# Talk:AIM-174B Gunslinger

in the design section it states:
AIM-174 is externally virtually identical to the RIM-174, apart from the marked lack of the MK72 solid-fuel rocket booster on the AIM-174. Without the MK72 booster pack, the missile is approximately 21.5 ft (6.6 m) long.
I believe it is slightly incorrect - should be "With the MK72 booster pack, the missile is approximately 21.5 ft (6.6 m) long." 
The SM-2 MR RIM-66 is 15.5 feet. Then on the RIM-66 notice the newest SM-2 Medium Range Block IIIC Active- which incorporate the active homing seeker of the SM-6 ERAM into the existing SM-2 airframe.-  I try to manually scale on the graphic - at think the 1.5  might be accurate. Wfoj3 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you are correct... early information regarding the length was written poorly/confusingly by sources. Since the 174 doesn't use the booster, it would be, IMO, more appropriate to simply state, " the AIM-174 is externally virtually identical to the RIM-174, apart from the marked lack of the MK72 solid-fuel rocket booster on the AIM-174." I think, perhaps, we should avoid discussing the length until we have a hard number for the 174, as it may differ from the SM-6... but I'd be curious to know what others think. MWFwiki (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't locate any good information that clearly defines the length of the SM-6 sans MK72 booster, much less the AIM-174. I'm going to remove mentions of the length, for now. MWFwiki (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:AIM-174B Gunslinger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: MWFwiki (talk · contribs) 21:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 00:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Images properly licensed
Page numbers needed for cites 25, 34 and all other PDFs
I would suggest, but I do not require, that you add a description section to the article and move all of your citations from the infobox to the new section. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that the article should be fully comprehensible without reference to the infobox and MOS:INFOBOXCITE states that citations are generally not needed in infoboxes if the facts are cited in the main body of the article
However, you should delete the variants listed in the infobox because that information isn't necessary there because they're all prototypes or training missiles of one sort or another; the infobox is supposed to provide the most important information in a summary format. It's not intended to be comprehensive.
I would suggest consolidating all of the citations to Orr's article in the National Interest. You needn't quote each individual stat from the article when it's such a short one.
Need a link for cite 57
You've got more than a few citations without publishers
What makes sandboxx.us reliable?
If it's mentioned earlier in the article, it shouldn't be listed in the see also section.
I'll put this on hold pending your changes--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I consider Sandboxx them a reliable enough source. Their writing and editorial staff include Hope Hodge Seck (a respected journalist, formerly managing editor of Military.com), Stavros Atlamazoglou (writes for the National Review), and while it's unusual for them to publish a pseudonymous author, "Frumentarius" formerly wrote for SOFREP. I don't recognize the other names but those three at least have a background of writing for other RS, which lends additional weight. They've been frequently cited by TWZ, they've got some kind of republishing arrangement with Military.com and RealClearDefense but are also frequently cited as well. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Images properly licensed
No action required
Page numbers needed for cites 25, 34 and all other PDFs
Page numbers inserted for all PDFs
I would suggest, but I do not require, that you add a description section to the article and move all of your citations from the infobox to the new section. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that the article should be fully comprehensible without reference to the infobox and MOS:INFOBOXCITE states that citations are generally not needed in infoboxes if the facts are cited in the main body of the article
"Specifications" section added w/ source moved to it post-consolidation
However, you should delete the variants listed in the infobox because that information isn't necessary there because they're all prototypes or training missiles of one sort or another; the infobox is supposed to provide the most important information in a summary format. It's not intended to be comprehensive.
Done
I would suggest consolidating all of the citations to Orr's article in the National Interest. You needn't quote each individual stat from the article when it's such a short one.
Done
Need a link for cite 57
I went ahead and replaced that link. It was added by another editor, and it was referring to DCS.
You've got more than a few citations without publishers
I have added publishers where missing, otherwise they are independent works that I would argue comply with WP:USESPS
What makes sandboxx.us reliable?
I would agree with SWATJester in that I could likely argue that Sandboxx is an RS. That said, it was not an important cite and I have replaced it
If it's mentioned earlier in the article, it shouldn't be listed in the see also section.
Done
The only other changes I've made was adding-in two MOS:LEADCITE-compliant references in the lead sentence for the claim that the Gunslinger is referred to as a "very long-range" AAM.
Thank you for your feedback!! ― MWFwiki (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The only thing that I see left to do is to remove all the missiles mentioned earlier in the article from the see also section. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I think the only one I missed was the R-37, which I just axed... the PL-17 is mentioned in references but not in the body proper. MWFwiki (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, bear with me, here. So, we have Stefano D'Urso — about 6 months — ago sort of unilaterally reporting that the AIM-174B's "nickname" is Gunslinger (I originally believed that Tyler Rogoway originally reported this, but it appears D'Urso was indeed first). His source is Naval Aviation 2025 which states "GUNSLINGER AIM-174B", not "AIM-174B Gunslinger." I will admit, I think that wording is a tad suspect.
Purely anecdotally, and I don't expect anyone to believe me nor give any weight to this argument, but I have it on good authority that it is indeed not the name of the AIM-174B. It was the program name, akin to AIMVAL or ACMID (not saying "Gunslinger" is an acronym).
All of that being said; All of the secondary sources support "Gunslinger." We can always correct the name if and/or when the USN/DoN/DoD decides to correct the record.We can even state in the body a brief overview of what happened regarding the name. That being said, just wanted to see if there were any opinions on this.
Personally, I say we wait and see, and that we are perfectly in-line with Wikipedia Policy, as-is. Heck, the article was just classed as a "Good Article." We report what the RSs say, of course. Again, personally, I'm of the opinion that the USN/DoN/DoD has a decision to make in that they must decide if the commonly-accepted name is worth correcting at this point (assuming there even is a correction to make).
However, I am open to opinions. I'm mostly posting this for posterity and out of an abundance of caution and simply to see if anyone has seen any RSs that counter the "Gunslinger" name. MWFwiki (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It's possible. "Gunslinger" has always sounded a bit ...off to me as not really aligning with any of the existing naming schema used for missiles, and being seemingly more referential to a launch platform than a projectile. Now that's nothing but vibes; you're of course correct that whether it's in error or not, the sources generally have settled on this as a common name (though there is nuance here between what is a 'nickname' vs. what is a formal designation in the nomenclature). But I think there's three separate usages of the Gunslinger name to be concerned about here -- the article's title, the usage in the lede paragraph, and the general usage in the body.  I'm not sure there's anything necessarily to cover about this in the article's body unless sources are actively discussing the dispute over whether that's the correct name. Per MOS:LEDEALT we can cover significant alternative names in the lede, and I don't think it's disputed that "Gunslinger" is, if not official, at least a significant alternative name. I do think there's potentially room for discussion as to *how* we present that alternative name: whether we should mention it as "sometimes referred to as 'Gunslinger'" or something like that. And then there's the article title, which is governed by MOS:AT. My suggestion would be to look at these three things independently of each other, particularly where they require different standards. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree, that there are three "sections" to consider. However, barring a statement by a primary source or something by a secondary source, I really don't think there's anything to change, at this point. The secondary sources aren't really "speculating" that it's the name, they're outright saying it is. We report what they say. Anything more than that would be OR. I think this is a case of "we needn't always be correct, just within policy, for better or for worse." I don't think the sources support changing anything, now. However, I will keep an eye on this and keep my ear close to the ground. MWFwiki (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)