article for a type of rifle with a far more common name. Fluoborate (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, AR-15 is what they're commonly known as. "Obfuscation through euphemism", as above, is a particularly apt description. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• support move. (1) Unquestionably the term "modern sporting rifle" to most people would never suggest an AR-15. (2) The AR-15 type is a specific type; it is not a general category as the name "modern sporting rifle" suggests. (3) Many people would argue that the AR-15 type is not sporting at all because it's too much like using a cannon on the prey; I don't wish to take sides but only to indicate how dubious "sporting" is as a name. Zaslav (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - AR-15 is the COMMONNAME here and so should be moved, –Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move: basically just what everyone else has been saying. "Modern sporting rifle" is clearly not an unbiased title, and AR-15 is definitely the common name. Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Didn't notice that the article is move-protected. @Amakuru, MelanieN, NeilN, Oshwah, and TonyBallioni: Can a kindly admin do the deed? — JFG ^talk 17:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"AR-15" redirect

Should "AR-15" redirect to AR-15 style rifle, to Colt AR-15, to AR-15 (disambiguation), or what? That's the topic, over at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 24#AR-15. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion there. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI I have closed the RfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Primary sources

I removed citations to primary sources from the 1st sentence of the lead. They are unneeded there anyway. Preserving this content here:

• AR-15 style rifle (also known as modern sporting rifle (MSR)) is a general category of modular semi-automatic rifles based on the Colt AR-15 design and now made by many different manufacturers.

References

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to put back, at a minimum, the fifth one, that references the NSSF's website. It shows very clearly that the largest firearms trade group considers "modern sporting rifle" to be an equivalent term for "AR-15 style rifle". So even though it's a primary source, I think it's quite helpful. Although I would put it back with a different quote, or with no quote. And also, it could be placed right after the first mention of the term "modern sporting rifle". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point; I re-added source #5 with this diff. Thank you for the suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice

An RfC related to this topic has been opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Coverage of mass shootings in firearms articles. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Orlando Shooting

I reverted this edit, but it was reverted back without discussion. According to [11], "Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed". Additionally, the Sig Sauer MCX is one of the models listed in this article. –dlthewave ☎ 04:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The Sig MCX is not an AR-15 pattern rifle. It uses a different operating mechanism and isn't based on the AR-15 design. USA Today simply got it wrong. That said, in my opinion (but not based on the definition in this article) the MCX is a "Modern Sporting Rifle". But this article is almost certainly going to be renamed (again) to "AR-15 style rifle" and the current content is, based on the talk page, meant to only refer to AR-15 pattern rifles. Springee (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide an RS for that? A Washington Post article was mentioned in an edit summary. –dlthewave ☎ 05:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest you look into the matter a bit more. The confusion came about because it was originally reported to be an "AR-15" type rifle. While I would agree the MCX is in many ways similar, I don't think you will find an actual firearms expert who would call it an AR-15 style rifle. Here is an article about that issue as it relates to the Orlando shooting. [[12]]. Springee (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The MCX is a different gun. When this article title is changed, any mention of it or any other non-AR-15 pattern rifle will have to be removed. There should be no mention of the AR-15 in any articles related to the Orlando shooting and vice-versa, there should be no mention of the Orlando shooting in any articles about the AR-15. Adding or changing content based on what is now known to be a factual error by a media outlet would be irresponsible. The Orlando shooter didn't use an AR-15, just like he didn't use an AK-47. Or a Bazooka. - ^theWOLFchild 12:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we fill in the content?

