Talk:Smith & Wesson Bodyguard

Confused by Bodyguards

Reference to the Bodyguard 38 and Bodyguard .380 eliminated. The former is a Centennial revolver and the latter a semi-auto, thus the only thing they have in common is the marketing dept. at S&W choosing to confuse the issue of what is a bodyguard model, originally a specific model of J-frame revolver, by conflating dissimilar models under the same designation. The former should be included in the Centennial page and the latter included in the M&P semi-auto page.

Once again, the Bodyguard 38 reference has been removed. Why? Because other than name, it has nothing in common with any other Bodyguard model revolver, which means a snubnosed shrouded hammer revolver. Purely a confusing marketing term also used on a semi-auto pistol that has nothing to do with the historical origin of the line as originally meant. This article is ONLY about the bodyguard revolvers that have shrouded hammers, not a Centennial model named thus for marketing reasons. I checked the current S&W catalog and this model isn't listed as far as I can tell, so they must've wised up some, though they are now calling several snubnosed revolvers, along with their new line of semi-autos, "Military & Police," which was the original designation for the model 10, for marketing reasons. Let's not fall victim to marketing copy that will change in a few years when the meaning as originally designated and commonly understood runs counter to the current corporate hype.

Do not remove cited information. For now it makes sense to have it there until we decide if it merits its own article or if some neckbeard will get asshurt if he sees it merged into the Centennial article. I think its too short for its own piece.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ

It's now included in both articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.242.83 (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed it from Centennial because there is no published source stating that the M&P Bodyguard is a Centennial.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect cite

There is a citation that I think is no longer being refered too. The sentence talks about Vietnam but this cite, refers to a Texas murder. Cite is currently number 8. Berryhill, Michael (2011). The Trials of Eroy Brown: The Murder Case That Shook the Texas Prison System . University of Texas Press. p. 34. ISBN 9780292742185. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.201.140 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that and reporting it. It does look out of place. However I'm the one who put it there so I can tell you it's actually right. One of the incidents in the book involves an S&W Bodyguard, and the author gives some historical background on the firearm. That's where the Vietnamese use comes in. The book is published by an academic press and its author is a journalism professor, so it's a highly reliable source even if it's not focused on this topic. Adding it seemed weird to me, but it was the best source I could find for the significance of the weapon and the photograph. Rezin (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Our article Nguyễn Ngọc Loan cites two articles to support (among other things) Loan's use of an S&W Model 38 Bodyguard in executing a Viet Cong prisoner (in the iconic Life photo). Tom Buckley's article "Portrait of an Aging Despot" in the April 1972 issue of Harper's magazine, page 69 refers to the shooting and the gun used in it directly. Berryhill's mention of the incident isn't footnoted, and I can't find a specific mention of his source for the information under "Notes on Pages 28-46" (the shooting of the prisoner by Loan is mentioned on page 34 of the hardcover edition) in Berryhill's book. I'm changing the citation accordingly. loupgarous (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pop culture section?

Is this worth saving or should it get the boot? Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 18:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)