Talk:Machine pistol

message: I've removed the paragraph trying make this distinction. While there are certain loads (9mm+P+ comes to mind) that wouldn't be safe to fire in most machine pistols but are safe in virtually all submachine guns, these loads are also safe to use in many full-size service pistols. That being said, however, the paragraph in question was trying to make a case that such ammo is commonplace in a military environment. I am not familiar with any data backing such a claim. I know that in the US Army, soldiers with M1, M3, and M1928 submachine guns were issued the same .45 ammunition that was issued to soldiers with M1911 pistols. When SF units fired their Swedish M/45's they used the same ammo they used in any other 9mm subgun or pistol. The old US Navy SEAL 9mm load that became so popular (147gr) was designated for use with submachine guns because it was subsonic and a good match for use in suppressed guns, not because it was too powerful for use in handguns. The only submachine guns I know of that routinely employ hotter ammunition than standard are the MAC-10 and Czech Skorpion but this is due to the weak nature of most .380 ACP ammo, which is often used in small pocket pistols. Few military units employ such submachine guns (and these two guns are usually at the heart of the debate of what distinguishes a machine pistol from a submachine gun in the first place).
On top of all that, I've never heard of a soldier being assigned both a submachine gun and a pistol. In NATO doctrine, a carbine, PDW, or submachine gun is generally issued in place of a pistol to provide soldiers with an enhanced self-defense capability. Only officers and military police are routinely issued a pistol alongside another personal weapon.--98.162.253.85 (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differing ammunition for submachine guns and machine pistols? 

message: What exactly is the source for deciding that Machine Pistols and Sub-Machineguns are different categories? I was always taught that they are the same thing and it comes from some confusion with the german translation. When reading both of these articles the only source I can see tagged in the relevent areas is "Chemical Analysis of Firearms, Ammunition, and Gunshot Residue". I can't be sure because I can't read the book, but on surface inspection I hardly think a book on chemical analysis is going to provide a rigorous breakdown of weapons classes. After all cordite is cordite, no matter what barrel it comes out of.Outcast95 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the difference? 

message: Part of the problem with these weapons is that they're difficult to categorize. An MP isn't necessarily "built up" from an existing design, after all. The Stechkin, one of the most famous machine pistols, was designed from the beginning to be a selective-fire weapon. It's handheld, to be sure, and it resembles a conventional pistol, but it is a fully automatic weapon. The line between it and an Ingram MAC-10 is rather narrow. One might use the argument that an MP always fires from a closed bolt, and that an SMG is always open-bolt, but that would need sourcing. A particularly confusing case is that of the Lercker. I just created the page for it. It's an interesting gun, and very difficult to classify. It's select-fire, blowback, yet fires from an open bolt all the time. However, it's designed to be hand-operated, not a shoulder arm, concealable on the person, with no stock, foregrip, or long threaded barrel. Is it an SMG, or a machine pistol? I say MP. I only found one image of it online (a scan from A.B. Zhuk's book on handguns), and it sure looks like a pistol, even with the bolt overhang. Sacxpert (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would enter that the distinction is simple. If the weapon has a slide, it is a machine pistol. If it has a bolt it is a SMG. The open/closed bolt division won’t work because some SMGs (like the MP5) do fire from a closed bolt. SirBob42 (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a reasonable ground for distinction -- I think we need a source. I agree that the open/closed division doesn't work by itself, but an MP5 doesn't resemble a handgun, either, so I think it automatically (so to speak) falls off the list. Here's a question, though: what's the difference between a slide and a bolt (the Desert Eagle has both)? Sacxpert (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just taking a stab at a definition, a slide is on the exterior of the gun whereas a bolt is (mostly) inside. The Desert Eagle does kind of confound the slide/bolt distinction though. Hopefully no one is crazy enough to make a full auto version and enter this debate. SirBob42 (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi, Under the WP:VNT policy (Verifiability not truth), the goal of Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. If a reputable source says that weapon XYZ is a machine pistol, we put it in the article and add the reference: "According to the National Encyclopedia of Firearms, the XYZ-203 is a machine pistol". Whether we humble Wikipedia editors think this is the truth or not is not the main factor. Now, if another reputable source disagrees, we can put that too."While the National Encyclopedia of Firearms classifies the XYZ-203 as a machine pistol, the Guns Almanac 2009 argues that it should be classified as a submachine gun, due to its design and lack of a slide". (all examples are silly made-up examples).OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for a machine pistol