Once the dust settles down I would hope we could start filling in a lot of the content that was likely in the older AR-15 articles. It would be good to have a complete section on how the rifles generally operate and variations/modifications to the basic design. Basically I think if someone comes to Wikipedia to learn how this type of rifle works and is built this would be the primary article. It could also cover some of the history starting with Armalite then Colt, touch on the M16 history etc. Yes, it can also have the politics with crime etc but I would hope we can keep it balanced. Just saying "it was the weapon used in X" feels a bit like the body count some have mentioned. We shouldn't hide that information but we should also include why gun rights people are opposed to bans etc. IMHO, it's not that including the crime information is bad, only that it seems that so often it's added as a one way thing. We should be sure to say why it's popular with law-abiding users and why sales have been strong etc. I would hope this article has length issues rather than just edit warring issues. Springee (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Question -- is this already covered in AR-15_style_rifle#Background? Since this is an article about a category, it makes sense that it would provide an overview, while the details can be filled out at each rifle's article. I.e. the content should be fairly high-level, providing info on the category of rifles. This is my current thinking on the topic at the moment. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really. For example, look at the level of detail in this section of the Colt AR-15 article [[13]] (and the next section). The Colt article as a lot more detail about the operation of the mechanism and the various parts. I'm not thinking this is a short term thing but I think it would be great to see this expand to include a lot more detail all around. There is so much information about the AR platform in general that ultimately we should be arguing about how to keep the article within the typical Wiki article size limits. This is something that I think will take time, I just don't want people to think the article's current state is where we should leave things. Springee (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but isn't Colt AR-15 one of the "AR-15 style rifles", i.e. the original one? Duplicating the same content here as at Colt_AR-15#Operating_mechanism would be redundant, no? Something high level would work better, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically the Colt bought the rights from AmaLite, the ArmaLite AR-15 is the original. Colt is the trademark holder for AR-15. PackMecEng (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly, Fairchild Industries had a subsidiary, Fairchild Arms International, Ltd. and ArmaLite was their brand/trademark which they would sell to Colt.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng: your statement is conflating the semi-automatic-only Colt AR-15 with the select-fire ArmaLite AR-15 assault rifle. The ArmaLite AR-15 has not been made for over 50 years and was never sold to civilians. I don't believe it can be considered to be part of "AR-15 style rifles" that are being discussed in this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think in particular the modular aspect has a lot of room for expansion, and probably deserves its own section heading.--Pharos (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Propose copying operational material from Colt AR-15 article? The Colt AR-15 article used to be the general AR-15 article. I would propose either copying or moving the Operating Mechanism and/or Features sections to this article. The Operating Mechanisms could then be expanded to talk about some of the variations that have been produced. For example, some manufactures replace the gas system with a piston-rod type setup. Calibers other than .223 and 5.56 have been offered. Also, even though it's political, I think a discussion of the feature changes manufactures have produced to comply with (bypass depending on your POV) assault weapons laws would also be relevant. Springee (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

in media res

• Considering there are ongoing discussions about the content and title of this page (and related articles and subjects, including an active RfC that could affect this page), I'm wondering why it is that editors are currently making content changes to this article without even mentioning them here on the talk page first? isn't this the kind of thing that leads to disputes and disruption? Perhaps we should put the content changes on hold until the discussions are done and there is consensus on what should and shouldn't be going into these articles. JMHO - ^theWOLFchild 23:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

follow up

I'll post this here, because I already inquired about this, in this section, and I don't to want to split off from any discussion about a specific edit below. Above, Springee asked about "adding content", which was appropriate to ask because the addition of some types of content is currently being disputed. There were several discussions that popped up on firearms related pages, seeking local consensuses, they were closed and directed to the Firearms Project for a central discussion. That location was disputed, so now we're having a RfC at the Village Pump. From what I've seen, there is no consensus there either way, and as of yet it is still open.

Meanwhile, Springee's question here turned into a discussion of rights ownerships, etc. and meanwhile, I noticed that while all this was going on, some editors were adding content anyway. We now have a kind of 'information creep' occurring, while discussions are taking place on whether or not to even add such content and if so, how it should be added. There is now a section here titled "Mass-shootings" that wasn't there a few days ago, and within it, links to three of the deadliest mass-shootings, and a notation of AR-15s being involved in 13 total. Then links to four more shootings were added, making it seven. Now three more links are added, making it ten. (this latest edit is the discussion I mentioned below)

At the same time, significant content is also being removed as "promotional", by editors such as "K.e.Coffman", who have clearly taken a position on this issue, and editors such as "AzureCitizen" are continually adding content, without so much as a peep here on the talk page, knowing full well this content is currently being disputed. Why bother having RfCs? Or Consensus? Or even talk pages, if controversial subjects are just going to be a free-for-all anyway? I think we should slow down on the editing here until some content decisions have been made by the community. Or else there'll just be continuous debates, reverts, mass-changes, etc. The kind of disruption we want to avoid. - ^theWOLFchild 00:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass shootings

@Thewolfchild: Regarding your revert here, what are the WEIGHT problems with my edit? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Interjecting and not wanting to derail the discussion that the two of you may have but I really wish that people would quit adding Umpqua Community College shooting because no AR-15 clone was used at all. He had one but never fired it so please stop saying that it was "used" in that shooting as that is inaccurate.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AzureCitizen: Well, aside that the fact that edit had already been removed once by Springee, this is the type of content that is now being discussed at an RfC at Village Pump, as well as on other pages, with a new debate popping up on different pages seemingly every day, (despite the RfC @ VP). I was under the impression that no consensus has been formed yet in support of adding more of this content (unless I missed something). It's already noted as being used in mass-shootings, and at one point, there were links to three of the deadliest, which I thought was sufficient, but now there's seven and you want add another three. Do we really need such a lengthy list in that section? Will we keep adding more and more mass-shootings as they occur? It just seems a bit too much, and that's what I mean by "weight". But, if consensus supports that addition of all those other mass-shootings, then so be it. I'm not trying to hide the fact that AR-15s are used in mass-shootings, just keep a balance with the rest of the article.

Perhaps we should decide on a set number for now and stick to it. Then revisit again is say... six months. I would support the three that were originally there. But I'm sure others would feel different. - ^theWOLFchild 23:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

After further consideration, looking at the page history and taking into account the open RfC, I'm striking my last comment. I've added further comments below. - ^theWOLFchild 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

follow up

The section "Use in mass shootings" was added by User K.e.coffmam on 19 February. There was no proposal, discussion or consensus supporting this addition. While it could be considered a "bold" edit, it is also controversial content that was, and still is, being discussed and debated, with no consensus as of yet. (There had been an aborted straw poll started regarding the inclusion of such content, but it was closed prematurely as it was started by a ban-evading sock. There were some contributions, though not enough for a solid consensus, and additional editors did not have an opportunity to contribute before the closure).

• User Bishati then removed the section on 21 February. This removal should have initiated a discussion, but that didn't happen, instead;
• User Wbm1058 reverted the section back in again, while adding additional content of the same nature to the lead. Still no discussion regarding this content. Then;
• User Bishati again removed the section, but still no discussion started. Then;
• User AzureCitizen reverted the content back in, with the edit summary: "Your changes have been challenged; go to the Talk Page to seek consensus".
  

I learned of all this when another ban-evading sock (or the same one?) tried to expand the section and was reverted. AzureCitizen tried to re-add the additional content, but I reverted, which initiated this section. While I agree with AzureCitizen's edit summary comment that there should be a talk page discussion seeking consensus regarding this content, it's debatable as to who the onus fell on to start such a discussion. But it is not Bishati's responsibility to seek consensus to remove the content. It was added without consensus, therefore, it falls to either K.e.Coffman, Wbm1058 or AzureCitizen to seek consensus to add (or re-add) it in the first place.

Considering there is an RfC at the Village Pump regarding this very subject, (the inclusion of information about mass-shootings on firearms articles), that is still open, with no consensus, should this content have even been added? (or re-added, again and again), Should we not wait until the conclusion of that RfC, (which was supported and contributed by the OP of this content btw) before making these changes, or even having discussions on this page about what to add, how much to add and how to add it? - ^theWOLFchild 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And now we have another addition added to "mass-shootings"... "spree killing". As well as this commentary. This is the type of POV-laden content that is currently being debated, and while the discussion continues, and no decisions have even been made, the article just keeps getting heavier and heavier... - ^theWOLFchild 19:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, Dlash is a new sock for an old, blocked master [[14]] Springee (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: I see that now, but there are still some questionable edits being made. While Cavalryman V31 removed removed part of that content "Dlash" dumped in, he left in the part about the "spree-killing". But, with the same edit, he also removed content added by a different editor, (days ago), that stated;

• However, they [AR-15s] are used in a low percentage of firearms homicides in the U.S. overall, which are dominated by handguns rather than rifles.

AFAIC, this notation about the over-all low-percentage in firearm homicides for ARs compared to hand-guns, was a worthwhile, well-cited addition to the article. Why was it removed? This is Cavalryman V31's edit summary: "reduced to consensus on talk page" - what "consensus" is he referring to? (did I miss something? Is there a consensus for this "mass shooting" section? or any additions made to it? or the mention of mass-shootings, with a link, in the lead? or the removal of the handgun lime?) Otherwise, I don't know what "consensus" he's talking about. I do know that the handgun quote should to go back in. And, since people aren't waiting for the outcome of the RfC at Village Pump, or even bothering with proposals, discussions or consensus here, (they just keep adding stuff), we should, somehow, decide how much "mass-shooting" content should be added, and then stick to it, or else that section will continue to grow, to the point it out-WEIGHs the rest of the page. I'm not asking for it all to be removed, I just want the article kept neutral. - ^theWOLFchild 11:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: seems reasonable - please go ahead and place these back in - if User:Cavalryman V31 responds back here and justifies removal then can have more discussion around this. Noting handgun role though as comparison seems appropriate. Shaded0 (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Shaded0: Appreciate the 'go ahead', but I just edited that section a couple hours ago and this page is under sanctions, so I'm looking to avoid more than one major edit, especially to the same section, within 24 hours. But if you're for it, you can do it right now yourself. The handgun line with refs in is my comment above, or you can pull it from the link of Cav-manV31's edit, which I added the diff for as well. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 14:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Shaded0 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Modules, Cartridges, etc.

@Thewellman: please discuss below here this section w/ suggested edits for discussion. See above per sanctions. Major additions probably need some discussion first.

• See diff: here

Shaded0 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

TheWellman's edit was a well-sourced, neutral and high-quality expansion of the article. What are your concerns, and how exactly do sanctions apply in this case? –dlthewave ☎ 21:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the material was a great add. If it was copied from another Wiki article we need to cite that other article so people can review the edit/talk history of the material (I've run into this myself). Springee (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The addition looked good to me. My only concern is perhaps it, or part of it, should be merged with the existing 'Variations and modularity' section.--Pharos (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have re-added. One minor thing that should be c/e'd. The below sections should probably be merged into two or fewer - since by the titles it looks to be overlapping concepts (same as noted by User:Pharos).

1. Modules
2. Variations and modularity
3. Cartridge variations

Shaded0 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my edit. I composed that edit in my sandbox without copying any text, so I don't think there should be any problems with undocumented history. I anticipated the possibility of overlap with existing text, but wanted to avoid the appearance of overwriting others' work. I would be happy to take a try at merging the noted sections, if that would be acceptable. Thewellman (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest redistributing text from the Variations and modularity section as follows:

• append the first two sentences to the end of the Sales section.
• delete the third sentence as a duplication of the last paragraph of the Modules section.
• insert a revision of the fourth sentence into the Cartridge variations section
• insert the second paragraph just before the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Modules section.

Thewellman (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response @Thewellman: yes please go ahead. Much appreciated! Shaded0 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

list vs prose

@Dlthewave: - regarding your comment on my talk page, in reference to the revert I made to this article; ""Looks awful" is not a valid reason to revert an edit. Please provide content-related explanations in the future." Dlthewave 06:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC) You are correct of course, and if "Tschear" takes any offence, then they have my apologies. As you know, edit summaries are limited, and I was quite hurried (stuff, IRL) which is just a reason, not an excuse. That said, I figured if they disagreed with the revert, then they could ask me about it here, per BRD, and initiate a discussion. Then I could take that opportunity to explain that I felt their edit was "unnecessary", as I said in my summary, and the list, along with the big gap of space it created on the right, made the page look... (this is where I try to think of a word other than "awful'). Further, as per WP:WHITE; "Whitespace is not always desirable. It can give the page an untidy appearance and make the article look altogether incomplete". Also, per MOS:LISTBASICS; "Do not use a list if a passage is understood easily as regular text". So given these guidelines, I felt the revert was appropriate. With all said, I'm not sure why you felt the need to take up their cause and lecture me about edit summaries, especially on my talk page, when not only is this page the proper venue, but I have a specific request posted clearly on my page about this that you deliberately ignored. Posting preachy demands is not a good way to collaborate, it can be just as counter-productive as, say... blunt edit summaries. I hope from this point we can now move forward and continue working on improving the project. Have a good day - ^theWOLFchild 07:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 redirect

AR-15 is a trademark of COLT'S MANUFACTURING IP HOLDING COMPANY LLC.

To avoid trademark dilution, AR-15 should redirect to the Colt AR-15 article rather than this article.

Typing in "AR-15" and getting "AR-15 style rifle" is kind of like asking for a Coke, and getting a Pepsi. They're not the same thing. Cinteotl (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this at Redirects for Discussion here. It seems that the consensus was to redirect "AR-15" to this article. I'm not sure exactly why, but you can probably find out there. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue that came up was in relation to shootings and people trying to find info on the rifle in general vs the Colt version. Which led to trying to dump all the unrelated info in the Colt article. There is more in the various discussions but that is the gist of it. PackMecEng (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

While I think the decision was genericide, I respect the consensus. Thanks. Cinteotl (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed additional text regarding left handed shooters

I suggest adding something like the following paragraph as the last part of the Modules section, possibly as a subsection entitled: Left handed shooters

Most rifles are designed to be fired by placing the butt against the right shoulder while using a finger of the right hand to pull the trigger. Sighting with the right eye places the shooter's face adjacent to the left side of the buttstock behind the receiver. Using the left arm to support the forward part of the rifle rotates the shooter's chest toward the receiver. Most rifles eject spent cartridges from the right side of the receiver away from a right handed shooter. This is a disadvantage for the tenth of the population who are left handed, for the third of the population whose left eye is dominant, and for those who have suffered disabling injuries to their right hand or eye; because holding these rifles against their left shoulder for maximum accuracy causes the rifle to eject hot spent cases toward the chest, neck or face of a left handed shooter. Relatively few rifles are designed for left handed use because of a smaller market share for a similar investment in machining costs. The modular design of AR-15 style rifles reduces manufacturing costs to accommodate left-handed shooters, and has encouraged several manufacturers to offer specialized parts to convert right handed AR-15 style rifles for left handed use.

Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - addition of this content. It's well sourced, informative and non-controversial. It's the kind of content this article should have. - ^theWOLFchild 06:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• This is good content, but it's longer than it needs to be; we could probably summarize in one or two sentences that the modularity makes it easier to have a left-handed weapon.--Pharos (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Pharos, most of this could be replaced with a link to Bias against left-handed people#Weapons. –dlthewave ☎ 07:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment -- seems like too much detail; a couple of sentences would be sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Question - @Thewellman:, I was just reading your addition to the article, (and thank you for that btw), but was curious about the reference to people who are "left eye dominant". I don't see (pardon the pun) the relevance, because (afaict) if the user is right-handed, they would still position the rifle to their right shoulder, regardless of which eye they use to sight with. The ref you attached is a book, so I was unable to follow up with it to see what effect eye dominance is supposed to have. Can you clarify this? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 18:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just from personal experience, I have Amblyopia where my right eye is not so good. I am right handed but for rifles I shoulder on the left. For pistols I shoot right handed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It may be useful to consider the effects of learned behaviors as opposed to alternatives. I was nearly ambidextrous as a youth, but learned to write and use most tools with my right hand. An exception is left-handed use of a trackball learned operating early Naval Tactical Data System consoles before the days of personal computers. The console trackball was positioned for use by the left hand so the right hand could be used to write with grease pencil on the console cathode ray tube showing computer-generated graphics on a plan position indicator radar screen. Although it is fairly easy to sight with either eye when firing a handgun with either hand, many are taught to shoot rifles right-handed. This teaching can often be traced to military instructions on how to use the standard issue rifle designed for right-handed use. After shooting rifles right-handed for half a century, I trained my left trigger finger to take advantage of a clearer sight picture with my left eye as my eyes aged. I am now shooting tighter groups than I ever did in my youth, and wish I had recognized the advantages earlier. Since the percentage of the population with a dominant left eye exceeds the percentage who are left handed, growing awareness of the significance of ocular dominance in marksmanship may create a larger demand for left-handed rifles (and hopefully more enlightened training programs for those who use rifles professionally.) Thewellman (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Of the recently-added section, only the last sentence is directly about AR-15 rifles. I think the rest would be better off merged to enhance Bias against left-handed people#Weapons.--Pharos (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Since this article is about the AR-15 based rifles I would suggest limiting the material only to issues for left handed shooters with the basic rifle and ways the rifle is modified for left handed shooters. Information that is more generally about shooting as a lefty should be limited only to what is needed to put the problems in context. The information is good but off subject for this article. Springee (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thewellman and PackMecEng: thanks for the replies. Pharos and Springee, as for the left-handed content and what should come in or go out, I think any info pertaining the design and use of these rifles is helpful, and especially any info pertaining to their legitimate use as opposed to illegitimate use. The addition was already cut significantly from it's initial proposal and as of now, contains only 3 sentences. The first two sentences explain the situation being addressed by the modular design of the AR in the third sentence. I don't see any need to trim it any further. - ^theWOLFchild 09:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)