Talk:AR-15 variant

Move to AR-15

No one much calls these firearms "AR-15 variants". They simply call them "AR-15s". Felsic2 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is why if you go to AR-15, you get a link here. Come up with a better name if you can, stud. I was thinking "AR-15 pattern rifles" but obviously some people get confused when they see pistols, pdws and the like.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the better name is "AR-15". Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Since we need an overall article that encompasses the entire category of AR-15s, I moved the article to "AR-platform firearm". Felsic2 (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well I'm glad we got a consensus before we moved it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Mike Searson asked me to come up with something better. Do you have a another suggestion? Felsic2 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think he was completely serious, but one person didn't give you permission to change it to whatever you decided. Where was this awkward sounding stuff discussed or even suggested? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There was a very rushed discusion which led to this article name ("AR-15 variant"), and certainly no consensus for it. There are several problems. One is that "variants", as I understand it, usually refers to specific models within a particular manufacturer's product line. For example, a carbine variant. The bigger problem is that we no longer have an article about the AR-15, which is the subject of countless published sources. If you insist on keeping an article at this name then I could remedy that last problem by writing a fresh article on the overall topic of AR-15 firearms. Any objection? Felsic2 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

AR-15 variants sounds good to me.--RAF910 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

What's the definition of "variants"? Felsic2 (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Modern Sporting Rifles. :) Kidding. This is a catch-all term. You might call them AR-15s and so would most people. However, the only manufacturer that can legally call them that is Colt because they own the trademark. So your Stag, S&W, Noveske, LWRC, etc. rifles are called something else. Variant is but a term, another one might be "pattern" or "style".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• "AR-platform firearm" sounds cumbersome and a pretty unlikely search term. I see no issue with variant. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is going to search for AR-15 variant either. That's why I think the ideal name is simply "AR-15". No one has explained why we don't have an article by that name. Felsic2 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Doubt it if you want. The only person demanding "AR-platform firearm" is you and your premature move without discussion was ill-advised. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

[1] The popular name is "AR-15". Felsic2 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• That stat is meaningless.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't argue about the popularity of search tersm and then discard information about search terms. Felsic2 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• First, I didn't argue about the popularity. I pointed out how unlikely your term was. Second, your stat compares 2 terms, 1 of which isn't under consideration. Meaningless. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, so let's talk about the other term, AR-15. How come the article isn't there? Felsic2 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support renaming article to AR-15 (or possibly AR-15's). AR-15s is confusing because it makes it sound like model "s" rather than a plural. I agree that "AR-platform firearm" is cumbersome and inferior to the current title. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Users searching for AR-15 come to a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page which at the moment gives them three options...

• ArmaLite AR-15, a select-fire rifle manufactured by ArmaLite, and predecessor of the United States military M16 rifle.
• Colt AR-15, a line of semi-automatic rifles manufactured by Colt, based on the United States military M16 rifle.
• AR-15 variants, a general category of firearms based on Colt AR-15.

I'm sorry that when users are given the choice they don't pick your favorite page. Your just going to have to live with it.--RAF910 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we have an article on the AR-15? It's the subject of countless reliable sources. Felsic2 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• We did. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we did. Now we don't. How come? Felsic2 (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion of this citation request: [2]. There has to be a citation that specifically uses and defines the term "AR-15 variants". As I mentioned elsewhere, the term does not seem to be in common usage and I could only find a few minor references to it. Felsic2 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added it yet again. We need a source that talks about "AR-15 variants", the purported subject of this article. Anything that doesn't talk about "AR-15 variants" is off-topic, or at least does not satisfy the need for verifiability. Felsic2 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Well why not just nominate it for deletion, then? Delete the whole thing and let's make an article for every last manufacturer of the black rifle and all their models and variations. If you think this is about something that does not exist.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that these rifles are not commonly called "AR-15 variants". They're called "AR-15s". Unless someone can show otherwise, this article should be titled "AR-15". This article title was chosen hastily with almost no discussion. It is a poor choice, since only a handful of sources make even passing mentions of "AR-15 variants". Google results: ("AR-15" -variants) = 12,500,000 hits. ("AR-15 variants") = 5,200 hits. Felsic2 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The term "AR-15" cannot be used when referencing other manufacturers' samples of the same rifle. There is a reason why Bushmaster uses the prefix "XM" or DPMS uses "D". "AR-15" is trademarked by Colt:

