Talk:Heckler & Koch UMP

Reference/citation?

On a tactical team such as the Los Angeles Police Department's D-Platoon, it is not uncommon to have the majority of officers carrying MP5s and one or two carrying a UMP.

I would like to see the reference/citation that shows or states that LAPD SWAT (Metro D-Platoon) indeed issue the H&K UMP as I'm sure it would ne news to them that they do (outside of kiddies videogame land)...

Price

Can the article include the price. For example, I'm sure this gun (with some paperwork) is available to the public in the US. What is it in dollars?--81.105.251.160 03:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They are not available to the public in the US, because it was designed after 1986 when the last civilian-legal machineguns were manufactured in the US. Dealers who sell to law enforcement can buy samples, and police and military agencies can buy them. The law enforcement price was recommended as $900 ( [1] ). Georgewilliamherbert 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Users

Could someone get me a listof current military and police users of the UMP? QZXA2 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Mexico does in fact use the UMP among the naval infantry and marines and some of the sources, most of which are countless pictures floating in the internet, unfortunately do not meet with Wikipedia's No Original Research restriction WP:NOR. But fortunately there is a way to meet wikipedia's standards without resorting to original research. If you will refer to Wiki's guidelines on WP:Verifiability under Reliable sources it states: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used." It is inferred that newsgoups are acceptable and hence televised newscoverage of the material in question must also be acceptable. The hard evidence that Mexico does have the UMP is in this news segment from TV Azteca's news subsidiary called Hechos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDP_z8yuX0Y&feature=player_embedded So there you have it now: hard and undebiable evidence, that Mexico does use the UMP. I do not know if videos can serve as citations because Wikipedia's guidelines only mention textual sources. But under Fair Use (sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code)) http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html we can avoid any legal snags that might hinder this from being a valid source under Wikipedia's Verifiability guidelines specifying on copyright. Wether or not the video I provided can be a valid source it still stands regardless of Wikipedia's technicality issues as a valid source at least here in the discussion. It is from a reliable news source and it provides visual confirmation. Mexico must be included as one of the users within 24 hours or I will do it myself (I wont use the video as a source though because that issue is still unclear) if no one has anything to say against the matter. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable, but barely. If you find a solid source, please cite it. Doesn't Mexico publish any defence journals or anything. You being a native Spanish speaker should be able to find a proper source. Koalorka (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont know of any publications in Mexico that are dedicated to defence such as you have in the U.S.. The Mexican Defence Secretariat (SEDENA) are very secretive about their affairs and their weaponry. The only knowledge we have of their weapons inventory comes from military parades, newspapers, photos, and the rare release of information under the transparecy laws. That news report was a rare invitation into Mexican Military affairs. This is why I do not trust any of these websites that claim to know what the Mexican army has in their inventory especially when they don't provide sources. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable. A google translation of a web site from the Mexican government. An HK list of users. A Journal article. Something. Videos and pictures are not verifiable. I make a picture of Hitler using the UMP, that doesn't mean he used it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me but videos are not verifiable even when they come from a respected newsgoup? So if Fox, CNN, BBC, or Al Jazeera have footage of Mexican soldiers carrying G3s fitted with M203 grenade launchers that would not be a reliable source? The source I provided was a video NOT a photoshoped picture, and it was from a respectable newsgroup NOT an amateur videographer. Videos CAN be verifiable when they are by a reliable source and is relevant to the extent of the issue in question. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are pardoned. G3's and M203s are not suspect, the UMP is suspect. I don't speak spanish and unless there is something written that can be easily translated, then it is not verifiable. Period. If the Mexican Military is as secretive as you say they are, then who is to say that their 'use' of the UMP wasn't also staged? It's a vicious, unverifiable circle of logic here that would all be simple to solve: provide a reference, not a video and not a picture but something in words that says Mexico is using the UMP. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you are just plainly being senile. The evidence is there and it wasn't "staged." A staging is posible but it is highly improbable since Mexico is not known to have ever done such a thing; and doing so would be a pure waste of time, resources, and effort just to "appear" tough and pretty to the camera. The Mexican Armed Forces are not kids trying to impress others on the internet by bluffing. I said that they are secretive in their affairs, meaning they don't give out much information to the public, not that they lie to the media and claim to use weapons that they don't actually have. If you want to claim that it was staged then find the evidence to discredit the source. You may not know spanish but I do and you can ask anyone who knows it well enough to translate it for you. At the end of the news segment you can clearly hear the reporter give his name and the network for which he is reporting: "Ruben Mendoza, Fuerza Informativa Azteca." Fuerza Informativa Azteca is the news subsidiary for TV Azteca which is now called hechos. You can verify their website at: http://www.hechos.tv/ and notice the acronym FIA (Fuerza Informativa Azteca) on the upper lefthand corner. You say you want something in words, well, textual sources are obscenely easy to fake as you can see from these bogus sites I have removed from the Mexican Army article: http://www.armyrecognition.com/mexico_army_military_equipment/mexico_mexican_army_land_ground_forces_military_equipment_armoured_vehicle_pictures_information_desc.html http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1387214 http://worldinventory.googlepages.com/wiw_sa_mexico Ocelotl10293 (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Please read WP:NPA. Your information is more of the same. Find soemthing written because I cannot verify that the television show is genuine or maybe it's a TV drama for all I know. Beyond that, it doesn't say that the people in the show use the weapons described. I've got pictures of me holding an Austeyr, that doesn't mean that I am a user. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well this is Wikipedia and not a blog. We are not here to impress you or figure out the workings of your metality in order to work our way into convince you. This is a community and no one individual can restrain information because of his own personal un-objective feelings. Australia, France, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia, Thailand, and even the U.S. do not demonstrate sources in this article yet you don't appear to have any issues regarding those countries. If you were to be unbiased and objective in this discussion you would have also petitioned for the removal of those other users for lack of sources as you did with Mexico; but it appears to me that you have singled out this particular country for whatever personal reasons. I have provided a reasonable source here in the discussion but it is not good enough to be cited in the article due to Wikipedia's technical specifications. Nonetheless, the truth of the matter has bee clarified so there is no more reasonable doubt regarding Mexico being a user of the UMP. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I wont add Mexico untill I, or someone else, get evidence that can be cited directly in the article. However, the other users must also be provided with the adequate sources or else they must be removed for the same reason Mexico is not included as a user. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you can't find anything in print anywhere so you first resort to personal attacks and then turn to making threats to sabatoge the article. And where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say to do these things? ONCE AGAIN, find something in print that is reliable, quit making personal attacks, and quit making threats. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I confused the word senile with cynic, so my bad... I was trying to call attention to your behaviour as that of a cynic: meaning your exagerated skepticism. I already told you the folly of relying purely on written material without visual confirmation. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your condescension is not welcome either. Maybe I will type in the vernacular you expect of me. "Just cuz you done told me don't mean you ain't wrong". --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Koalorka, you yourself have even stated that Mexican law enforcement uses the Heckler & Koch UMP on the this page:[2]. Now you have the audacity to say that Mexico dosent't use it? After you were trying to use it as evidence to discredit the FX-05 as a cheap G-36 clone?! Wikipedia is a place for learning and information not a place for you to parade around your prejudice and arrogance. Why is it that you keep trying to discredit the Mexican military specificaly. I mean, i know you do, i've checked out your edit history. I've reviewed your edits and comments and many times they are just needless put-downs directed toward those you disagree with. Such as when you lied to user Stanislao Avogadro by telling him that his removing of your opinion had somehow ruined the articles formmating.[3] That was an outright lie! I looked at his edit of the page and there was nothing wrong with the formatting! Then you go out and make outright racist comments such as calling a user a "Mexican bandit"![4]This is just downright innapropriate and childish! And it now seems that your going out of your way to say that Mexico does not use the UMP even though you know they do. I mean come on T.V. Azteca is one of the worlds largest television networks and they don't have any reason to ruin their legitimacy just so they can lie and say that Mexican marines use the UMP. Now you are actualy saying that the Mexican armed forces are lying about what equipment they use! I'm sorry but you don't even try to hide the fact that you just don't like the Mexicans for whatever reason. I speak spanish and i can confirm that he was talking about the Heckler & Koch UMP. I have also personaly seen Mexican marines with Heckler & Koch UMPs while on holiday in Rosarito during December of 2008 while they were deployed in Tijuana. Rahlgd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

