User talk:D.E. Watters

		The Minor Barnstar
		For watching and correcting, improving and tweaking so many pages. Deon Steyn 07:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For maintaining and fact-checking new articles with an eye for precision. -NorsemanII 03:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, D.E. Watters. I recognized your name on the Recent Changes list... I used to be an avid user of your superlative NATO weapons mods for the Rogue Spear FPS. Enjoy your stay here! --FCYTravis 18:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

G3 development history[edit]

Hi, I can certainly appreciate the detail of your revised history of the G3 rifle but it's gotten to the point where it's almost grotesquely complicated. Come to think of it, my initial version said the same thing in 3 paragraphs less. I don't think we should trace back the political development of the Bundeswehr after the dissolution of the Wehrmacht or go into extensive detail about the administrative procedures of the procurement process. Regards. Koalorka 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Browning Automatic Rifle[edit]

Hi, D.E. Watters. About the BAR, could the "belt" of ammunition you're referring to be described as a bandolier? If so, let me know so I can edit the page and add the link to the stub. Of course, feel free to edit it yourself as you see fit. Thanks, and very good job on your revisions so far. Squalla 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in the modern sense of the term that it comes close, but it does not match it in the classic sense. The belt carried pouches for the spare magazines of the BAR and M1911. A bandolier would carry individual cartridges or clipped ammunition, respectively the classic and modern definitions of the term. FWIW: The US military nomenclature for the BAR gunner's belt was "cartridge belt." --D.E. Watters 17:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glacis[edit]

Hi. I'm kind of a newby and was hoping you could look at Glacis article. I added a pic there that I think is a glacis plate on a machine gun, but I am not completely sure; it might not be called that anymore, I mostly know about WWII stuff. since you seem to know something about guns I thought I'd ask you. If you dont know just ignore this message and thanks for your time. --SpencerTC 18:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current nomenclature for the armor plates shown in the photo is "gunner shield." --D.E. Watters 21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium vs. Steel liner for AR-10 in the M16 (rifle) Article[edit]

My source was a photo caption on pg 176 of "The Great Rifle Controversy" which stated that the liner was titanium. When I re-read the section of "The Black Rifle" it indeed states, somewhat more authoritatively, that the liner was stainless steel. Both books are by Ezell, but Blake Stevens edited The Black Rifle. I'll assume the TBR is correct. The article did state, however, that the flash suppressor was titanium. The sources I looked at all stated it was an aluminum alloy. Which is right?--Asams10 00:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see now. It does say they switched to titanium for the muzzle brake. Can't rely on my memory anymore. Thanks for the correction.--Asams10 00:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also had the date of the failure wrong. GRC had it as 1956 and TBR has it as 1957. Further, they list the serial number as 1,022 whereas TBR says it's 1002. Can't trust GRC any more, I guess... at least not the captions.--Asams10 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More recent works by any author will typically have the benefit of additional research. GRC was not supposed to be an in depth history of the individual rifles mentioned. It was more about the history of US small arms development, selection, and procurement. --D.E. Watters 13:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 x 57 mm[edit]

Thanks for clearing that up. I just assumed that the previous addition of that link for the 7mm Mauser was incorrect, because it didn't point to any page (think it was just the "x" versus "×"), but now it's pointing to it's own page and I see it obviously is differen to the 8mm Mauser. Deon Steyn 06:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper Rifle[edit]

Hi, from our previous interaction it is obvious that you are knowledgeable and interested in small arms/firearms and weaponry in general. I would like to enlist your help in looking at the Sniper rifle article, because a user with a fairly limited history on wikipedia and has made substantial changes and additions that I feel detract from the article. He reverts changes and repeatedly pretends to answer criticisms and questions (using wordy and long winded arguments) and pretends to makes compromises in many edits (120 in 3 days). Maybe I'm crazy, I just though some other users might be interested in the state of this page and more voices might reach a better compromise/solution. See discussion on Talk:Sniper rifle#Capabilities Section Discussion and Talk:Sniper rifle#Intro. Thanks. Deon Steyn 16:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think that you'll be able to reason with him. The best bet is to let him get this out of his system and move on to another pet project. After the latter occurs, it should be safe to edit/revert the article. --D.E. Watters 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that might be the best/only option, he's made another 120 edits... sheesh :-) Deon Steyn 14:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VEC-91[edit]

Very very nice catches on both of your edits to the Voere VEC-91 article, and to Voere. Your contributions have inspired me to stop being so careless and put some serious effort into these articles. For your keen eye, I award you the Barnstar of Diligence. -NorsemanII 03:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M79 Grenade Launcher Article[edit]

The manual I cited is for the M203 and contains, in an appendix, the information on the M79. If you have access to an earlier field manual or technical manual for the M79 that stats the same thing, we can leave it as is. If not, I'd appreciate it if you returned the reference to the manual cited in the references... The FM on the M203. Thank you. Deathbunny 09:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although I was hoping you had an older manual... Deathbunny 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M16 rifle and edits by Ve3 (talk)[edit]

Hi Watters, I suggest you take a look at Ve3's talk page for a discussion about the M16 rifle article's introduction (redundant material, etc.). He has reverted my previous edits a few days ago (which were similar to your last revision of the article: Revision as of 19:07, 10 November 2006), and has now reverted yours as well. Since this user seems unable to reasonably discuss issues, do you have any suggestion on how we can solve this matter? Thanks in advance for your time. —Squalla 16:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a best-effort to respond to Squalla, and I thought we resolved these issues. However, his focus on unwarranted personal criticism has made this difficult, despite my continued goal for an amiable and appropriate conclusion. Ve3 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SL-9 section on Heckler & Koch G3[edit]

I believe you are misunderstanding my remarks. The SL-9 would have been banned under the Assault Weapons Ban. However, said ban has expired. Domestically produced SL-9's, if there were any, would still be considered legal. I never said anything about importation. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but HK does not yet have a production facility running in the US. Thus, any attempt to reintroduce the SL-9 would involve importation, and as a result run afoul of the Clinton Executive Order. To make it importable, HK would have to constrict the magwell so existing HK91 and G3 mags would not fit. D.E. Watters 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but if there hypothetically were an HK plant in the US, it would be legal production. Can we clarify the sentence to say that the ban on the mag capacity has expired for domestically produced SL-9's (hypothetically since they do not exist), but imports are still banned? Something to that effect? I only mention it because when I read through that section I immediately thought of the AWB rather than the clinton order, and was confused. We should probably differentiate between the two. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

above on your page[edit]

Waiiiiit, you're the guy who made the NATO weapons mod for Rogue Spear? I played the hell out of that!⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MP5J[edit]

concerning the removal of the MP5J from the MP5 article: I have not been able to find any English references to indicate the "real steel" existence of the MP5J. However, an article I translated on the Tokyo Marui home page, indicates that the MP5J really is a gun being used by Japanese police forces. [[1]]

Do you think it is enough evidence to go on? The apparent lack of English articles on the subject does seem odd...

Airsoft manufacturers have a bad reputation for making up variants to encourage sales. D.E. Watters 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Sorry for the inconvenience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Causality-GT (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please vote for whether Gun Nut deserve deletion or not[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut --BillyTFried 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pistol and Rifle catridges introduced at the same time[edit]

Some may have been used in pistols soon after. If a cartridge was first made for one or another then it should be listed as one or the other. If you want to say oh now the 45/70 has been in a hand gun it should listed as a pistol cartridge. Then both lists should just be combined as there will be examples or nearly every one in the other. So how is it decided if it belongs in both lists?--Big5Hunter 08:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my defense in Talk:List of handgun cartridges. D.E. Watters 16:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FNC[edit]

FN Herstal calls it a wire stock in their English sales brochures, but I agree, tubular does sound better. Wire makes it sound flimsy like an M3 or Skorpion stock, which it isn't. Cheers. Koalorka 01:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons evaluation result[edit]

I just wonder which carbine won ?--Blain Toddi (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work[edit]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		M249 squad automatic weapon was just made a featured article! Thanks for all your help! Patton^t/c 13:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M2 Browning Machine gun[edit]