message: The article mentions that "In the US, adding a stock or forward handgrip to a pistol is illegal under the US National Firearms Act, as pistols must be designed to be fired with one hand." But isn't that meaningless to the subject of machine pistols, which are classified as machine guns rather than pistols under the NFA anyway? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed.  The sentence is about the Beretta 93R which would be a "machinegun" under the NFA and regulated and taxed as such.  I've removed the incorrect information. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 13:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: National Firearms Act referense

message: This is just a guideline. You only have to follow Wikipedia policies. In the case of machine pistols, applying these two guidelines would weaken the quality of the article. Machine pistols started out as a military/special forces weapon. But since the more widespread use of body armour, they are much less used by military and special forces (who are preferring armour-piercing PDWs). Which groups still LOVE the machine pistol, even though it is inaccurate? Criminal users. In the 1980s onward, drug traffickers and gangsters loved the concealable firepower of machine pistols.So that is my argument for including a criminal section. Admittedly the previous criminal section had unsourced OR, which has been purged.....Now onto the fictional section. My friends, watch a 2000s era action movie...the directors have fallen in love with the image of a full-auto Glock firing, with spent cartridges spraying out the side (e.g., Underworld movies). Finally, my argument for resisting the Guns guidelines is the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Yes, I know that you can't take that policy literally, but I am invoking it in the sense that I don't think that we should let a general Guns guideline (which may have a good purpose overall) prevent the writing of a good article for machine pistols, which are a fairly unusual type of weapon. One last point...the removal of entire sections, including material sourced from respected mainstream newspapers is arguably excessive. Fine, take out the unsourced speculation, but some respect should be accorded to sourced content.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, The fictional section does not give undue weight to fictional use of machine pistols. It is maybe 1/15 of the entire article. The Wikiproject guideline suggests weaving fictional use into the article, rather than giving fictional use its own section. In this case, it would look silly. You'd have a paragraph on the Glock 18's features and law enforcement usage, and then a sentence saying "and by the way, this weapon was used in these 4 films...". So that is what prompted me to gather all of the fictional use into a single section. There are some potential problems with the Wikiproject guns guideline on pop culture. It refers to the notability of topics that are mentioned in the section. In Wikipedia, the term "notability" does not refer to the content of articles, it only refers to an entire article. If there is an article on an actor, there will be a discussion on whether the actor is notable or not (i.e., has the actor appeared in major films or won awards). Once the community of editors has decided that the actor IS notable enough for an article, and the article is written, Wikipedia no longer discusses whether content about the actor is notable or not. The concerns then become issues like: is the content Original Research? Is the content libellous? Is the content adequately sourced? Does the content give undue weight to a subtopic (e.g., a legal scandal or drug use by the actor)?...........................I take issue with the claim in Wikipedia guns policy that they can ban an entire type of section (in pop culture sections). This is a larger debate at Wikipedia...just as there are editors (like the editors in the Wikipedia Guns project and in other groups) who are against pop culture sections, there are editors who believe that pop culture sections, if well-written (so that they are not random lists of trivia) can contribute to a reader's understanding of the topic. ................If you want to take out an entire section, I would ask that you cite a higher source than the Wikipedia Guns project guideline. Policies are higher than guidelines. Please show how the fictional section violates a Wikipedia-wide policy (...for example, does this section have undue weight? does it have Original Research? etc?) OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi, I have removed many unsourced statements from the fictional section. Now there is an intro sentence (stating that MPs are depicted in a variety of genres...that I hope does not need a source). Then there are two films named, each with a quote from a published review. Wikipedia's ArbCom has held that removal of relevant sourced content may constitute disruptive behaviour. The content is relevant because is both cases, the reviewers have noted the use of machine pistols in the films. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guns guideline against criminal and fictional sections 