I think you may have me confused for someone else. My only input in this particular thread has been to accept the UMP into the list based on the provided evidence, but a solid verification source should still be sought. As for the rest, tl;dr, but it seems like a typical butthurt rant. Write a letter to the UN Human Rights Commission or something. Crying racism in a gun thread is pathetic. Get real or piss off. Koalorka (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Listen you arrogant piece of trash you've been constantly making personal attacks and you are lying in saying "My only input in this particular thread has been to accept the UMP into the list based on the provided evidence, but a solid verification source should still be sought." you in fact have deleted Mexico as a user and "Crying racism in a gun thread" is not pathetic because you have made racist comments.So you need to piss off you miserable troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.99.246.211 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice, not only are you using sock accounts to continue disruptive editing, but you've resorted to primitive personal attacks. Fantastic. You've lost any remianing credibility. And I encourage you to write a formal complaint to the ACLU or NAMBLA or MUFON or any other bogus organization with you allegation, because the word has absolutely no meaning any more, being thrown around arbitrarily by overly sensitive spastics like yourself. Koalorka (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I think we all need to chill out and relax. I don't know, nor care, if anyone in here is a racist or not, I like ketchup with my eggs and that doesn't matter. This slinging of feces against eachother is quite funny in my point of view yet others see it as offensive but it's still irrelevant to an objective topic. Nukes4Tots you need to not be so hard-headed and aknowledge that the source I provided is sound and it does in fact confirm the truth of the matter that Mexico is a user of the UMP. As for the rest of you who keep citing the YouTube link along with the photos those are still not valid citations because the photographs, although they are real they do not provide a publisher nor a credible/verifiable source for others to verify. The photgraphs constitute as inside knowledge because we cannot prove they are legitimate. People have the reasonable cause to suspect that they may be fake or forged or something because they lack a verifiable source. Also, the photographs are prohibited from being used as appropriate citations under Wiki's WP:NOR. The YouTube video is a sketchy matter because of Wikipedia's rules concerning electronic media and copyright. Although the video is legitimate I do not know for certain if a link to a YouTube video of a reputable newgroup segment concerning the topic would constitute as a valid source. The problem is that it's a YouTube source, if we only had a direct link from TV Azteca itself we would have a legitimate and undeniable source. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• The other user nations are not provided with any source or citations. The fact that Mexico was singled out does constitute a prejudice and discrimination. It is hypocritical to delete Mexico as a user by using rules that do not apply to the others. This is grossly unscholarly. Mexico must be added in the list of users because we have confirmed here that they do in fact use the UMP. The other countries do not have sources nor citations so Mexico won't have one either untill we can find a citable source. If Mexico gets removed under the pretext that it lacks proof/citation then the other users must be removed as well. Don't just single out one country because you don't like it. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, there's a reason Mexico tends to get removed from lists of users when it doesn't have a citation. There are people, maybe just one, maybe several, who will go through lists of firearms, and just add Mexico to every one of them, I think there were even cases of prototypes and one of a kind firearms having Mexico listed as a user. The same goes for the Philippines. Hence the terms "Mexican Bandit" and "Filipino Bandit". It kind of makes all references to the arms those countries use questionable (with some exceptions like the FX-05), because it's hard to tell which ones are real, and which ones are added by the so-called bandits.--LWF (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I recall such cases, some clowns like to go arround and vandalize the Mexican Armed Forces articles attributing to it everything imaginable. This has hurt the credibility and the reputation of the articles and of Mexicans in general because people will tend to generalize all of us as being in the same boat. This is the reson I came to Wikipedia; to put a top to all the nonesence and keep the Mexican articles respectable and objective as well as to keep the clowns at bay. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ocelot, I resent your using terms such as "racist", "senile", and "hard-headed" when you are describing me and other editors. Then you say that this has something to do with "Mexicans". This has nothing to do with people from Mexico any more than the previous issues had anything to do with the Phillipines. Poisoning the pot with racism, age-discrimination, and name-calling is not going to strengthen your point. I concede that it's POSSIBLE that Mexico uses the UMP but until I see something that passes the "reliable sources" test, I will not allow any additions of the Phillipines or Mexico. This burden of proof was not established by me, it was consensus and a desire for encyclopedic fact over whatever non-encyclopedic motives these various contributors had. Yes, it sucks to have to prove everything, but stop blaming the cop for the laws. I'm trying to enforce some generalized standards here. I'm not trying to be a dick or anything. It's really unfair of you to level attack after attack because of your frustration with not being able to find a reference. If they use it, prove it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots you would feel no offence if you actually read my words thoroughly and in context. I corrected my statement when I called you senile. Now as to the issue here why don't you feel the need to remove the other users who are also lacking reliable sources? Are we not following scholarly rigor here with encyclopedic motives? Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Photographic evidence for the benefit of the discussion that Mexico does use the UMP: [5] [6] [7] [8] Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How do I know those aren't Columbians in your photographs? Your wasting your time. Find a press release from the Ministry of Interior or something. Anything. Photos and discussion forums just don't count. Especially in the case of Mexico, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Phillipines. Koalorka (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You know they are not colombians because of their uniform and insignia. If you are not familiar with their uniforms then I understand your doubt. 24.13.118.42 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

All I needed was a reference! Game over. Conversation done. Thanks for playing. Please exit the discussion in an orderly manner. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4TotsSo you don't stop at cynicism but also bigotry is the name of your game. Then you have the nerve to whine when I call you by a just and applicable name. It would help your reputation if you weren't so insolent. 24.13.118.42 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How is he being bigoted? He's the one that the reliable reference for this. Unlike unverified photographs, and copyright violating Youtube videos. Just look at it, there was no bigotry involved, only a care for a little authenticity.--LWF (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well like I said before (more than once) he seems to hone in on Mexico specifically and focuses all his effort exclusively on this one country while completely ignoring the others. If there is to be a rule on authenticity then shouldn't this rule be universally applied to all? Why do the other user nations get the benefit of the doubt while Mexico gets shunned? They say it was because some jokesters in the past would attribute all sorts of weaposn to the Mexican Armed Forces. So should we penalize Mexico as a user because of what a few clowning pranksters have done? That is not only unfair it is unscholarly. He has singled out Mexico for whatever may be his personal reason and he refuses to aknowledge that he has done so. Not to mention he doesn't bother to read my posts in depth or even in context as he seems to accuse me of things that either others have said to him (like the racism claim) or that he misread in my posts (the validity of the photographs). The dictionary defines bigotry as: "the stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." I said before that he is stubborn in believing the evidence that I presented here yet he sees no problem with other nations being credited as users without citations. This course of action constitutes bigotry for it is now a matter of belief rather than evidence because the evidence is there, it's just that it's not valid as a cited source to be used in the article. I never said the photographs are valid, in fact, I said they CAN NOT be used as citations in the article due to the Wikipedia's rules. To understand the situation better you would have to scroll up and read what we both have written. You be the judge. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." As a result of the pranksters, it is quite likely that claims of Mexico using any given arm will be challenged based on past experience. Simple as that. Besides, the debate is over, a reliable source was found to verify that Mexico uses the UMP, that;s all that really mattered.--LWF (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, LWF. Better said than I could have said it. Mexico and the Philippines are the focus of scrutiny and skepticism because of EDITORS who feel the need to drop those countries onto the page of virtually EVERY firearm every made. Frankly, I'm offended as a person of an ethnic minority background that you would CHEAPEN the word racism by throwing it flippanty around with regards to legitemate article improvement efforts. I was never for or against inclusion of Mexico on racist or ethnic grounds. I found a reference that backed up the content and placed it here... something the other editors failed to do. It took me two minutes of searching. There are resources out there, that you haven't found one does not mean you can use Youtube Videos and pictures. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

USC merged into UMP

The USC is a semi variant with a longer barrel and some tacky furniture. Koalorka (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea for a merge. Let's let the tags sit for a few more days so people can think about it, but it makes sense to me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

a REAL picture of a UMP should be used, not a computer generated version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaWhistle (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but we do not have a free photo of a UMP so i computer one will have to do. BonesBrigade 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture problem fixed. Knew I had some I'd taken a few years ago. --Asams10 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Action

The article states that the action is blowback, but the official website states that the action is recoil. 196.37.169.155 (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a simple straight blowback action. The barrel is fixed. Koalorka (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In use with South Korean SWAT

The UMP is also used by South Korean SWAT. I saw them carrying them at the G-20 Finance Ministers meeting in Busan earlier this month, however I cannot locate a source that meets Wikipedia verification requirements, but here is a photo of it in use: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?77723-Units-Using-HK-UMP45-9-40 Mztourist (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this meet WP:RS? http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/827/southkorea1273qs.jpg Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

HKPRO

I have deleted citations to HKPRO.com. It is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles because its articles are anonymously posted and there's no discernible editorial review process. See WP:V for general rules, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#HKPRO/ hkpro.com for a specific discussion of this source. Rezin (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heckler & Koch UMP. 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/20120309192408/http://geo-army.ge/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=9&lang=en to http://geo-army.ge/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=9&lang=en

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) 23:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heckler & Koch UMP. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://news.gpwb.gov.tw/news.aspx?ydn=026dTHGgTRNpmRFEgxcbfdIqFnzB9aVI4ooMjsJjzE7nF%2FB8Zoq46mHk2om5r5rtr5MpYgyiakLZLBYFA4KCF4TDr0jjZZda8GJhkWP%2F9d8%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402121531/http://58.26.13.195/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1698&Itemid=275&lang=ms to http://58.26.13.195/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1698&Itemid=275&lang=ms
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041021063832/http://www.kerensky.net/pdf/ump_man.pdf to http://www.kerensky.net/pdf/ump_man.pdf

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) 05:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

no history section

Came to learn a little about this interesting firearm, but seems there is no information about when this firearm was first in production, no idea what year H&K first started making this. I'll guess I'll try to find some WP:RS on the topic, or if anybody else has some idea where to point me. EliteArcher88 (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

HK USA says it was developed in the 1990s, and first produced in 2000. Loafiewa (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

References