Talk:Magazine (firearms)/Archives/2015/April

Undue weight is given to STANAG magazines

If a STANAG magazine is not a box magazine what is it, there is no particular reason other than taticool as to why it has its own section, and unbalances the article.--KTo288 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the subject has its own article, I would agree that it does not need its own section. A sentence or two in the appropriate place seems adequate. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree...The terms "STANAG MAGAZINE" or "NATO MAGAZINE" are widely used throughout the firearms industry, firearms publications and widely used on the internet. The section answers and explains what the users of these terms are referring to...Which is in fact the purpose of the Wikipedia. The section is only 5 sentences long and does not give "undue weight" or "unbalances" the article. KTo288 is simply upset that I removed his "Release" & "Interchangeable magazines" sections (the latter party mirrored the STANAG magazine section) and that no other editors objected.

Just to name a few sources for STANAG or NATO magazine. See...

JANE'S refers to "STANAG 4179 (M16) magazines"[1]

DEFENSE REVIEW refers to "30-round 4179 STANAG magazine"[2]

MAGUL (magazine manufacturer) refers to "STANAG 4179 magazine"[3]

SUREFIRE (magazine manufacturer) refers to "STANAG 4179 magazines"[4]

Armatac Industries (magazine manufacturer) refers to "NATO 4179 STANAG"[5]

OHIO ORDNANCE WORKS (manufacturer of M249 SAW) refers to "STANAG magazine"[6]

BERETTA refers to "Rugged Magazine. Manufactured according to STANAG 4179"[7]

RUGER refers to "NATO magazine"[8]

STEYR ARMS refers to a "NATO standard AR style magazines"[9]

Brownells - World's largest supplier of gun part, gunsmithing tools & shooting accessories refers to "magazines meet NATO STANAG 4179"[10]

United States Patent number: 7441491, Filing date: Nov 14, 2005, Issue date: Oct 28, 2008 refers to "NATO standard, STANAG 4179 magazine"[11]

Military Small Arms Of The 20th Century, 7th Edition, Ian V. Hogg & John S. Weeks, Kruse Publications, 2000, Page 239 refers to "magazine interface is now to NATO STANAG 4179"

Jane's Guns Recognition Guide, Ian Hogg & Terry Gander, Harper Collins Publishers, 2005, Page 293 refers to "NATO-standard magazine interface"

The M16, Gordon L. Rottman, © Osprey Publishing, 2011, Page 35-36 refers to "STANAG magazine"

PS...I took most of this info from the STANAG magazine talk page. --RAF910 (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, RAF910. So I'm back to my original point, since the subject has its own article, what is the appropriate way to represent it? Even a single Wikilink would suffice, so how much content space should be devoted to this subject in the primary article for the overall subject? Also, are the other types of notable magazines represented in the same manner? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm not motivated by "losing my section", that section was just a bone to those who thought that the STANAG is so important so unique, that in the heirachy of this article, it is equal to the terminology, history and development, technology and usage of the magazine, and by its own trumps all other types of magazine. It's a bone because the one unique feature of the STANAG is that it is designed to be interchangable, that magazines from different manufacturers should work in STANAG compliant firearms manufactured by different manufacturers. The actual reason I tagged the section is to prevent a slow running edit war, because my first thought was to make the section a subsection of box magazine again. What I am upset about if anything is the change to my reorganisations of the article first in April 2013 and secondly in March 2015 that placed STANAG magazines as a subsection of box magazine. Even if you could convince me that the STANAG is not a sub type of box magazine at best as a type of it should enjoy equal billing with drum, box, pan magazines etc in section 3 "Functions and types". The way the STANAG section fits into the hierarchy now would be akin to believing that the Bugatti Veyron is so important and so unique that in the article Car classification it should be given its own section rather than appear just as an example of a supercar. As a thought exercise, currently with STANAG magazines in its own section we have eight sections. If we allow a single sentence per section, and I was to ask you to summarise the entire history, technology, usage etc of the firearms magazine in just eight sentences, would you devote one of those sentences to the STANAG, or just mention it in passing? Well thats basically what the lede is, currently its only six sentences and the STANAG doesn't appear, if there was really a limit on how many sentences you could use, with the remaining two sentences would you use one of those to eulogise the STANAG or perhaps summarise some other aspect of the asrticle. What weight a subject within an article has depends on the article and its balance with other subjects covered by the article, it is not how important a topic is in of itself but how it relates to other topics in the article. In its own article, the STANAG magazine has absolutely top priority, in an article on NATO standardisation, it serves as a good illustrative example of how the process works and what can go wrong. And, to restate my position, in this article the STANAG is just an example of a box magazine, and should be a subsection of box magazine not be a section in and of itself.--KTo288 (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I get it now...You believe that a STANAG magazine is "just a box magazine." Unfortunately, you are wrong. A STANAG magazine is a concept which not only allows one type of magazine to interface with various weapon systems, but also allows STANAG magazines to be made in various configuration. While most STANAG magazines are indeed 30-round box magazines. There are also STANAG 90-round drum magazines and 100-round saddle-drum magazines, as well as STANAG 60 and 100-round casket magazines. In fact, any type of detachable magazine can be made into a STANAG magazine, including pan, helical and horizontal magazines. As such, the STANAG magazine concept covers the entire magazine spectrum, and is therefore deserving of its own small 5 sentence section.--RAF910 (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

RAF910, I find this rather fascinating. I'm not much of a "new gun" person, I like cowboy guns from the 1800s. Any chance you can update or rewrite the Stanag section to reflect this more accurate description? There must be a decent source in the list you provided. Five sentences doesn't seem sufficient now. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No it is not, the concept here if anything is interchangeability between products, STANAG is just a manufacturing standard in the same way that Betamax and VHS are manufacturing formats to allow cassettes manufactured by different manufacturers to be played in compliant machines manufactured by anybody, or IBM PC compatible hardware for example. In its technical standards there is nothing intrinsically unique or special about the STANAG specification, what is interesting is that outside of NATO, where standardisation of equipment is desired to allow interoperability, a whole lot of custom firearm companies have adopted it as a common standard, which is why it has its own article. I believe that having its own section is undue, its an example of at best a type of magazine, and/or an example of an implementation of interchangeability. The point of my opening this discussion really isn't what I think but to establish consensus, so I'll shut up and allow others to have their say.--KTo288 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay I know I said I'd shut up and give somebody else the floor, but I'd like to add to my previous statement. As an example I'd like to use the City of London as an example, but you can use any city you're familiar with. The City of London is an important topic, so it gets its own article, it is also now part of a larger conurbation called London, as an important part of London's geography, history and economy it is mentioned multiple times and linked back to its own article, however it is not considered deserving of its own section. Although the actual importance and significance of the City of London hasn't changed, its importance in the London article has to be seen in the context of all other aspects of that article, and the weight given to it not give it greater prominence then it deserves. My contention is the that the way the STANAG magazine is presented in the article as desired by RAF910 is that it overplays its significance. The STANAG is just a specification, just as the AK magazine is, a magazine that is dimensioned correctly to fit in the magazine well, capable of engaging ab magazine latch is in the correct place to secure it and with lips that feed properly. What applies to the STANAG applies equally to the AK mag, it appears in multiple materials, high capacity magazines and 75 round drums are available for it, and although there are far fewer firearms designed to take AK magazines that are not AKs, these do exist, some of the Warsaw Pact rifles which externally resembled AKs were internally completely different. It is therefore wrong to claim that the STANAG, because of its uniqueness, is only being given the weight it deserves.--KTo288 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)