Quote: "One problem with your story: John Browning didn't develop the original M1918 prototype with FN. From August 1914 to November 1918, FN Herstal wasn't in a position to do firearm design work for anyone except for the German occupation forces. Instead, Browning's work on the M1918 was done with the help of Colt and Winchester. The M1921 redesign has been credited to Colt engineer Fred Moore, and the M2 to an Army Ordnance engineering team working with Colt. Please note that Browning had been dead a few years by the time work started on the M2 variant. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "

Read the FNH book and catalog D.E. Watters. It has the history for the M2 Browning machine gun saying he designed the gun with FN Herstal. He even had an office there. AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to this comment at Talk:M2 Browning machine gun. However, books vary in quality, and the folks writing catalogs and press releases are not necessarily gun people. You just can't get around the fact that Browning began work on the design before the WW1 ended, and that FN Herstal's factory was under German control from 1914 to 1918. --D.E. Watters (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that an OFFICIAL FNH Military catalog is wrong. I'm not sure why would they put misleading information in an official catalog. It doesn't make sense. Also what gun are you talking about? You are confusing me about the M1918 and the M2. They are both seperate guns. Please tell me what gun are you talking about. AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even official catalogs have screwups. Ever see the HK catalog where the magazine is loaded backwards? I'm not talking about the M1918 BAR. This M1918 refers to Browning's initial .50 cal. machinegun prototypes which are the basis for all future models: M1921, M1921A1, and M2. Browning was quite dead when development of the M2 variants began. --D.E. Watters (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to FN HERSTAL website they say they are the original manufacture of the M2. They even have medallions of John Browning with FNH logo. Also what does the backward magazine have to do with information from a Military catalog? I will post a link to the FN HERSTAL website. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AR-15(6.8 SPC) (talk • contribs) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medallions prove nothing more than that Browning worked with FN on many projects. He was much beloved by their workstaff, and was known as "The Master". I understand the city of Herstal even named a street after him. That said, Browning worked with a lot of companies over the years, particularly Winchester and Colt. However, he also had relationships with Remington and Stevens. The improperly loaded magazine in the HK catalog indicates that the people who put together catalogs are not necessarily familiar with the products being advertised. The HK USA sales representatives didn't even catch the mistake until it was pointed out at a major trade show. Nobody working for FNH today was working for them back when Browning was still alive, and I even doubt there are any that were even alive then. Most companies no longer have an official historian. As a result, stories get twisted around over the years. The average customer isn't going to know the difference or even care. Unless you go back to primary source documents or reliable secondary sources which accessed the latter, everything is suspect. --D.E. Watters (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be a jerk but did you even go to the link I posted? Well lets try to focus on FNH and not Heckler and Koch. Even though I like H&K and I'm a fan of them. All I'm trying to say is that FNH is the original manufacture of the M2 Browning according to the FN HERSTAL website [3].I do believe it though that their facts are true. Please stop all this nonsense about stories being twisted or official historians and work to a consensus. AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even notice the sources I cited on the article's Talk page? "John M. Browning: American Gunmaker" was co-authored by John M. Browning's oldest son. "The Machine Gun: History, Evolution, and Development of Manual, Automatic, and Airborne Repeating Weapons, Vol. 1" was part of a five volume set published by the US Navy's Bureau of Ordnance. It is considered to be one of the definitive works on automatic weapon design. "Hard Rain: History of the Browning Machine Guns" included US Army Ordnance Department/Ordnance Corps documents. "The Ordnance Department: Planning Munitions for War" was part of a three volume official history of the US Army Ordnance Department's activities prior to and during World War II. "The Browning Machine Gun Volume IV - Semper Fi FIFTY!" is co-authored by the author of the third book, and the other co-author is one of the foremost scholars of the history of the Maxim, Vickers, and Browning machineguns. --D.E. Watters (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to the Springfield Armory National Historical Site's weapon collection. They just happen to have both versions of the .50 cal. Browning M1918: the Colt (water-cooled)[4] and the Winchester (air-cooled)[5]. If you decide to research the .50 M1921 and M1921A1 service models, and the various prototypes leading up to the M2, you'll find that they were all built by Colt. --D.E. Watters (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask you again. DID YOU CHECK THE FN HERSTAL Link I POSTED [6].? But in a video released it shows at the FNH factory in the U.S. manufacturing the M2 browning machine gun. Then it shows them in action in Iraq with their emblem on the machine gun courtesy of the DoD. AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked the page in question when you first commented. I am not disputing that FN currently manufactures M2 and M3, nor that they made heavy caliber Browning MG prior to WW2. I am disputing the claim that they helped Browning create it. I don't know what bringing FNH's US factory (FN Manufacturing) into the argument proves. They didn't exist until around 30 years ago when the FN MAG58 was adopted by the US Army as the M240. --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is that the FNH U.S. factory makes the Ma Deuce still today for the DoD since they won't buy anything overseas unless it is made here or under other certain circumstances. For example the Beretta P92 pistol is made here for the troops sidearm. All I can say is that they may or may not helped Browning create it. We will probably never will figure this out unless we search deeper than before on the history of the 50 cal. AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree that FNH didn't sell M2 to the US military prior to the last thirty years? All of the sources I've consulted would indicate this. Until the late '70s, nearly all of the M2 in US service were bought before 1946, and most of those were built during WW2. FNH certainly couldn't have provided any to the US during WW2 because their factory was commandeered yet again by German occupation troops. Any attempt before WW2 by FNH to sell Browning design firearms to the US military would have violated previous sales territory agreements between Colt and FNH. Colt was the sole US manufacturer of the various Browning MG designs during the years between WW1 and WW2. The manufacture of the designs was farmed out to other US companies once the war began in Europe.

