Talk:Owen gun

message: I've read references to, and seen pictures of, a 72-round magazine for this submachine gun.  If we had more specifics, it might be an interesting piece of information to briefly mention.  Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  72-Round Magazine? 

message: A minor point.  I believe the soldier on the right is a from the Dutch KNIL.  The gent on the left is Australian. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo caption. 

message: It seems highly unlikely that a conventional American military unit would have used a 9mm weapon during the Second World War, Korea, or Vietnam.  Is there any proof of this?  Unconventional units may have access to weapons that would not be GI but that should not come under an article implying American use.  Foofbun (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it seems incredibly unlikely that it was ever officially adopted by the US.  I have read of accounts of individual GIs trading for Owens, but that would certainly not qualify. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 04:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there any proof of American military use?

message: In the past few years I have seen at least two whole books written about the Owen gun. 
One I did read was "The Owen gun files: an Australian wartime controversy" by Kevin Smith.
the other  was "the Owen Gun" by Wayne Wardman.
This article seems to be based on the  commonly repeated wartime myths of the Owen, myths that were officially endorsed to boost wartime morale and later to push partisan politics.
Just off the top of my head:
-The bit about the army dismissing Owen's invention in 1939 is partly true, but in all fairness the prototype he showed them was little more than a well made zip-gun with a spring operated "cylinder" full of .22 cal cartridges (not a Thompson-style "drum magazine").The "trigger" was a push button at the rear of the breech.needless to say no safety. 
-It took a lot of work by Lysaghts and a professional german-trained gunsmith they brought in to make a viable weapon. Owen apparently had unconvential engineering ideas, quickly lost interest and had an alcohol problem that apparently worsened when he felt he was being "sidelined" by Lysaghts
 
-One of the prototypes was in .32 ACP thanks to a large stockpile of ammo in that calibre held by the Victoria Police Dept. 
-One of the test guns in the "mud test" was a German MP-38 that customs had seized. I'm not sure a Sten was involved at all. Benvenuto (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you add material from these books into the article? Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I don't currently have access to themBenvenuto (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a lot of improvement and expert attention

message: This sentence at the bottom of the fourth paragraph in the history section needs some clarification. Is it regarding the adoption of the 9mm round, the rifle in general, of that it surpassed the other guns in the trial? Someone with greater knowledge needs to clear up this sentence.--Monkofbob (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'This was very important to the Australian Army.' 

message: One EL has been persistently added, a 20 second video showing that the Owen remains functional when covered in mud. WP:LINKSTOAVOID states that "the site [being linked to] should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." The design section of this article already mentions specifically that the Owen can function when covered in mud, and already details its reliability in a considerable level of detail, and so I'd consider the addition of this EL rather unnecessary. Loafiewa (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not any more comprehensive than the other sources and prose in the article, which already explain that the Owen is capable of functioning under this exact same scenario. And as already stated, a link should not be added if it only repeats information that is already in the article.Loafiewa (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and requested a third opinion. Loafiewa (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia allows links to video material, but only under certain circumstances, and WP:ELNO explains why this is not one of them. Loafiewa (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  EL