Herr Gruber (talk | contribs) |
Herr Gruber (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
Why are we including such a long list of military and police users? If we exclude criminal users, why do we include non-criminal users who are less notable? That seems to violate the basic neutrality principle of NPOV - including 'positive' info while excluding 'negative' info. The citations are almost all poor quality primary sources. Can anyone give a policy-based rationale for this lengthy section? [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 21:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) |
Why are we including such a long list of military and police users? If we exclude criminal users, why do we include non-criminal users who are less notable? That seems to violate the basic neutrality principle of NPOV - including 'positive' info while excluding 'negative' info. The citations are almost all poor quality primary sources. Can anyone give a policy-based rationale for this lengthy section? [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 21:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Because a weapon being adopted by a national police force or armed force is noted by reliable sources on firearms, while crimes are not. There's nothing "positive" or "negative" about a firearm being adopted for use, that's just a false balance argument. [[User:Herr Gruber|Herr Gruber]] ([[User talk:Herr Gruber|talk]]) 07:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC) |
:Because a weapon being adopted by a national police force or armed force is noted by reliable sources on firearms, while crimes are not. There's nothing "positive" or "negative" about a firearm being adopted for use, that's just a false balance argument. Also, criminals are more notable than national armed forces? What planet do you ''come'' from? [[User:Herr Gruber|Herr Gruber]] ([[User talk:Herr Gruber|talk]]) 07:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:57, 22 July 2016
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. |
Point of View
Not exactly what one would call a neutral point of view.
- If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by clicking the edit this page tab at the top of the page. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:40, September 23 2004 (UTC)
Long entry now stub
What the hell?? I made a huge long entry about the SIG, and now its a tiny little stub. >;-[ Oh well, I guess thats what it's all about. --User:Gmarine3000 22:43, 11 October 2004
- SIG 229 has a MILLED stainless steel slide, not a forged one. (User: Skull-1)
Canadian Forces
As far as I am concerned, the P226 is still limited issue to JTF2, MPs, and the like, and there are no plans for further issue... Since there are thousands of stored BHPs to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.242.218 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 June 2007
From my understanding, the Navy edition is simply a tribute model, while the Mk25 is actually identical to the SEAL's standard issue. The Mk25 features an enhanced trigger, more accurate barrel, a MIL-SPEC rail, and upgraded night sights, which the Navy does not feature. Is this enough to differentiation to remove the Mechanically/Functionally identical sentence, as they are, in fact, not identical?
Merger proposal
I propose that SIG Sauer P227 be merged into SIG Sauer P226, because the P227 is merely a variant of the P226, upsized to chamber .45 ACP, and I believe the P226 article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the P227 article into this will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. RadiculousJ (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose that idea. I have a P226 and I've handled the P227. I see no reason to lump these together just because they are both high capacity. Further more there is no logic in lumping the P227 in with the P220 either.Digitallymade (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you are going to start combining models, then they should ALL be under the P220 from which they are all devolved.Digitallymade (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Just got off the phone with Sig Sauer in NH. The P227 is a much larger frame than the P226. The resemblance is cosmetic. As far as I am concerned it's a member of the P220 family which also supports 10mm now.
- The Stamped Steel slides are more expensive to make than the monoblock slides which are made on Swiss Arms machinery. They are also all heavier due to the introduction of .357 Sig and .40 S&W. The frames remain aluminum.
- Sig does make the P226 in .22 Long Rifle, rarely. They no longer make the Mosquito. The mosquito had European throating and was designed around European ammunition. There was only one US made .22 ammo that would result in reliable functioning and that was the CCI Minimag.
- All Sig Sauer handguns use European style throating. All Sig Sauer pistols are able to use +P ammunition as standard.
- Of course none of this can be used in the Wiki because there is nothing but VERBAL confirmation.
Digitallymade (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Ridiculous Webpage
This page has been so overdone with model information that it might as well be the Sig Sauer catalog. I suggest that this topic have MOST of the model variants removed and that the page refer to the P226 family with a few mentions of special models such as the Mk25 etc. Since none of this can be as authoritative as the Sig Sauer website is, the page should simply point to that page.
People, in general, won't read pages such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitallymade (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Users
Why are we including such a long list of military and police users? If we exclude criminal users, why do we include non-criminal users who are less notable? That seems to violate the basic neutrality principle of NPOV - including 'positive' info while excluding 'negative' info. The citations are almost all poor quality primary sources. Can anyone give a policy-based rationale for this lengthy section? Felsic2 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because a weapon being adopted by a national police force or armed force is noted by reliable sources on firearms, while crimes are not. There's nothing "positive" or "negative" about a firearm being adopted for use, that's just a false balance argument. Also, criminals are more notable than national armed forces? What planet do you come from? Herr Gruber (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)