As for determining FNH's participation in developing the heavy caliber BMG, the authoritative sources I've cited above clearly establish a timeline of events and participants. The most credit I've seen given to FNH prior to WW2 is assisting in the design of an improved buffer for the M2. FWIW: FNH didn't use US military designations for the other Browning designs (M1917 MG, M1919 MG, and M1918 BAR), so it seems unlikely that they would have marked their heavy caliber BMG as the M2 prior to WW2.

I've searched the major USG/DOD contract announcement sites (fbodaily.com and defenselink.mil/contracts), and curiously, I can't find any FNH or FN Manufacturing military contracts in the last decade for the M2 except for spare parts like barrels. All of the contracts for M2 appear to be going to General Dynamics, and more recently, US Ordnance. The M3M (GAU-21) contracts are with FNH, not FN Manufacturing. Moreover, FN Manufacturing's webpage doesn't mention manufacturing the M2 or M3. Perhaps they are only assembled here. --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this talk section is getting big. But I know they have a plant in manufacturing in South Carolina. Now it says they are producing M16's under license there. That must be new because I never heard of them doing that. [7] But I heard they are probably getting DoD contracts for producing the SCAR to replace their M4 and M16 assault rifles soon as they are ready. Otherwise I agree with you that U.S. manufacturing companies made the M2 during the WWII days. On the other hand I think it is weird that Colt you know is a major manufacture for the M16 but they don't own the design. I believe Armalite owns the design since they came up with the idea hence AR-10 or AR-15? That is what the history channel said. AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At FNH USA's website it says they had the contract to produce M16's since 1989. [8] AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the US plant (FN Manufacturing) was originally built for the M240 contract around 30 years ago. Other contracts for the M249 and M16 came later. Their first M16 related contract was actually for replacement M16A1 barrels in 1986. They won their first contract for complete M16A2 rifles (DAAA09-88-C-1056) on September 28, 1988. Production was delayed to 1989 due in part to the need to defend against Colt's GAO protest of the contract award. The GAO didn't issue a final ruling in the latter case until January 23, 1989.

As for ownership of the AR-15 design, ArmaLite's corporate owners at the time (Fairchild) sold Colt a license to the AR-10 and AR-15 designs in January 1959. Fairchild kicked ArmaLite to the curb in February 1961, and allowed ArmaLite's new management to buy everything but the AR-10 and AR-15 designs. In December 1961, Fairchild followed up by selling Colt exclusive rights to the AR-15. --D.E. Watters (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LAW[edit]

isn't the Law wire guided? that's what i was told at Fort Polk though I never had to use one.

thanks, wnewbury Wnewbury (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the M72 LAW has no guidance system. However, the TOW and Dragon were wire-guided. --D.E. Watters (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.45 Colt[edit]

Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, D.E. Watters. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, D.E. Watters. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, D.E. Watters. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, D.E. Watters. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]