Talk:M1917 Revolver

message: I could've sworn there was a picture of one on here. Yes, they look different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.32.22.177 (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, it was gone when I got here.  If you can find one that's decent quality, it might add to the article.  Deathbunny 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: To be honest, I'm not sure how different the two weapons are.  My suggestions are to haunt the US government history and military history pages for a shot.  Perhaps Military History Institute's digital archive for an old manual you can pull a picture out of and clean up.  Deathbunny 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: By all means, I think a picture and a little more detail on the differences might be useful. Deathbunny 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've put that picture here twice today. Apparently soembody really doesn't want that picture in the article It is a good picture, here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:19172.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs) 
This seems to be the problem: M1917 revolver‎; 22:28 . . (-92) . . Asams10 (Talk | contribs) (rv: again, please look at how you're supposed to put a picture in and reinsert it if you please.) Apparently my methodology and not the picture offended an expert. If anyone wants this picture in the article, by all means, have at it. It seems to fit very nicely with what several people discussing this article have requested. It is a clear picture of a Smith and Wesson Hand Ejector Model 1917 with a serial number that places its manufacture. According to Supica and Nahas, prior to April 1918. the picture contains stacked half moon clips loded with .45 auto ball cartridges and a couple of the .45 Auto Rim cartridges developed to allow case ejection without using the loaded clips. Not being a "wikipedian," I'm not conversant with the finer points of constructing one of these articles.  I have learned that some contributors do not mind formating these contributions in the interest of actually improving a given article. --Mcumpston (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did my comments make it look like I was questioning the good faith of your edits?  If so, I'm sorry if you got that impression.  You're getting awful defensive, these were intended as healthy nudges to learn how to do it. You seemed to have been able to insert pictures properly in another article.  Just copy the format of pictures in other articles and, please, WP:Assume Good Faith. --Asams10 (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who got rid of the picture of the S&W version? 

message: It's obvious? Why would anyone question the idea that a rimless bullet would slide forward in the cylinder of a weapon designed for rimmed ammunition? Take a 3 inch diameter PVC pipe put a 2 inch diameter PVC pipe inside of it, flip it so that the openings are at the top and bottom and see if the smaller tube falls out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.165.82 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Army was unsatisfied with the original through-bored cylinder of the Colt 1917, and Colt responded by altering the design with a .45 ACP headspaced cylinder. The Army ordered the design change in November 1917, and Colt had already been manufacturing the revolvers for three months. The first 30,000 or so had the through-bored cylinders. Over 100,000 were then made with shouldered cylinders. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is a citation needed in the colt section of the article? 

message: Reference says ‘1917-present’. Present? Who uses it now? 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:15EC:4CCC:4E75:2F70 (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference citing usage in Haiti, published in 2015, states that they are still using them. If you can find a reliable source that says Haiti has upgraded all of their arsenal, we can certainly change that. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference points out one police officer in 1994 as having one. It's hard to say either way (still in use or not) based on that source. MartinezMD (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The currently cited source says they are still being used (recently, relatively), and the source makes no claim they were not still being used as of the 2015 publishing date. With no other (newer) sources to disprove said use, we should err on the side of the cited material. - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see that? The only mention I can find in that source says "A Port-au-Prince policeman during the 1994 American invasion. He appears to be brandishing a Smith & Wesson M1917 revolver." So it's not even a clear identification and may merit removal. MartinezMD (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking into this... Armed Forces of Haiti#Equipment claims "all of the equipment of the last standing army was taken by the US Army in the 1990s during Operation Uphold Democracy" (essentially 1994), and that they are currently issued Beretta M1951's, the Haitian National Police article says they were formed in 1995 (and currently issued 1911's according to that article), and this listing from Jane's does not list any M1917's in the Haitian national inventory in 1995. So, there is a possibility that it was issued until 1994, but clearly is not anymore. Unless there is any evidence of the other countries on the list currently still issuing it (which, honestly, I don't see why anyone would with the current availability of semi-automatic sidearms), I see no problem in changing the infobox from "present" to "1994". - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be an improvement if nothing else. I'll make the change. MartinezMD (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Still in use?

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :M1917 Revolver's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Czech":
From Lewis gun: 
From Hotchkiss Mle 1914 machine gun: 
Reference named "Bishop":
From Lend-Lease: 
From M1 Garand: 
From M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle: Bishop, Chris: The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, p. 239. Sterling Publishing, 2002.
Reference named "auto":
From Afghanistan: 
From M1 carbine: 
Reference named "Jones":
From Malta: 
From .38 Special: 
From Pakistan: 
From M1911 pistol: 
Reference named "Davis":
From Algeria: 
From M1911 pistol: Davis and Raynor(1976), Safe Pistols Made Even Safer, American Rifleman, Jan. 1976
Reference named "TG":
From Venezuela: 
From Thompson submachine gun: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous editor that never engages in the talk page keeps restoring older versions that include numerous entries, most with inadequate or no sources. I reverted to the last version. Future additions should be individually sourced and not restored en bloc. I refactored AnomieBOT's references all into one discussion. MartinezMD (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:M1917 Revolver]]