message: Any thoughts on removing the 'Fictional use' section per Wikipedia:GUNS#Pop_culture? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, The fictional section does not give undue weight to fictional use of machine pistols. It is maybe 1/15 of the entire article. The Wikiproject guideline suggests weaving fictional use into the article, rather than giving fictional use its own section. In this case, it would look silly. You'd have a paragraph on the Glock 18's features and law enforcement usage, and then a sentence saying "and by the way, this weapon was used in these 4 films...". So that is what prompted me to gather all of the fictional use into a single section. There are some potential problems with the Wikiproject guns guideline on pop culture. It refers to the notability of topics that are mentioned in the section. In Wikipedia, the term "notability" does not refer to the content of articles, it only refers to an entire article. If there is an article on an actor, there will be a discussion on whether the actor is notable or not (i.e., has the actor appeared in major films or won awards). Once the community of editors has decided that the actor IS notable enough for an article, and the article is written, Wikipedia no longer discusses whether content about the actor is notable or not. The concerns then become issues like: is the content Original Research? Is the content libellous? Is the content adequately sourced? Does the content give undue weight to a subtopic (e.g., a legal scandal or drug use by the actor)?...........................I take issue with the claim in Wikipedia guns policy that they can ban an entire type of section (in pop culture sections). This is a larger debate at Wikipedia...just as there are editors (like the editors in the Wikipedia Guns project and in other groups) who are against pop culture sections, there are editors who believe that pop culture sections, if well-written (so that they are not random lists of trivia) can contribute to a reader's understanding of the topic. ................If you want to take out an entire section, I would ask that you cite a higher source than the Wikipedia Guns project guideline. Policies are higher than guidelines. Please show how the fictional section violates a Wikipedia-wide policy (...for example, does this section have undue weight? does it have Original Research? etc?) OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi, I have removed many unsourced statements from the fictional section. Now there is an intro sentence (stating that MPs are depicted in a variety of genres...that I hope does not need a source). Then there are two films named, each with a quote from a published review. Wikipedia's ArbCom has held that removal of relevant sourced content may constitute disruptive behaviour. The content is relevant because is both cases, the reviewers have noted the use of machine pistols in the films. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional section? 

message: what the GLOCK 18 isnt burst fire(Uber555 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on weapons

message: I am thinking of turning the 'Examples' section into a table format that contains some basic information regarding the weapon/weapon system in question.  Before doing so, I thought I'd post on the talk page for thoughts, suggestions, etc.  Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Examples' section. 

message: The "Criminal Use" section of this article is in need of major cleanup.  It is geared very negatively toward certain firearms, and does not display a NPOV at all.  --69.134.240.237 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should be titled "Perceptions of Criminal Use." Twalls (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi, In good faith, I search out any references to criminal use of machine pistols and add them. The reason that most of the coverage is on the Tec-9 and the Mac-10 is because that is what the articles or sources I found talked about. The negative tone you describe ("pray and spray", "intimidation", "execution", etc) comes from the articles, not from me. If you find verifiable, third-party sources that claim that other machine pistols are used in crimes, then add these other weapons. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal use 

message: u.s. air marshals use frangible ammunition not for risk of decompression, but rather to avoid puncturing critical systems. Although I cannot provide verification, I do have a logical argument: a very large, mildly compressed container will not explode if it has a 9mm hole in it. instead, it will 'fizzle', just like partially opening a soda bottle to prevent it from gushing. but airliners have compressors that can easily compensate for a small leak.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.77.95 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  air marshals' use of frangible bullets  

message: Interesting article, but large parts of are seemingly unsourced. More footnotes would be a big improvement. Rezin (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More footnotes please 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Machine pistol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112062822/http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MediaPages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=97 to http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MediaPages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=97
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified