Talk:Schmidt–Rubin

misdirection

BAD redirection!

A Schmidt-Rubin Model 1911 is NOT a U.S. Model 1911. It's a rifle made by the Swiss, not a handgun made by lots of people. Kemkerj

K31?

Why is there a picture of a K31 on the Schmidt Rubin entry when the K31 page clearly states that neither Schmidt nor Rubin had anything to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.34.4.20 (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The K31 uses a beefed-up version of the action designed by Schmidt and fires the round designed by Rubin, and the K31 is the best known, widely available version of what has been (slightly incorrectly) referred to as the last of the "Schmidt-Rubin rifles". Wikpedia uses the most common namings for articles, and searching for Schmidt-Rubin online will likely point to the K31 and older versions of them. I realize the men were dead when this particular firearm was in production, but it is popularly linked to them, and sites that sell them list them as Schmidt-Rubins. Hope this helps! Kresock (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The K31 carbine IS a lineal descendant of the Schmidt-Rubin design. It is absurd to call it an independent design. Yes, the straight-pull bolt design was updated and considerably shortened (over time) but the bolt and bolt locking concept came from the genius of Mr. Rubin. Let's give credit where credit is due.Trasel (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm trying to argue, but that is at odds with the entry for the K31. "The K31 was a totally new design by Eidgenossische Waffenfabrik in Bern, Switzerland under Colonel Furrer, and the gun does not have the Schmidt-designed 1889 or 1896 action." So now I need to decide which article is correct. The store I bought my K31s from did list them as Eidgenossische. I also see that I'm messing up the formatting on this page.

Source

• Swissrifles.com

This source does not appear to meet Wikipedia standards because it looks like a self published source whose author has not had work published in the field by reputable third parties (WP:SPS). This citation and the material it references may be removed, per WP:V. If you have any information showing that the source is in fact suitable for Wikipedia, please add it here. If you can find a replacement source, please add it to the article. Rezin (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, much of this article seems to have been copied from that site with exceptions from a few others. The lede sentence is from here. Everything from "Schmidt–Rubin Model 1896" through "Schmidt-Rubin 1896/11 Rifle" inclusive appears to have come from swissrifles.com. I haven't found the rest but ... that's quite enough. Jeh (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Those sections were all added in Nov 2007, in one edit per model (red flag), starting with this one: [1]. The SwissRifles page contained this content prior to these adds, so they are definitely a copyvio and need to go. Crow^Caw 23:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Crow: How'd you check the history of the SwissRifles page? archive.org ? Jeh (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The www.museumoftechnology.org.uk page was not saved prior to 2014, but they claim a 2007 copyright date. The lede containing the duplicate text appeared with this edit at 2007-08-02T13:58:31. I have no idea which is earlier. Jeh (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, archive.org: [2] Crow^Caw 23:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• I've removed the content copied from Swissrifles.com. If I missed any, feel free to remove. Crow^Caw 23:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! (now we wait for the blowback...) Jeh (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.swissrifles.com/sr/index.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)