Talk:GSh-18
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GSh-18 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
17 parts? Not so fast.
editI put a dubious tag on the claim that the gun only has 17 parts. I did a quick search and found 37 parts compared to a Glock's 34. I am not sure why, other than propaganda, they would claim this, but I believe it must be corrected. The source is simply wrong. --Winged Brick (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- They didn't count the magazine, the body and the upper slide just the internal parts. There is an official (Russian army) full stripping illustration, containing 23 elements (4 making the magazine + slide and body) and many other sources that state the same (including KPB design documents), so no the source is not wrong.
- Hey do you know the difference between Russian propaganda and Western propaganda? Westerners actually believe theirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.32.32 (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah. No. You're not going to get away with saying any of that. They are comparing the actual total part count for the Glock with the field-stripped parts count of their gun. Also, it's not propaganda to state facts. The Glock part count is also from the original sales media and, lo and behold, the parts count is correct. The Russians did and do make good weapons, but there is no reason to LIE about it. Just state the facts. Lower bore axis. Simpler construction. Novel operating System. Larger mag capacity. Why lie? The Makarov is a modern work of art. It is a beautifully simple design. This gun is not that simple, but pretty good. --Winged Brick (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree but then further down the article states how a Sig Sauer P226 is more simple to disassemble having done a complete disassembly of a Sig Sauer P226 with over 50 parts to the GSh's 30+ parts I find that a hard claim to believe or even agree to. Could this be due to a misunderstanding? Field strip vs Disassembly? Hiakuryu (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on GSh-18. 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/20111221234927/http://www.gun-magazine.ru/art.php?page=40804 to http://www.gun-magazine.ru/art.php?page=40804
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227074610/http://gun-magazine.ru/g408/g408092.jpg to http://www.gun-magazine.ru/g408/g408092.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 18:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)