Word Mark AR-15

Goods and Services IC 013. US 009. G & S: RIFLES. FIRST USE: 19640511. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19640511

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING

Serial Number 72253092

Filing Date August 25, 1966

Current Filing Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1A

Registration Number 0825581

Registration Date March 14, 1967

Owner (REGISTRANT) COLT'S INC. CORPORATION ARIZONA 150 HUYSHOPE AVE. HARTFORD CONNECTICUT

(LAST LISTED OWNER) COLT INDUSTRIES INC. CORPORATION ASSIGNEE OF PENNSYLVANIA 430 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK NEW YORK 10022

Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED

Attorney of Record GEZA C. ZIEGLER JR.

Type of Mark TRADEMARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Affidavit Text SECT 15.

Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 19870314

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Do you want to be accurate or are you trying to make a point?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that. However that trademark registration does not constrain our choices here. Nor does it constrain other writers. Just look at the list of references in this article, which contains entries like GunDigest Shooter's Guide to the AR-15, Gunsmithing the AR-15, the Bench Manual, Gun Digest Book of the AR-15, " AR-15 rifle more loved — and hated — than ever - Amid the rising call for the rifle to be banned, sales of the "Barbie doll for guys" have soared", "Police demonstrate the power of the AR-15 rifle", " "6 Facts About AR-15 Gas Impingement Vs. Piston - Gun Digest", AR-15 Handbook, "Evolution of an AR". Do those articles all discuss Colt AR-15? If so, they belong on the Colt AR-15 article, not this article. However I think we both realize that the AR-15 is currently a generic style of firearm, with numerous manufactuers producing models that are commonly called "AR-15s". Writers and sources refer to AR-15s, so that's what we should call the article. Felsic2 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever, dude.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have an actual objection to renaming this article "AR-15", and moving the disambiguation page to "AR-15 (disambiguation)"? Felsic2 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I do object. The reason is that only Colt owns the AR-15 trademark. But, Colt does not own the AR-15 design, as the patents have long since expired and are now free to be used by all. Hence, the various AR-15 variants are legal clones of the Colt AR-15 design, except in semi-automatic versions, only. Have added clarifications to the disambiguation page at: AR-15 . I am sure Colt attorneys would be more than willing to clarify their ownership of the AR-15 trademark to anyone that marketed an AR-15 that infringed on their trademark. This is the reason that Bushmaster has their XM15-E2S name, instead of infringing on Colt's AR-15 trademark. Accuracy counts. Perhaps a more accurate name would be AR-15 clone, instead of AR-15 variant. Personally, I don't see any problem with the present structure. YMMV. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be the same as calling all soda pop "Coke", or all tissues "Kleenex". I am sure that Pepsi would disagree, as would Charmin, if these names were used for their products incorrectly. Accuracy counts. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"AR-15" is a "Generic trademark". The vast majority of sources that refer to "AR-15" are not talking about Colt brand rifles.

If I understand correctly, your objection is based solely on the trademark issue. Let me go ask for some input from other editors about how trademark issues like this affect Wikipedia editing. Felsic2 (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Frequently mis-glossed as “Assault Rifle,” the AR in “AR-15” refers to its original manufacturer, Armalite. Of course, the key patent was filed sixty years ago and has long since expired; today, “AR-15” is a trademark of Colt Defense LLC and, over the years, “AR-15” has evolved into a generic trademark, a proprietary eponym like Velcro, Kleenex, Xerox, or Tupperware. Civilian AR-style rifles encompass anywhere between four to nine million weapons used for purposes ranging from recreational target shooting to varmint and predator hunting to simply being kept under beds, in closets, or on mantles.[3]

FYI. Felsic2 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#When_a_generic_trademark_is_the_common_name Felsic2 (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Above link now archived at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 55#When a generic trademark is the common name. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Since I go no response there I re-asked the same question at the Help Desk. Felsic2 (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Objection Withdrawn per Village Pump discussion (see below). (Herostratus (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)) The current title is also dead wrong. Moving to AR-15 would be that much worse, though. "AR-15" is a trademark and we (Wikipedia) can't call most non-Colt entities "AR-15". (This partly depends on whether Colt is actively defending their trademark, which we should assume they are unless we know otherwise.)

Look: if we had an article about the various kinds of paper tissues you wipe your face with, we would call it Types of facial tissue not Types of kleenex, even though everyone commonly says "hand me a kleenex". As long as the Kleenex Company is defending their trademark (they are) and until a judge rules that they have failed. WP:COMMONNAME does not give us the right to abrogate somebody's trademark right. Even under the current name (and worse under the proposed new name), we are subject to a cease-and-desist letter from Colt.

Instead, move to Variants of [Descriptive Term]. I'll leave the question of the best descriptive term to you all. If it has to be Variants of lightweight intermediate cartridge magazine-fed air-cooled semi-automatic rifles and can't be shortened then so be it, long as that is. Better than having a title which a trademark vio and invitation to legal trouble. Herostratus (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The basic problem here is that there isn't a generic term for these entities I gather. It's as if instead of the word "sports car" we only had the word "Ferrari" to describe those. People need to come up with a generic term -- "lightweights" or "killers" or "streetsweepers" or whatever. But we don't have it now.

Hows about AR-15-type rifles? I can see using "Ferrari-type automobiles" if we had so, i think maybe this is OK? Herostratus (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that, trademarks aside, sources refer to firearms of this type as "AR-15s", regardless of who makes them. So a source might say, "AR-15s are the most popular rifle in America." Currently, there's no article where we can report that.

"Variants of AR-15" is similar to the current title, "AR-15 variant", but hardly anybody uses either term. Another problem is that it implies that it covers only a subset of AR-15s. What we need is an article that provides an overview of the entire field, including both the lineage of "official" models and the numerous variants, clones, and derivatives. I think that "AR-15-type rifles" or "AR-15-style rifles" would be good titles as they appear to be broad enough to include everything (except for the marginal AR-style pistols and shotguns). Felsic2 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You are entirely correct that we can't say "AR-15s are the most popular rifle in America" except when reporting a direct quote (or unless we're talking about Colt rifles specifically). We also can't say "In the final scene of Movie X, Julie reaches for a kleenex as she xeroxes the love letter" even if that's how normal people talk. We have to say "tissue" and "photocopy". We are not regular people talking at a gun show. We are encyclopedia publishers. As such we are required to respect Colt's trademark rights. If this means we have to sound a little stilted, that is a price we have to pay.

Since (I gather) there isn't a term equivalent to tissue and photocopy for these entities, whether we can claim necessity it taking a little leeway and using constructions such as "AR-15-like rifle" -- I don't know. Whether AR-15-type rifles would be an allowable title -- I don't know. That's a question for the copyright bigwigs -- you could ask User:Moonriddengirl who is expert in these matters, there is also a copyvio board somewhere I think. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Herostratus:. I still can't find any Wikipedia policy or guideline on this issue. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks says nothing about it. I don't see why Wikipedia would be prohibited from doing the same thing that book and magazine publishers do. They frequently discuss "AR-15" rifles that aren't made by Colt, and even use the term in titles. So I don't think it's a legal matter either. I'll ask Moonriddengirl and see if I can find the copyright noticeboard. Felsic2 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if the copyvio board is the right place (maybe it is). I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#What is our approach to trademarks in this difficult case? and pointed Moonriddengirl to it (she doesn't seem to be on much though).

I mean, I see your point, but we are so strict about this stuff. It's like, the web is filled to overflowing with sites using copyvio pictures but we don't do that. I guess the goal is to be free for the downstream user, so someone can use our stuff confident that it's free to use... magazine publishers don't care about that. Maybe I'm being too strict, I dunno. Let's see if anybody weights in at the pump I guess. Herostratus (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I did post, and there was a discussion at the Policy Pump over how to handle the situation that AR-15 is also a brand name as well as a term -- and the only term, really -- for this class of weapons. The consensus was under trademark law and practice and Wikipedia OTRS practice we are free to use "AR-15" how we wish, so that is not constraint to moving the article. For my part I've withdrawn my objection to the move.

So we're giving up on ever finding a source that uses this term in the way this article intends it? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AR-15_variant&diff=prev&oldid=757694064 Felsic2 (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: If there's no explanation for the deletion I'll restore the "citation needed" tag. Felsic2 (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• What? I just looked at this conversation and I had darn little participation in it. Why on earth is this now pinging me and telling me about it? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• This deletion of a citation request. If there's no source for this claim then the text should be changed or deleted. Felsic2 (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Then put in a regular CN tag, not some highlighted text nonsense. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's a regular, approved template that's used to indicate which text needs a citation. I'll put in a simpler citation tag in its place. At some point this problem needs to be resolved though. BTW, it's a bad editing practice to remove clean-up tags without any comments. Felsic2 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I was going to format this as a proper Requested Move so that someone would eventually come along and close it, but in summarizing the positions so far I get:

• User:Felsic2: Support.
• User:Mike Searson: Oppose.
• User:RAF910: Oppose, but move to "AR-15 variants".
• User:Miguel Escopeta: Oppose based on trademark issues (although these have been shown to be not an issue).
• User:Niteshift36: Unclear.
• User:Herostratus: No position at this time.

SO Felsic seems to be the only one who wants the move. I can see the logic -- "AR-15 variant" kind of implies "Here is an article about entities that are not exactly AR-15s -- they are variants". But I'm not willing to take a stand. So anyway without more support there's no point in formatting it as a formal Requested Move since it won't be accepted, absent a wave of more votes. Felsic or anyone else is welcome to, of course, though. Herostratus (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Herostratus:, I've been waiting to do a formal move proposal until we resolved the legal and policy issues, and until I could assemble a proper case. Do we now all agree that there is no legal or policy prohibition on the title? Felsic2 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. According to the folks at the Policy Pump, "You infringe someone else's trademark if you seek to trade by using their trademark" and not otherwise. . Another editor was like "At OTRS, at least when I was a regular, we would get these complaints all the time. It was treated as a non-issue..." so I would guess that caps it; there's no valid legal or organizational argument against the move.

I will note that the first editor quoted above went on "You do not do anything more than piss them off if you use their trademark in a way in which they'd prefer you not to". Whether making Colt unhappy should enter into the question is a matter of opinion I guess; and whether that renders our suitability for downstream use a little less than pure, I don't know. It's possible. On the other hand, aside from that debatable question, "AR-15" is probably a better title, just as "Sports car" is probably a better title than "Sports car variant" and so forth; but it also depends on what we think is the the likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "AR-15". But those questions have nothing to do with the legal/policy question, which is settled I would say. Herostratus (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I appreciate your even-handed approach to this dispute. Based on the above discussion, Mike Searson also appears to have based, his opposition, at least in part, on the trademark issue. In any case, what I'd like to do now that the legal and policy issues are settled is to post a formal move RFC. Before that happens I need a little time to prepare the evidence properly. Does that sound reasonable? Felsic2 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Herostratus (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• I also oppose the move. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the basis for your opposition? Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• No. Most of it has already been said and I'm getting tired of this endless wikilawyering. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Folks, it seems the only real problem @Felsic2: has is that "AR-15 variant" is not the vocabulary in gun circles. So I have reworded the lead to describe the phenomenon of AR-15 variations, and move away from declaring "AR-15 variant" as what you would overhear someone say at your local gun range. [4]. I hope this can help solve the impasse. Cc: @Mike Searson, RAF910, Miguel Escopeta, Niteshift36, and Herostratus: -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That isn't the only problem I have with the article title. My larger complaint is with the implied scope of the article. But your edit has improved the lead. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Want to enumerate them? I do think the "History" section is a bit involved and detailed and could be shortened or cleaned up. With the rewritten lead, an argument could be made to retitle the article to be AR-15 variants as the primary name. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote on your talk page: My view is that the proper article title is "AR-15", to cover the entire family of AR-15 firearms. That makes sense to me becasue there are countless sources that refer simply to "AR-15s". There was an AR-15 article that served as an umbrella, but then someone realized there was no Colt AR-15 article and decided the right fix was to move the old article to that title, creating the "variant" article to cover what didn't fit into the Colt article. But that leaves no article to describe the inter-relation of the various AR-15 and M16, the core commonalities, etc. One side effect is that random editors try to "correct" various articles because they don't include that overview. So everyone's life would be simplified if the article existed at a logical title instead of a contrived one. Felsic2 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Except the trademark issue is a real issue. If a person wanted to start a company to sell an item called a sports car, that would be no problem. On the other hand, if you started a car company to manufacture a car you want to call a "Chevrolet Corvette", you would immediately be in a lot of legal hot water with the owner of the trademark. Likewise, if you wanted to start a company to sell an AR-15 type rifle or AR-15 style rifle, and you called it something other than a trademarked name, it would not be a problem, either. On the other hand, if you started a company to sell "AR-15" rifles, you would immediately run afoul of trademark violations, as Colt owns the trademark to "AR-15". As long as Colt owns the "AR-15" trademark, and it does not become a generic name for which trademark protection is no longer maintained, it is not proper or legal to market an AR-15 variant rifle and call it by the trademarked name, AR-15. For this reason, we should not write an article about "AR-15 rifle" and include rifles other than those produced by the owner of the trademark "AR-15". The common vocabulary used is either "AR-15 type rifle", or "AR-15 variant". I would have no problem in renaming the article as "AR-15 type rifle". I also have no issue with leaving it as "AR-15 variant". Both terms are commonly used. But, I would have a problem in a Wikipedia article called "AR-15" if it were to include rifles by any company other than Armalite or Colt, who both have owned the trademark over the years. Folks, this is not hard. My $0.02 worth. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe we established that there's no trademark or copyright issue for the Wikipedia Foundation. Nobody is proposing that this encyclopedia actually sell an AR-15 rifle. If there were an issue, there are numerous magazine and book publishers who would already have been sued.

As for a better title, "AR-15 type rifle" would be much better than "AR-15 variant", since "variant" only covers minor sub-types while the other title would cover the entire topic. Felsic2 (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Except there is a trademark and copyright issue. If we are going to have an article covering a product from a particular company, i.e., Colt, and their AR-15, then it is patently unfair to write about products made by others who are not making AR-15 rifles in an article that ostensible is about AR-15 rifles. Only Colt (and, historically, Armalite) have owned the trademark "AR-15". And, for example, if we include any defamatory information on fake AR-15 rifles, and ascribe it to Colt, by falsely claiming that all these rifles are "AR-15"s, then there is definitely going to be a legal response by Colt. If they do not respond, then they are not defending their trademark. No, we cannot conflate other rifles, made by other companies, with Colt's AR-15 trademarked rifle. It opens up Wikipedia to legal problems. Why do you believe "there's no trademark or copyright issue for the Wikipedia Foundation". There clearly is, if we publish defamatory information about their trademarked item, when it is not something they even made? This makes no sense. It would be the same as publishing defamatory material about Joe Bob's product called the Chevrolet Corvette being a death trap, when GM and Chevrolet have nothing to do with making the product made by Joe Bob that he calls a Chevrolet Corvette. Words have meanings. Especially with regards to trademarked items, that are protected by the trademark owner. This is not that hard to understand. Unless, the object is to publish defamatory material about Colt, since they do own the AR-15 trademark. Is that the reason for conflating products made by other companies, to try and smear Colt? That would certainly be an issue for the Wikipedia Foundation. Being a non-profit does not give a foundation a pass on falsely publishing information about a company's products. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources or policies that back up your arguments? Felsic2 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Cartridges

• While the discussion is now located elsewhere, this overly long list of everything but the kitchen sink still exists. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• True. I'm stepping away from these for a while but I started cleaning this one up. feel free to pitch in and help if you want.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm of the opinion that we make the section about 2-4 sentences about how the platform is adaptable to a wide variety of calibers and then link it to the existing list article. This article essentially duplicates the list. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-automatic

Are all "AR-15 variant" weapons semi-automatic? What's our source for the definition of this term anyway? Felsic2 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

YES, they are....If they are full-auto then they would be M16 rifle variants.--RAF910 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Source? "The Colt Canada C7 rifle is a Canadian assault rifle, manufactured by Colt Canada (formerly Diemaco prior to 2005), a variant of the Armalite AR-15,... " Felsic2 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't know that all Armalite AR-15 are select-fire?

You don't know that the M16 rifle replaced the Armalite AR-15 in 1964?--RAF910 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just quoting the Colt Canada C7, which I didn't write. Can we get a source that says that a AR-15 variant is a "lightweight, intermediate cartridge magazine-fed, air-cooled semi-automatic rifle with a rotating lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas-operation or long/short stroke piston operation" ? Felsic2 (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reread the quote...especially the "Armalite AR-15" part that I have highlighted... "The Colt Canada C7 rifle is a Canadian assault rifle, manufactured by Colt Canada (formerly Diemaco prior to 2005), a variant of the Armalite AR-15,... "--RAF910 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find a source for the definition of "AR-15 variant". There's none now. Felsic2 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not your assistant...Do it yourself.--RAF910 (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If there's no source I'll just delete it, which is what happens to material in Wikipedia which no one can find a source for. Felsic2 (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I've searched for sources that mention "AR-15 variant". So far I've only found a few books which use that exact term.[5][6]][7] One refers to "AR-15 variant assault rifles" being smuggled into Mexico while another describes making an AR-15 variant without a serial number. If editors really want to keep the article at this title then that's some of the content it should contain. Felsic2 (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Still no sources for what an "AR-15 variant" is? If there are no objections I'll add the material that I found above. Felsic2 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I added material from two of those sources. The third turns out to be a self-published book, so I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. That leaves the other 99% of the article without sources that refer to "AR-15 variant". Felsic2 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Some of the material I added was deleted by DHeyward without any discussion here. (So much for BRD). He said "No indication that this is notable in any way." OTOH, he restored a bunch of unsourced material that doesn't directly concern the AR-15 or AR-15 variants.[8] I'd like to ask how he determines what is notable within a topic, and whehter he believes that sources aren't necessary for this article. His edits leaves this article with only one sentence from a source that explicitly talks about "AR-15 variant" firearms, the subject of this article.Felsic2 (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

AR-15 vs AR-18

An AR-15 uses direct impingement. An AR-18 uses a short-stroke piston. So aren't firearms that follow the AR pattern with a piston action actually AR-18 variants? Felsic2 (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No. The AR-18 uses a true piston system. The piston driven ARs are kludged into using the existing AR-15 buffer and action spring system. If they were true AR-18 variants, you would be able to fire the rifle with the stock folded to the side. The SIG MCX is closer to the AR-18 or AR-180 than to an AR-15 in that regard.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AR-15 variant. 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/20110915075030/http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/evolution-ar to http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/evolution-ar
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.armalite.com/library/techNotes/tnote45.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

History, "controversial"

In the History section of the page, I'd argue that the rifle was controversial as early as 1994 when it suffered its first large legislative control by name, or at least by 2012 when it was again threatened. Although 2016 is not incorrect per se, it implies that controversy surrounding the platform is only very recent relative to its age. And certainly its been controversial to one degree or another since it was fielded as the M16, but in the context of civilian legalities those are the two points of time of note. RareSingleMalt (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. See also this WP:RS

--David Tornheim (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

AR-15s are not machineguns

AR-15s are not machineguns. They are semi-automatic rifles based on the Colt AR-15 design. I have attempted to remove the machinegun content from the article as it is extremely misleading and confusing to the readers with limited firearms knowledge. However, I have been prevented from doing so by user Jim1138, who left a message on my talk page asking me to discuss it here.

I also rewrote the intro to read as follows...

AR-15 variants are a general category of semi-automatic firearms based on the Colt AR-15 design and now made by many different manufactures. After Colt's patents expired, an active marketplace emerged around the AR-15 rifle's design, all sharing the same basic characteristics of the Colt AR-15.

The original ArmaLite AR-15 rifle was designed as a selective fire weapon for military purposes. ArmaLite was forced to sell the design to Colt due to financial difficulties. After some modifications, the rifle eventually became the US Army's M16 rifle, with a semi-automatic version marketed as the Colt AR-15 rifle.

The term "AR-15" originally signified "Armalite rifle, design 15".[12] However, today the term "AR15" or "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark and Colt only uses the term to refer to its line of semi-automatic civilian rifles. Other manufacturers now make AR-15 clones and variants marketed under separate designations, although these are all frequently referred to as AR-15s.

I also rewrote the history section as follows...

The Colt AR-15 is based on the 5.56 mm ArmaLite AR-15 rifle, which is a smaller lighter version of the 7.62 mm ArmaLite AR-10, designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild Armalite corporation.[13] The "AR" in all ArmaLite pattern firearms simply stands for "ArmaLite Rifle"[14] and can be found on most of the company's firearms: AR-5, a .22 caliber rifle; the AR-7, another .22 caliber; the AR-17 shotgun; the AR-10 rifle; and the AR-24 pistol.[15]

In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt. After a tour by Colt of the Far East, the first sale of Colt made Armalite AR-15s was made to Malaya on September 30, 1959. Colt manufactured their first 300 ArmaLite AR-15s in December 1959.[16] Colt marketed the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world. After modifications (most notably the relocation of the charging handle from under the carrying handle to the rear of the receiver), the redesigned rifle was adopted by the United States military as the M16 rifle.

Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 for civilian use in 1964 and the term has been used to refer to semiautomatic-only versions of the rifle since then. The first civilian version was the Colt AR-15 Sporter, a .223 Remington semi-automatic rifle released in 1964 and issued with 5-round magazines.[17] Colt continues to use the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15, AR-15A2, AR-15A4) that are marketed to both civilian and law-enforcement customers.

Initial sales of the Colt AR-15 were slow, primarily due to its fixed sights and carry handle that made mounting a scope difficult and awkward to use. This changed in the 1990s with the introduction of the flat top upper receiver and new features such as free floating hand guards that increased accuracy.[18] In 1994, only a handful of companies were manufacturing AR-15 type rifles. However, by the twenty first century the number of AR-15 variants and clones had more than doubled.[19] By 2016, every major gun manufacturer produced an AR-15 variant.[20]

By 2016, AR-15-pattern rifles had become controversial in the United States. While the National Rifle Association labeled them as "America's gun", their use in mass shootings has led to a debate between advocates of gun control and gun rights.[21]

As you can see these edit were made to clarify the AR-15 lineage as a semi-auto rifle.--Limpscash (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User Jim1138 asked me to discuss this issue on this talk page, yet he has not responded. So I must restate.

• The article is intentionally confusing the semi-auto COLT AR-15 rifle with the select-fire ARMALITE AR-15 rifle. The ArmaLite AR-15 has not been made for over 50 years and was never sold to civilians. Those ArmaLite AR15s that still exist are museum pieces or highly valued collector pieces worth $80,000 to $90,000 (if not more).
• The AR-15s that are made today, are not machineguns. They are semi-auto rifles made by dozens of manufactures. Therefore, constantly referring to them as machineguns is misleading to say the least.
• Any semi-automatic firearm may be converted to a machinegun by those who possess the proper knowledge, skill and tools. Therefore, machinegun conversions are not unique to AR-15s. In fact, before the AR-15, semi-auto M1 Carbines were commonly converted to full-auto M2s.
• As stated above, AR-15s that are manufactured today are semi-auto rifles. The fact, that a second or third party can convert them to a machineguns is simply irrelevant and misleading.
• Most of the machinegun content that I removed was completely unsourced and in fact challenged by other users with "citation needed" notations. That content that was sourced simply discussed the legality of second and third party machinegun conversion. Therefore, the machinegun content that I removed was irrelevant and misleading.
• Finally, I simply rearranged the information that was already in the article. I also clarified that the article is about "semi-automatic Colt AR-15s" and their clones and variants. The only new content that I added was a list current AR-15 manufactures for which I added sources. I also, added a list of AR-15 type rifles with the links to those articles, and I added some related articles with links in the see also section.

Therefore, I am restoring my edits.--Limpscash (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Far too much text there.... but the premise is correct. The AR15 is not a machine gun. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

As User:Felsic2 has repeatedly stated, over, and over, and over again (above), AR-15 variant is not a proper term for these firearms. It appears to be a construct invented by this page’s creator as he did not know what else to call it. User:Mike Searson suggested renaming this page Modern Sporting Rifle. All kidding aside, Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR), is a recognize and well sourced term for this class of firearm. Therefore, I recommend that this article be transformed into a redirect to the MSR article, which already exists and which already mirrors this article.

Please, vote YEA or NAY below:

I vote YEA--Limpscash (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Felsic2 says a lot of things and many of them are incorrect. Why exactly is this not a correct term? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• I agree, Felsic2 says a lot of things over, and over, and over again, and many of them are incorrect. What I’m saying is that “Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR)” is a superior term. It is a recognize and well sourced term for the AR-15 class of firearm. The MSR article already exists and already mirrors this article. As there is no point in having two separate articles covering the same subject, I recommend that this unsourced term AR-15 variant article be converted into a redirect to the well sourced term MSR article. I’m not asking for the term “AR-15 variant” to be eliminated, just redirected.--Limpscash (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• MSR may be a nice term, but it covers far more than AR15 variants. What you are proposing is akin to taking the articles on the Corvette, Mustang and Camaro and redirecting them to automobile, since they're all commonly referred to as cars. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• I have no desire to endlessly debate this Proposal. We disagree. I think having one article is preferable. Let's see what the rest of the Wikipedia community thinks.--Limpscash (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Endlessly debate it? You haven't really engaged in any discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Support...this article was created to appease Felsic2. It didn't work. While it has been improved I've always considered it FUBAR. --RAF910 (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• The problem with the proposal is the redirect suggestion. It's not really a good one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• What if we bring the page up for deletion? I'm not half joking this time. Do you think the others editor would support it or would it be waste of time? Maybe we should open another proposal?--RAF910 (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm open to change, but redirecting this to MSR simply isn't a good proposal. Like I said, it's like taking the article about the Piper Cub and the B-52 to airplane. Just change/moving for the sake of moving isn't the answer. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete...I changed my mind. This article more trouble than it's worth. We should just kill it.--RAF910 (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• User:Mike Searson also suggested deletion above. Although, it appears to be a sarcastic comment made in frustration. He also called these weapons "Black Rifles". A Wikipedia search shows that the term already links to the AR-15 article.--Limpscash (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Black Rifle can be used to describe both the AR-15 and the M16 rifle. Here we have the problem with this article. First, we are trying to invent a term to describe this class of firearm. Second, we have to deal with propaganda and misinformation. For example the machinegun info that you have thankfully removed this article, and the obsession that some editors have with adding terrorist attacks and mass murderers, and criminal users to every firearms article that they can get away with. It's better to just delete the article and be done with it--RAF910 (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• NAY. Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) has a different, broader meaning than AR-15 Variant. Specifically, Modern Sporting Rifle also commonly includes numerous other designs than those based solely upon the AR-15 platform. MSRs can include AR-15 Variants, FN FAL Variants, AK-47 Variants, and a host of other designs, too, configured into a common sporting rifle configuration. Lots of plastic, hand grips, removable standard capacity (e.g., 30 round) magazines, and a host of other features, such as flash suppressors, muzzle breaks,etc. Scant stocks (i.e., stocks san pistol grips) are not seen on MSRs. So, NAY, as an MSR is a much broader category term than AR-15 Variant. MSR is not a synonym for an AR-15 based platform. An AR-15 Variant is but one type of MSR. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Limpscash, Niteshift36, RAF910, and Miguel Escopeta: Nay and alternative suggestion: I believe a simpler and more logical solution would be to move "AR-15" to "AR-15 (disambiguation)", and "AR-15 variant" to "AR-15". Thanks, RadiculousJ (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think it would be better if we turn this the AR-15 variant page into a redirect to the List of Colt AR-15 variants page. Then we turn the AR-15 page into a redirect to the Colt AR-15 page. Then we create an AR-15 (disambiguation) page.--Limpscash (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Limpscash. This makes sense to me--RAF910 (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC).

• As long no content from AR-15 variant is lost, is see no problem with this proposal either. RadiculousJ (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• So this is a done deal now? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)