Talk:FN P90/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Introduction

The P90 is characterized by an extremely short barrel and its unique 50-round clip. Information provided is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.153.228 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion is completely incorrect. If you bother to look at the specifications, the P90's barrel is 259 mm (10.2 in) long. That is by no means "extremely short". Typically, SMG barrels are between 7 and 10 inches with the compact size SMGs such as the MP5K and the TMP with pistol length barrels. Secondly, the term is "magazine" is the correct one not "clip". If you read the wikipedia entry on what a clip is, you would no doubt come to the same conclusion.

The article as it stands now:

The P90 is a submachine gun developed and manufactured by Fabrique Nationale de Herstal (FN Herstal). It is characterized by an unusual bullpup configuration and a 50-round magazine that is loaded on top of the weapon, parallel to the barrel.

is correct. Please refrain from editing to your words. Veritas Panther 06:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. This user has a long history of posting his "short barrel" claim in the article, despite many reverts and warnings on his talk page. He'll probably keep doing it until he is blocked. - Tronno ( t | c ) 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not regret any of my editing on the P90 article written by Tronno. I have changed the clip to magazine, but everything else is accurate, whether you agree or not. By the way, I cannot be blocked from editing the article on account that I am not violating any rules on Wikipedia. I am unsure where you all have received information proving my one-sentence contribution to the article as being completely untrue, but I must insist that you reread or look up the facts on the P90 again. Good day to you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.153.228 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Except the barrel isn't short, it is 10.2 inches long. While that is short it isn't extremely short. What is extremely short is the external barrel. And that is the way all bullpups are; they have short external barrels but longer internal barrels. So I will be changing this little detail.--LWF 03:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am providing some comparisons to prove that the P90's barrel isn't extremely short:

• FN P90-263 mm
• MAC-10-146 mm
• Steyr TMP-300 mm
• Vz 61-114 mm
• MP40-248 mm
• MP5-225 mm
• MP5K-115 mm
• Sten-196 mm
• Sterling submachine gun-196-198 mm
• Uzi-260 mm
• Spectre M4-130 mm
• PPSh-41-266 mm
• AKSU-74-207 mm
• Thompson submachine gun-266 mm
• M3 submachine gun-203 mm
• Ruger MP-9-173 mm

With these in mind, I will be reverting the latest change to the article, so it will no longer state, "extremely short barrel".--LWF 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User 24.22.153.228 just breached the 3RR rule. I think this is grounds for a block. - Tronno ( t | c ) 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To User 24.22.153.228, I would like to ask you which is more informative. Saying it is a bullpup, which is not obvious unless you look closely, or saying it has a short external barrel, which is quite obvious.--LWF 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I recently read the reverting war that occurred on the P90 article over the phrase "extremely short external barrel" and the much debate over it. I would like to point out that the statement IS in fact true, and that although stating it as a bullpup design is true as well the P90's 'extremely short external barrel' seems more accurate for this weapon. With THIS in mind, I will reverting this change. -Sam Jaine, director of firearm studies at the University of Washington.

Hahahaha this is hilarious. UW doesn't have a "director of firearm studies" and certainly not one named Sam Jaine. You're a fraud and I'd revert you if I could, but it's already been done. - Tronno ( t | c ) 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Short is a relative term. Saying it is a bullpup is not. Besides, when compared to other submachine guns, its barrel is not all that short. Compared to an artillery gun, it is extremely short. But when compared to other submachine guns it is not extremely short.

Besides, its status as a bullpup can not be contested. Whereas the statement on barrel length can be. So why couldn't it be stated that it is a bullpup? In fact in my opinion as well as in many others, the statement about it being a bullpup is more informative, and less contoversial.--LWF 02:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be bullpup. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a nice solution "It has an unusual bullpup configuration which results in a short external barrel ..." Veritas Panther 05:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears user 24.22.153.228 has decided to continue with his erroneous track, despite having his own information included that is the cause of this dispute. Is it time to take this to the next level for dispute resolution? Veritas Panther 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Block him. - Tronno ( t | c ) 04:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think Veritas Panther's suggestion was an excellent solution. I do not believe I changed it. Thanks for the kindness you have shown me Tronno and Thernlund, though Thernlund hasn't really had the courtesy of giving reasons to why these changes have to be made, only agreeing with Tronno's comments. Kind of like someone's female dog, if you know what I refer to. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.153.228 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you. You are completely innocent. Everyone please apologize! Veritas Panther 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I gather you mean to call me a bitch? Hmmmm... that wasn't very nice. But I'm above it. Cheers! —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes... i think i'd have to agree with 24.22.153.228. Thernlund you have been acting like a bitch from what i've read. Go form your own damn opinions. You a freaking faggot, and don't try to act like you're over it because you aren't. I bet your a fatass loser that thinks he can shoot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.245.193 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 March 2007.

-Oh i also think tronno is a faggot too, and this article is not even all that great. DO MORE RESEARCH. Oh and i cannot emphasize how much of a gay ass bitch that thernlund is. You're a fatass loser. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.233.105 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 March 2007.

Oh man, you're really breaking my heart. Why do you say these hurtful things? ;( - Tronno ( t | c ) 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

interesting ip... Towers84 07:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure this gun is delayed blowback?

Almost all the websites I have read, including the official FN website, say the P90 uses a straight blowback system. The only website that says it uses delayed blowback is the Wikipedia entry on the P90, and the MP7 article. Is this all a big mistake? X360 09:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose if the makers say it is straight blowback, then it is. I'll change it to say this. LWF 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Stargate trivia

The trivia in the article about stargate is against WP:AVTRIV and WP:MILHIST#POP. Stargate has not had a direct impact on the P90, for instance, the average person doesn't think, 'hey that's the gun they use in stargate' when they see the P90. So I will be removing it. -- DanMP5 Semper Fi, Carry on 14:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? In actuality, many people are surprised when they discover that the P90 is a real gun and not just a fictional prop for Stargate. Adding a trivia section may be inappropriate, but mentioning in the body of the article that the gun is prominently featured in the longest-running science fiction show in American history would be. 71.203.209.0 21:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a quote from Wikipedia:Handling Trivia,

"Note that certain kinds of information can be more or less important, depending on the context. For instance, in the South Park episode "Pink Eye," the space station Mir lands on Kenny McCormick, killing him. The overall importance of this piece of information may be hard to define, but it is certainly important to Pink Eye (South Park episode), somewhat important to Kenny McCormick, and not very important to Mir."

The same applies here, the P90 is important to stargate, and stargate is not important to the P90. — DanMP5 Semper Fi, Carry on 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I got this from the Firearm Wikiproject link at the top of the page.

"Pop culture

Avoid pop culture and trivia sections. In general they clutter articles, and contribute very little. Acceptable pop culture information should be highly notable, for example: The F-14 Tomcat became much beloved because of its appearance in Top Gun, or the Walther PPK became well known because of its use by James Bond. See WP:MILHIST#POP for a more detailed set of guidelines on pop culture. Citations would be very helpful if the notability of an appearance is disputed."

It seems as though a small mention would be acceptable. --DisturbedPuppy 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I only have heard about the P90 because of Stargate and the same applies to many people. It is THE iconic gun of a franchise of a movie and 14 cumulative seasons of TV T-1 20:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This gun needs to be mentioned on the page it is ICONIC to stargate fans PLEASE stop changing our edits just let there be a small section that just mentions the fact it is used in the stargate franchise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehgow (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Not at all. Goes like this...

• Somebody sees Stargate and says, "Wow. I wonder what gun that is." They then come to Wikipedia and look up Stargate. In the Stargate article they discover that the the gun is in fact a P90.

It does NOT go like this...

• Somebody sees a P90 and says, "I wonder what TV shows and movies that gun is in." They then go to Wikipedia and look up the P90 in search of a random list of "appearances"

See the difference? Don't add this junk to this article. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] It did go like that or me, with the exception of the fact being mentioned. I had to go to the Discussion page to figure it out. Just another guy trying to be a Chemical Engineer, Nanobiotechnologist, and Mathematician (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. Well put, by the way. It's not 'iconic' to the P90. How many P90 ads can you cite where it shows the gun being used in 'Stargate'? How many police departments are on record as saying they bought the P90 because they saw it on Stargate? Give me a break, kids. Keep watching TV and eating your Wheaties, but stay out of the adult's business.--Asams10 06:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Asams10, that statement about certain users is very narrowminded and "immature" of you^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.174.18 (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Trolling is immature. These aren't users they are pretenders who play with toys that look like real guns. I'm neither ashamed nor appologetic of my position on this subject. I'd really take people like you more serious if you'd actually join the community and make quality edits to articles rather than sniping at those of us who choose to. --Asams10 15:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Asams10, the point is that your generalizations about "pretenders" and "kiddies eating Wheaties" is neither called for nor relevant, and frankly insulting. While I agree that the Stargate reference should be left out, I also feel that you are presenting a hostile environment to people who may wish to contribute. I wish to remind you that wikipedia strives for neutral and accurate viewpoints through consensus, not through bullying and intimidation through credentials (which can be easily falsified on the internet anyways). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.61.13 (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What utter rot. There used to be a section on use of the weapon in fiction. This was appropriate and encyclopedic. The article is much poorer without it. The Kenny example sited above was frankly irrelevant as you were addressing 1 instance in 1 episode rather than constant appearances in the 2nd longest running Sci-Fi show plus other appearances across the board in other films & TV series. If the gun's appearance in these media are irrelevant then so too is the section on who uses the gun. BTW Asam I'm 32 and I don't eat (nor have I heard of) Wheaties. You need to grow up mate, having turned 18 doesn't make you an adult but your behaviour does. 84.92.120.61 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

don't know whether SG need mentioning. I do know I feel a bit let down by wikipedia. there is usually less personal attacks here than on the rest of the interweb. shame on you asams.... --Dylan2106 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No trivia is ever encyclopedic... Fan of StarGate? Mention the P90 on the SG page and link it here instead of polluting encyclopedic articles with popular culture excrement. Koalorka (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Try the shift key every once in a while, kiddo. Just some harmless constructive criticism. --Asams10 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I will agree with Asams and danMP5 on this one. Unless there is a major change in the weapons projects policies there wont be a mention of it here ForeverDEAD 14:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as someone who comments how crazy a lot of Stargate fans are having to revert edits on the pages about the recent movies, then stumbling myself here, I know exactly what you guys are going through. It might be helpful, though to say "Imagine Jack O'Neill saying..." in future run-ins with Stargate fans. They would know exactly what you mean.

Somebody sees Stargate and says, "Wow. I wonder what gun that is." They then come to Wikipedia and look up Stargate. In the Stargate article they discover that the the gun is in fact a P90.

Not to nitpick too much, but doesn't work quite that way for Stargate fans as the P90 has been explicitly identified onscreen on numerous occasions, but in the end, it would be almost exactly the same argument.

Looking through some of the texts I've been reading recently, adding Stargate information here would fall under WP:UNDUE whether or not there was the pop culture policy for weapons. It actually wouldn't surprise me if the policy specific to weapons was written because of a situation like this. Besides that the gun itself is cool looking, it doesn't seem to be well-liked beyond close-quarters combat seen as a work in progress having problems Stargate's use isn't helping FNH to solve. Only a few articles I looked at mentioned pop culture, but just a mention.Thinkbui (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that at first, I was a little mad when the Stargate mention was taken out. But still, the P90 has a mention in the Tau'ri technology in Stargate article, so this should settle things, right? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia

The users list shows the "Moscow military police" as a user. Could somebody verify this? QZXA2 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything about this on Google. - Tronno ( t | c ) 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I attempted search in Russian, without results. I've heard, that the most widespread weapons among police is AKSU and modernized Makarov PM. ellol 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything about this use either. Also just as a note, the IP who added this was from Wisconsin (IP, edit). — DanMP5 Semper Fi, Carry on 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that in general it would be quite hard to source information about special forces or paramilitary use of weapons. For obvious reasons, wouldn't these groups keep shtum? Surely some leeway is needed for such sources. Editus Reloaded 15:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, for content to be included it must be verifiable. Your argument is that since they're secretive, we'll never be able to find out yes or no. On the contrary, that's why they should be left out.--Asams10 16:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Critic

When the Norwegian Armed Forces where upgrading their handheld weaponry recently the p90 lost out to the mp7 in the close combat and defence category. Rumor among some of the conscripts who tested it say that it lost out mainly due to its innability to adapt to different body builds and body armor loadouts. There has been no offical comment on this tough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaMogul (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited due to historical inaccuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.33.202 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge PS90 into the P90 page?

SUPPORT - My position on minor variants is well known. Apart from some changes to the trigger group and barrel, the gun remains largely the same. The PS90 page itself contains a lot of "empty content" and repetitive statements. The merge would involve unique information only. Koalorka (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Support, provided no unique and/or important information is lost.--LWF (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Support, why was there a separate article in the first place? --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Variants of a weapon usually only merit a section in the main model's page to mention their existence and any differences. I submit F-16 as an example. I'm new to firearms related articles, but M-16/AR-15 and P90/PS90 suggest to me that for military firearms that have civilian variants, there's a trend of people buying and documenting them just to show off their new toys.
I suggested this merge in the first place, after reading User:Koalorka's comments at Talk:FN PS90. Looks like he forgot to put it on his to-do list since he proposed the merge offhand about two months ago and never got around to it. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, welcome back Koalorka. :) — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PDW?

I think the PDW class is a bit vague, there are more exceptions then rules pertaining to what exactly defines a PDW class firearm. It can practically be any firearm that the manufacturer advertises as a PDW, i.e. the B+T MP9 (Steyr TMP spin-off) is also considered a PDW, as is the MP5-PDW and several other designs that fire conventional pistol cartridges. If the 5.7x28mm round is not considered a pistol round, what then is the Five-seveN? A main battle pistol? Pistol carbine? I would think the SMG class for the P90 would be more agreeable, while maintaining the bit about it's PDW purpose. I'm also curious why you (Asams) removed several of the images? They were not duplicates of each other... Koalorka (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the PDW bit... I mean they say the C96 as one of the first PDWs. By heart I know this to be a SMG or carbine (PS90) but I guess we would just have to stick with what FN says. As for the Five-seveN, I guess it's just a "handgun" like FN says, too. Wd1040 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are to classify the P90 as a SMG, then what does that make the M2 Carbine? Truly, it's either a SMG or an assault rifle, however it fits in neither class. Since the US Army didn't really have any nomenclature prejudices, they labeled it a carbine though they intended it to replace the pistol more than an SMG or Rifle. Koalorka, your logic seems a bit specious and disingenuous when you consider that the P90 reinvented the wheel and was, in fact, the first to truly define this class. FN defined it an SMG for three reasons that are ignored in your arguments. First, they intended the FiveSeven pistol to sell alongside it and, therefore, considered the ammunition dual purpose for pistol and SMG. Second, since the class of PDW was not fully defined at its introduction, they were not so silly as to pigeon-hole their new firearm. Finally, the term PDW is a decidedly German term being coined and used by HK IIRC.

There have been a few PDW's that met the definition of having an 'intermediate' cartridge between SMG and assault-rifle power. The first, and most successful, of these was the M1/M2 carbine. Your arguments do not take place in a vacuum. In fact, the whole of the firearms community save you, apparently, accepts the term PDW as a reasonably clear definition of the PDW, HK P7, and a handful of others. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out that both HK and FN continue to classify their respective PDW's as SMG's, i.e.:

http://www.heckler-koch.de/HKWeb/show/frameContent/20/4/20

http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/family.asp?fid=FNF012&gid=FNG007

PDW in the modern sense refers to nothing more than a firearm built to the NATO PDW specification. It can be chambered in a pistol or rifle cartridge as long as it meets the outlined requirements.

Yes, however I can list HUNDREDS of uses of the term PDW including those by FN and HK as well ask Knights and the vast majority of the Small Arms media. Your quixotic desire to rid Wikipedia of the term PDW as a definition flies in the face of reality. It's a new term and, conservative as you are, denying the fact that it has caught on does not undo that fact. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crusading against the PDW class, it's mentioned in the P90 article along with the explanation why FN uses the name. I just don't see it as a distinct and new class of weapon system. The term if used outside the NATO PDW specification blurs the lines of classification, if used in the NATO context, it applies to only a handful weapon systems, which the manufacturers still categorize as submachine guns, but with a PDW purpose. I've got nothing against the concept. Koalorka (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then we starkly disagree on that point then. The PDW class is quite clearly defined, IMNTBHO. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Steyr AUG firing mechanisim?

Does the P90 use the same firing mechanisim as the Steyr AUG?, I saw an image of it and looked very similar. User:Irish Duck

They're both hammer-fired. Nothing unique. Koalorka (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

SMG or PDW

according to a military website (i dont recall its Name) The FN P90 is a Personal Defence Weapon and not a smg. they said it had something to do with the rounds. Which is correct? --Pepe la pepper (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a submachine gun designed to NATO's PDW specification. It is classified as an SMG by the manufacturer [1]. It fires what can be considered a ballistically refined pistol cartridge. Koalorka (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)