Talk:Browning Citori

FN Herstal and other changes

With these recent edits the article was expanded somewhat. It now reads too much like like an advertisement -- "a new industry standard in high quality, reliable, yet an affordable, contemporary, fully featured shotguns designed from a timeless classic", etc. -- but that's not my main complaint. As it reads, it sounds like FN Herstal designed and marketed the Browning Citori. To the best of my knowledge that is not the case. The gun is designed and sold by the Browning Arms Company, not FN Hertsal. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FN owns all of Browning Arms USA. Browning is the marketing, brand manager of the Browning products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBHunt (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that, but looking into this further, it seems that the Browning Citori was first sold in 1973, but FN Herstal did not acquire the Browning Arms Company until 1977. (This is mentioned in the infobox of the John Browning article.) So it seems to me that the article should not talk about Herstal developing the Citori, unless of course you can provide reliable references showing that they did. And also the article should be toned down to sound less like an advertisement. "P.S." On Wikipedia it's strongly recommended that you sign your talk page posts using four tildes, i.e. "~~~~" without the quotes, which will be transformed into your signature with a date and time. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral smoke venting in Obama picture

Why is there smoke venting laterally (or is it upwards?) in the Obama picture in the article? One expects a see a jet of smoke issuing forward from the muzzle; is there a hole in the side of the gun barrel, and why? — O'Dea (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the President's Browning Citori has ported barrels. That is, there are a series of small holes or ports cut into the barrels, and some of the smoke and hot gasses from the shotgun shell come out from there. If you click through and look at that photo at full magnification, you can see the barrel ports. The theory is that ported barrels tend to reduce recoil and muzzle flip, making the gun easier to shoot. There's some debate about how much it helps. If you do a google search for "ported barrel" you can get more info about this. — Mudwater^(Talk) 21:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is interesting. Pictures of the barrel online show something resembling a tin whistle, with all those holes. The article about muzzle brakes explains ports, too. I will add a note explaining the smoke pattern to the image description. — O'Dea (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Obama skeet photo staged?

There's no purpose to allowing this to run the full 30 days, seeing as 1) There are no reliable sources available to support this claim (this American Thinker article mentioned in an edit summary is not sufficient), and 2) There is zero support for it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article contains a photo of President Obama firing a shotgun while shooting skeet. Should the caption say that the photo was staged or otherwise faked? — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. There's a conspiracy theory that the photo was somehow staged or faked. See this search for some examples: https://www.google.com/#q=obama+%2B+skeet+%2B+fake. Frankly the theory doesn't make much sense, for a number of different reasons. But that's beside the point. The caption should not say that the photo was staged or faked, because there are no reliable, third-party sources that support that view. All the sources are... how to say this politely?... not reliable, because they don't have any actual evidence, and are pursuing their own axe-grinding agenda. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, as there is no proof whatsoever that the image was faked or staged, this is like the birthers all over again. Perhaps we should coin "skeeters" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
For fuck's sake. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, as there is no policy argument to do so. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Should we say the picture shows a bandersnatch? Normally there would be a reason to propose an RfC like this, and you might think of posting some reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please close the RfC as no RS supports the nonsense and, per a request at WP:RFPP, the page has been semiprotected. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Browning Citori. 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:

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) 16:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]