Talk:Ruger 10/22

message: What the hell is 'plink'ing?
:Assuming this is an actual question, see plinking. Yaf 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plinking is slang for firing small calibre weapons at casual targets such as bottles or tin cans. --211.27.113.171 (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plink'ing

message: In the intro paragraph, it says that the ".17 HMR was just introduced."  What does that mean?  That phrase is going to mean different times depending on when the article is read.  For example, in the chance that both Wikipedia and this article remain in the year 2525, that phrase would seem to indicate that the .17 HMR was introduced some time around 2525. mlhwitz 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I found a press release that said it was a 2004 offering. scot 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the RUGER site on the models listed.  The .17 HMR is not a RUGER 10/22 at all, but rather a 10/17.  My guess is that the number following the slash (or the bottom part of the fraction, or whatever) signifies the caliber.  PDF instructions for models available at http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/PDF/InstructionManuals/18.pdf. mlhwitz 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the 10/22M and the 10/17 share more in common (everything but bolt and barrel) than the 10/22 and the 10/22M.  Ditto the 77/22M and 77/17 vs. the 77/22 Hornet.  It just makes more sense to have the 10/17 be in this article than to have either a tiny stub or a large copy for a 10/17 article.  scot 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: .17 HMR

message: I think the modifying section should be removed, as it is only one person's opinion and does not have any sources. Any other thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumminor2nd (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need sources...the section on modifying is describing the images that accompany it. There is nothing inaccurate in the section and I see no opinions. Why remove it?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It only refers to one particular firearm. What makes this particular rifle notable enough to have its modifications listed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumminor2nd (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a comparison of A target mod vs. standard issue in a single photo as well as a lead-in to the accurizing section. This target mod is the only one of its nature in the article and represents a class of target mods. Do you have one that you would like to add?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove modifying section? 

message: Regarding the conflicting info on when the 10/22 Magnum production ended, the Ruger serial number listing shows the last production was in 2006. http://www.ruger.com/service/productHistory/RI-10-22M.htmlCobalt327 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 10/22 Magnum Rifle production

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail: uncited / self-cited / cited to commercial websites". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the changes after a recent re-addition: . Please discuss here if needed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: This content was added without a source and was deleted. I wasn't sure what to do with it, and was in the process of working on it, using this edit summary: "Is this undue, or should it be located somewhere else in the article? In the meantime, per WP:PRESERVE, copy edits; needs source".
Here is the content after I worked on it:
Can anyone address my concerns? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuklinski used a 10/22 for assassinations 

message: Recommend not re-including "https://www.myknowledgeguy.com/ruger-10-22-mods/" link re-introduced by Hasp Sneon. I removed this website discussing aftermarket modifications because there are many many of these sites (I run one as well!) and this one is using affiliate marketing links for income. Given those links I suspect the addition is also not NPOV. It is not particularly notable in this sphere (neither is mine!) and is thus not appropriate here. Was about to revert the re-introduction but this has already been done by another user. So just leaving this note re rationale of my initial deletion of this material in case it comes back...Xris0 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  affiliate link spam page 

message: Regarding this edit, could you explain how WP:DUE applies to criminal use? The list looks like a valid and well-sourced expansion to me. –dlthewave ☎ 03:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Dlthewave, we have been over this many times.  We don't add long lists of random crimes that happen to use the firearm to that firearm's page.  This needs to show that the content is DUE in context of the subject.  Let's turn this around, can you explain why this content is DUE?  Per ONUS, it's on you to say why it should be here, not me to say why this recently added material should be here.  Springee (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal use