Talk:Service rifle

message: It seems to me that the crux of the issue is that people have a disagreement on whether this page should be a regular article or a list. If that's the case, why not just have them be separate then? You can have a regular standalone page for defining "service rifle", its history, etc., and there can be a linked separate page that lists service rifles by country/year like it used to be.
And for the argument of "Well if a person wants to see a nation's rifles they can just go to their military/equipment page", for one, that's kinda a more obtuse and roundabout way of finding what they're looking for, and for two, it doesn't always solve the issue of actually seeing a historical list of said rifles over time. I think people are making a much bigger deal of this than it actually needs to be and it'd be much simpler for there to be the two separate pages as I've mentioned. Seems like it would make everyone happy.
:List of rifles is mostly service rifles. It certainly doesn't appear to be a comprehensive list of all rifles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if for a moment we admit you're right, why not try adding service rifles to that page? Sunken cost fallacy is not a valid reason to keep something which is against policy. And you can just copy the bits of the table (from previous versions in the history) that are not already covered at the other list page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

text: The list violated multiple policies. We had a discussion about it. The result was not to merge it back into this article, or to keep it somewhere else. The result was to delete it. If you would like to waste time feel free to challenge the result of the Afd at WP:DRV, but unless that result is overturned or changed that list won't be coming back. FDW777 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

text: If a good list like that “violated multiple policies”, then perhaps those policies are in need of change. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not have a separate page for an actual list of service rifles then? 

message: The AK was originally conceived as part of a series of 3 new guns designed to fire the M43 7.62x39mm cartridge, the idea for which (an intermediate cartridge) already existed in soviet arms design before the encounter with the 7.92 Kurz.  Originally, in this series of three guns, there was to be a carbine rifle for regular infantry (this became the SKS rifle, carrying over the carbine pattern from the M38 &M44 Mosin-Nagants and related closely to the AVS-46 with elements from the SVT), a lightweight machine gun (this was the RPD), and a "submachine gun" (this became the AK, but we do not use this terminology for an intermediate-cartridge select fire rifle in english).  The AK was not intended to be an automatic rifle in the same sense as the STG-44 originally, but to be issued similarly to submachine guns, although the AK would later become the mass-issued service rifle.  I don't have any actual information to speculate on the origin of this very common historical myth, but it seems it could have come out of the west letting the German officer corps write the history of the eastern front, like many other egregious mistakes that excise any agency and technical ability from the Soviets. I've made an account but am unable to currently edit the article to remove this misleading and false element.
:The source reads "The overall shape and configuration are strikingly similar to the German MP44." If you'd like to challenge the claim, you'll have to provide reliable sources that corroborate what you are saying. Loafiewa (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The AK is not heavily derived in it's design, mechanism, or concept from the StG-44 

message: the ak47 was not based on the design of german guns 100.0.15.132 (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  innacuracy, bad source