→Wound characteristics: relevance |
→Wound characteristics: consistent indent per WP:INDENT and MOS:LISTGAP and reply to thomas.w |
||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
:::::::::It is UNDUE if it is not balanced, and off topic as I have described. Put it in the AR-15 article if you want. I dispute that the non-technical anecdotes of doctors are even reliable sources on this. They don't make important distinctions or have the requisite knowledge ''about assault rifles''. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 03:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC) |
:::::::::It is UNDUE if it is not balanced, and off topic as I have described. Put it in the AR-15 article if you want. I dispute that the non-technical anecdotes of doctors are even reliable sources on this. They don't make important distinctions or have the requisite knowledge ''about assault rifles''. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 03:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
*Wound characteristics belong in articles about specific calibers, if even there, since the effect in the target depends on bullet diameter, bullet length (a longer bullet causes a larger wound channel if it tumbles than a shorter bullet does), type of bullet and bullet velocity when entering the target, not on which type of weapon it was fired through. Assault rifles also come in multiple calibers (with 7.92x33mm and 7.62x39mm at one end of the scale and 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm at the other end) with widely varying effect in the target. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 14:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC) |
*Wound characteristics belong in articles about specific calibers, if even there, since the effect in the target depends on bullet diameter, bullet length (a longer bullet causes a larger wound channel if it tumbles than a shorter bullet does), type of bullet and bullet velocity when entering the target, not on which type of weapon it was fired through. Assault rifles also come in multiple calibers (with 7.92x33mm and 7.62x39mm at one end of the scale and 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm at the other end) with widely varying effect in the target. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 14:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
**Agreed that the editor is mistaken on his view of relevance. [[User:72bikers|72bikers]] ([[User talk:72bikers|talk]]) 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC) |
|||
**Yes {{u|Thomas.W}} you are correct. I only suggested the AR-15 article because the NY Times story was purportedly about them, and because I wanted to make {{u|Farcaster}} someone else's problem - I figured it would quickly be reverted there as well because it is a politically charged article. The individual cartridge articles are where this belongs if anywhere. One thing I will note is that it does matter whether it's an M4 or M16 but only for the reasons you spelled out. The 5.56x45 article already has this discussion actually, with better sources than the New York Times. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 18:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:24, 27 May 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Assault Weapon section
The primary subject of this article is Assault rifles. Assault Weapons is at best a subordinate subject matter. We probably shouldn't even mention Assault Weapons in this article (with the exception of the hat-note and a see also link). I recommend that we remove the section altogether in order to remove any possible confusion or ambiguity. Please comment below...
- Um, no. The "possible confusion or ambiguity" already exists, regardless of what WP does. If we don't explain it, we can actually make it worse, besides simply being less informative. There's zero benefit to remove it, and some harm. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, that clarification (Assault Rifle#Etymology) belongs near the top, so readers don't spend extra time reading through the wrong article. Per WP:BRD, we should probably revert it being moved to the end pending discussion here. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Reverted to put Etymology back to top, per normal for WP articles, per above. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- The section wasn't titled etymology before, and it's the etymology of a totally different term. Putting it at the top would require combining it with the "Characteristics" section since that actually defines the term "assault rifle" rather than the term "assault weapon." Otherwise it's starting the article out talking about something else entirely for four paragraphs: it'd be like starting an article on dogs by defining at length what a cat is. Bones Jones (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- While I understand the reasoning behind the recent change done by Bones Jones, I must point out that changing text while it's under discussion without consensus is normally seen as disruptive. Also, the analogy of "cat" in a "dog" article is specious, as virtually no readers confuse dogs and cats, while the confusion between assault rifle and assault weapon is significant both in occurrence and consequences; leaving it to the very end is of poor service to readers that are confused, and can even make that confusion worse. This pre-consensus change should be reverted, per WP:BRD and to avoid promoting misinformation to readers.
- For discussion, I'm okay with changing the heading to "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" as suggested, and for moving it just after the "Characteristics" section, but certainly not to moving it to the very end; we must inform the readers of this basic distinction. --A D Monroe III(talk) 18:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, it should be moved back to before the edit changing the section title and moving it to the top was made while it's being discussed, as this disagreement is the result of that change being made.
- And fine, it's like starting an article about dogs by describing at length what a dingo or wolf is, if you're being picky. I don't think "confusion" is a valid reason to start out not talking about what the article's actual subject is, the table of contents is there for a reason and is above everything else anyway. Bones Jones (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- The BRD process includes one revert, not zero. The bold change to dismiss Assault Weapon was done, reverted, and now discussed. Further edits are counter to BRD. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- The section wasn't titled etymology before, and it's the etymology of a totally different term. Putting it at the top would require combining it with the "Characteristics" section since that actually defines the term "assault rifle" rather than the term "assault weapon." Otherwise it's starting the article out talking about something else entirely for four paragraphs: it'd be like starting an article on dogs by defining at length what a cat is. Bones Jones (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Um, no. The "possible confusion or ambiguity" already exists, regardless of what WP does. If we don't explain it, we can actually make it worse, besides simply being less informative. There's zero benefit to remove it, and some harm. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I think something brief explaining that they are two different things should be included. And then just a link to the other topic. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm generally okay with any version of this; just not one that relegates the difference to the end of the article. Both "pro" and "anti" gun law POV's can benefit from noting there is a significance difference between the two, while no one benefits from letting that confusion be ongoing. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment...Wikipedia:Hatnote states..."Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article or section of an article (hence the name "hat"). Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because they were redirected, because the sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names. Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page.
The article already has a Hatnote at the very top of the article and it is the very first thing that the user reads (with link to the assault weapons page)..."This article is about automatic firearms used by many military organizations. For semi-automatic firearms restricted by some United States laws, see assault weapon."...A large section describing "assault weapons" and the legalities of owning them is not needed in this the "assault rifle" article. --RAF910 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- I broadly agree with RAF910 just above. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
In my view it's highly desirable to have a section explaining the differences between the two types of firearms, and "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" is a good name for that section. The hatnote is really good, but it's not enough. The two terms are often confused with each other, and the news media often refer to assault weapons as assault rifles. A section that un-confuses the reader is needed, and can of course maintain a neutral point of view. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I wish to argue that more often than not, the term "assault rifle" is now more commonly used in practice to mean "assault weapon"[1]. The two terms have a critical distinction that in practice is no longer observed and to not clearly address this at the very top of the article continues to add to the confusion. Nearly all news outlets refer to the AR-15 as an assault rifle, so if one were to google "assault rifle" and land on this page and read the top definition one would assume that the AR-15 is an automatic rifle, a machine gun. The About reference at the top pointing to assault weapon is not in itself clear to someone who does not already know the distinction because it is also common to refer to assault weapons as "military rifles". I think this article should be changed to reflect this change in common meaning by starting off with a clarification that the term has changed in how it is applied and meant. Here are plenty of articles which say "assault rifle" but actually are referring to semi-automatic rifles: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] jayphelps (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://nationalpost.com/news/world/why-assault-rifles-arent-what-you-think-they-are
- ^ https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/us/dicks-sporting-goods-guns-trnd/index.html
- ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/bofa-to-cut-ties-with-makers-of-military-assault-rifles-for-civlians.html
- ^ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/calif-man-assault-rifle-kill-kids-schoolyard-1989-article-1.3948017
- ^ https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2018/04/assault-rifles-were-banned-us-10-years-2nd-amendment-rights-were-not-curtai
- ^ https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/us/five-things-april-23-trnd/index.html
- ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/22/man-saved-lives-during-antioch-waffle-house-shooting/540123002/
- ^ https://priceonomics.com/where-do-all-the-assault-rifles-come-from/
- ^ https://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/2018/04/03/should-there-minimum-age-buy-assault-rifles/481007002/
- ^ http://www.recorder.com/Judge-Assault-weapons-ban-doesn-t-violate-2nd-Amendment-16706875
- ^ https://www.presstelegram.com/2018/04/06/man-who-used-assault-rifle-in-long-beach-carjacking-gets-21-years-in-prison/
Characteristics
[This edit] was reverted, so let's discuss it. My opinion is that because certain states have passed laws defining semi-automatic rifles as assault weapons, and since this is a central part of the gun control debate, then it's notable enough to include in this article. This gets into the messy territory of what is the "correct" definition of an assault rifle, but we could include it either as a common misconception or to illustrate the fact that there is disagreement over what the term encompasses. –dlthewave ☎ 22:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- That edit was reverted because it was on the wrong article. Don't confuse assault rifle (historical military) and assault weapon (US politics). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- It would be nice if people actually read these articles before editing. The article already has an "Assault Weapon Hatnote" and the "Distinction from assault weapons" section. Also, the section directly above this section, on this very talk page, is called "Assault Weapon section". So, to complain that it's not discussed, is ridiculous.--RAF910 (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Definition of assault rifle
While the military has a definition, the Merriam Webster dictionary also uses the colloquial definition commonly used in the media and understood by the population. The AR-15 is an assault rifle under the Merriam Webster dictionary definition. Whether NRA flacks are out here or not, a properly cited definition from Merriam-Webster should not be reverted. Please undo your reversion or I will soon. Also, cite your sources on the various examples of what is an what isn't an assault rifle, or that also will be removed.Farcaster (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- OPPOSE CHANGE. We don't go by the colloquial definition given by Merriam Webster but by the internationally accepted and widely used technical definition of "assault rifle". So don't even try to make your edit again... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- It isn't up to you to decide which factual citations to include or exclude. That isn't your call. Put it in context if you want, but that's the definition whether you like it or not.Farcaster (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Farcaster: It is up to other editors to decide whether you can add it or not (see WP:CONSENSUS). There is no free speech on Wikipedia... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Then you truly don't understand what we do out here; factual additions from credible sources is what Wikipedia is all about. Find a way to work it in if you like this article.Farcaster (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Farcaster: Oh yes, I truly do understand what "we do out here". Per WP:UNDUE being sourced is not a reason by itself to include anything.
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"
(my emphasis), which means that the very recent addition of a "colloquial definition" on Merriam Webster doesn't merit even a mention in the article, considering that the technical definition of assault rifle has been used for ~70 years, is used worldwide, and is used in all technical literature/sources. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 07:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Farcaster: Oh yes, I truly do understand what "we do out here". Per WP:UNDUE being sourced is not a reason by itself to include anything.
- Then you truly don't understand what we do out here; factual additions from credible sources is what Wikipedia is all about. Find a way to work it in if you like this article.Farcaster (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Farcaster: It is up to other editors to decide whether you can add it or not (see WP:CONSENSUS). There is no free speech on Wikipedia... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- It isn't up to you to decide which factual citations to include or exclude. That isn't your call. Put it in context if you want, but that's the definition whether you like it or not.Farcaster (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- OPPOSE CHANGE...For 74 years the term "Assault Rifle" has had a fixed technical definition as stated in the article. The Merriam Webster definition was only changed a couple of months ago. Also, the "Whether NRA flacks are out here or not," comment indicates potential soapboxing. --RAF910 (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- OPPOSE CHANGE - The definition of an "Assault Rifle" is a rifle with selective fire (switch between automatic fire and semi-automatic fire). The AR-15 only has one fire, which is semi-automatic. Here is a source: https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle Reb1981 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose edit - That was a really bad edit, it said M-W defines it as a semi-auto variant of a military assault rifle. WTH? The actual definition is "any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire". Note the "also". The also is important. You don't phrase an alternate meaning as the dictionary giving that as the proper definition of the term. Trash edit. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment We describe that which appears prominently in reliable sources, rather than prescribing the "correct" definition. Definitions change over time. Merriam-Webster doesn't change or add to definitions on a whim, so I wouldn't consider this to be a mistake or oversight. My recommendation would be to focus on the conventional military/technical terminology but also mention that the term is sometimes used to refer to a wider range of non-select-fire rifles. –dlthewave ☎ 02:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's ridiculous, inconceivable to remove the Merriam-Webster definition of an assault rifle because somebody likes the military definition better. Of course you include both, and discuss them in proper context. Not sure why this one is even under debate.Farcaster (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - The consensus, as defined states otherwise. M-W is the only one I see that states that secondary definition. What about the source I gave? Reb1981 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- My problem with your edit is that you tried to make it (twice, why twice?) read like M-W said the primary definition of assault rifle is of a semi-automatic. M-W does not define it that way, it notes that it is also used for that meaning. Their primary definition is of the military selective fire type. I don't have a problem with noting that some people use assault rifle to mean semi-automatic versions of assault rifles (although usually I think they use the made up term "assault weapon"), I have a huge problem with how you phrased that edit. It was very sloppy. You would say that M-W offers an alternative definition of semi-auto not that M-W defines it as semi-auto. If this was intentional on your part it is one of the most misleading edits I have seen on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)"
- If you like alternate language I'm open to that, to point out there are various definitions. Here is verbatim what M-W says: "also: a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire." I'll forgive your nonsense about sloppy, reads beautifully.Farcaster (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- M-W defines assault rifle as... anything other than selective fire rifles is not accurate and does not read beautifully. I might personally agree with incorporating the alternative definition but consensus above was that the change was not appropriate. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The consensus doesn't really matter and you're a big part of it. You make the edit and it will stay. Ignoring a M-W definition and massive usage of the term in the media should be mentioned, obviously. Don't know why this is even up for discussion; it's fundamental. In fact, one could easily argue that the historical military definition is the one mistaken, as the vast majority of Americans would call an AR-15 an assault rifle. You guys have it backwards.Farcaster (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- M-W defines assault rifle as... anything other than selective fire rifles is not accurate and does not read beautifully. I might personally agree with incorporating the alternative definition but consensus above was that the change was not appropriate. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you like alternate language I'm open to that, to point out there are various definitions. Here is verbatim what M-W says: "also: a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire." I'll forgive your nonsense about sloppy, reads beautifully.Farcaster (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- OPPOSE CHANGE.I agree with editor -RAF910, Tom, Reb1981, DIYeditor. The term was born out of a new military weapon during WW2. If one source tries to change the term is no sound reason to promote this view. all of the guns here are military rifles, to attempt to make the civilian AR 15 rifle on equal grounds of military rifles would mislead the readers, so to do so would be a big mistake.
One source that would attempt to contradict numerous sources with the length of time of this accepted view would try to place undue weight.
The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic . This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ."
-72bikers (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Wound characteristics
This was reverted with the reason Rv undiscussed addition of wound characteristics (which are totally irrelevant in a technical article about a specific type of weapon). Please note that content does not need to be discussed before being added. The source for this section is specifically about the wound characteristics of assault rifles, so I would consider this to be a relevant and constructive addition to the article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with the revert. This is an article about assault rifles in general not a specific make or model. If anything, at the very least that would be something to put on the page for that type of rifle. Reb1981 (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The source is about assault rifles in general. –dlthewave ☎ 00:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Read it again, it is talking about a AR-15 and M16 rifle bullet which fires a 5.56 or .223. Not all rifles are the same. The wounds would not be the same as well. Reb1981 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The most common assault rifle is not 5.56mm. Using a high velocity, small caliber round is not part of the meaning of "assault rifle" although it arguably is part of the evolution of them and should only be discussed in that context. Also information from Vietnam or derived from that (not sure if this applies) would not be accurate because the barrel twist and bullet weight are different and the wounding pattern (as I remember) was part of the reason the Swiss then the US & NATO went with a different design (perhaps for different reasons). If you want to add this information, put it in the right context (evolution of the assault rifle) and tell the whole story. Discussing 55gr slow twist in the same context as 62gr high twist is misleading and if the source doesn't make this distinction it's not an expert opinion on the topic IMO. Similarly the M4 will inflict different wounds than an AR-15 especially one with a M16 length barrel. The source has for example one obvious factual error "These weapons are meant to kill people" - the point of the switch to a heavier bullet with higher twist rate and part of the original intent of the M16 was to wound rather than kill because it inconveniences the enemy more. You can't lump all 5.56 rifles together and doing that means the source is bogus on the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The point of the switch from the lighter 55-grain M193 to the heavier 62-grain M855 was that it had more energy and had a steel core to penetrate Soviet body armor. It wasn't intended to make the round less lethal. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- That was part of it (maybe for the US) but as far as NATO I have seen this (creative commons licensed with sources) from a number of different sources:
- "In 1977, NATO members signed an agreement to select a second, smaller caliber cartridge to replace the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge.[10] Of the cartridges tendered, the 5.56×45mm NATO was successful, but not the 55 gr M193 round used by the U.S. at that time. The wounds produced by the M193 round were so devastating that many[11] consider it to be inhumane.[12][13] Instead, the Belgian 62 gr SS109 round was chosen for standardization. The SS109 used a heavier bullet with a steel core and had a lower muzzle velocity for better long-range performance, specifically to meet a requirement that the bullet be able to penetrate through one side of a steel helmet at 600 meters. This requirement made the SS109 (M855) round less capable of fragmentation than the M193 and was considered more humane.[14]"
- I was mistaken that it was the Swiss who had developed this round instead of the Belgians but I do believe NATO's choice as driven by the wounding being more humane. I used to have a book that covered this but I can't find it at the moment. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @DIYeditor: The link you provided above is a version of the Wikipedia article on the 5.56x45mm NATO round from 2016, but if you look at the state of the page today, the bit about the M193 wounds "were so devastating" is no longer in the article, and the bit about the M855 being "more humane" has a citation needed tag (see the 2nd to last paragraph of the History section). If you're interested, you might want to pursue as to why the current article has changed. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The key point is this is a factual addition from a credible source on the wounds created by assault rifles. We can certainly qualify it to say certain types of assault rifles, but to remove the addition is ridiculous. If you want to re-title the article to limit the content to a subset of the subject, go ahead, but while this is called "Assault Rifles" then the wounds they create are highly relevant.Farcaster (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Unless you are going to add information for SS-109 vs. original and the fact that it was actually chosen to lessen the wounding, short barrel vs. long barrel, 7.62x39 vs. 5.56, you are focusing on a specific subtopic of assault rifles from a politically tilted attack piece against something that is not even really an assault rifle, the AR-15, and non-specific information on what could be wounds from rifles with entirely different characteristics (like the M4). The information needs to be placed in the context of the evolution of assault rifles as a whole. Specific information on one round from a source that is non-specific about whether they mean wounds from M4 or M16, etc. is off topic here. Needs to be balanced with other rounds and more technical information to be about assault rifles in general. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are welcome to balance it with additional information, but not to remove factual, cited information. Way out of line.Farcaster (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is UNDUE if it is not balanced, and off topic as I have described. Put it in the AR-15 article if you want. I dispute that the non-technical anecdotes of doctors are even reliable sources on this. They don't make important distinctions or have the requisite knowledge about assault rifles. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are welcome to balance it with additional information, but not to remove factual, cited information. Way out of line.Farcaster (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Unless you are going to add information for SS-109 vs. original and the fact that it was actually chosen to lessen the wounding, short barrel vs. long barrel, 7.62x39 vs. 5.56, you are focusing on a specific subtopic of assault rifles from a politically tilted attack piece against something that is not even really an assault rifle, the AR-15, and non-specific information on what could be wounds from rifles with entirely different characteristics (like the M4). The information needs to be placed in the context of the evolution of assault rifles as a whole. Specific information on one round from a source that is non-specific about whether they mean wounds from M4 or M16, etc. is off topic here. Needs to be balanced with other rounds and more technical information to be about assault rifles in general. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- That was part of it (maybe for the US) but as far as NATO I have seen this (creative commons licensed with sources) from a number of different sources:
- The point of the switch from the lighter 55-grain M193 to the heavier 62-grain M855 was that it had more energy and had a steel core to penetrate Soviet body armor. It wasn't intended to make the round less lethal. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The source is about assault rifles in general. –dlthewave ☎ 00:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wound characteristics belong in articles about specific calibers, if even there, since the effect in the target depends on bullet diameter, bullet length (a longer bullet causes a larger wound channel if it tumbles than a shorter bullet does), type of bullet and bullet velocity when entering the target, not on which type of weapon it was fired through. Assault rifles also come in multiple calibers (with 7.92x33mm and 7.62x39mm at one end of the scale and 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm at the other end) with widely varying effect in the target. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed that the editor is mistaken on his view of relevance. 72bikers (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes Thomas.W you are correct. I only suggested the AR-15 article because the NY Times story was purportedly about them, and because I wanted to make Farcaster someone else's problem - I figured it would quickly be reverted there as well because it is a politically charged article. The individual cartridge articles are where this belongs if anywhere. One thing I will note is that it does matter whether it's an M4 or M16 but only for the reasons you spelled out. The 5.56x45 article already has this discussion actually, with better sources than the New York Times. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)