Jump to content

Talk:FN P90/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Stargate

for the stargate reference, is the gun portrayed actually as a P90? or is it a sci-fi gun that uses the P90 as a starting point? Vroman 19:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's identified as the P90 -- though probably a lot of people don't realize it's a nonfictional weapon. It was brought in in the fourth(?) season, as an upgrade for the MP5. Inside the show, it's valued for its armor-piercing capability and magazine size. Outside the show, the downward ejection allows the actors to stand close together while shooting. --wwoods 20:24, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Moreover, O'Neil even mentions it by name in one episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.38.203 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is a word-by-word copy of http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm, seems to be the same problem as with combat shotgun. Now I might be mistaken and whoever posted this actually have the permission (or is just the original author anyway), but then an indication of that (probably together with a link to the original article) would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Int19h (talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Part of the article ("Overview" section, excluding the final paragraph and all other sections) was originally lifted directly from that site, apaprently without the author's permission. If nobody can prove otherwise, I'd be willing to rewrite the copyrighted sections. However, it is my opinion that the original author does a much better job of overviewing the P90 than I possibly could, so if anyone can show that we already have his permission you'd be doing us all a great service. Tronno 23:53, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Since nobody has come forward to provide proof that the copyrighted text was reproduced with permission, I have rewritten the paragraphs in question. The article is now clean. Tronno 20:36, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Feed system

I read somewhere that the p90 feed system is highly problematic (it's a huge magazine horizontal on the top of the weapon, that has to rotate the rounds 90 degrees to feed) and jams constantly, especially if the gun is knocked around with less than a full load in the clip. Can anyone find a source on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.133.54 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 2 June 2004 (UTC)

-I read that the P-90's magazine loading system was streamlined to prevent such jamming.~Berserker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.175.99 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 August 2004 (UTC)
I've only run into two mentions of the feed problems and both would not be considered unbiased sources. The first mention of this was on the HKPRO website, a Heckler and Koch afficiando page, in an article on the then-new MP7 PDW H&K released. Another was from a blog posting on Defense Review (IIRC), in which the author took a submachinegun course through Heckler & Koch's firearms instructor group (who do a lot of training on weapons other than H&K). He was told, by the instructors, about the P90's feed problem, but he did not experience it when he fired the P90. He also said the issue might be with the half-full magazine outside the gun, not the magazine while it is in the gun (in fact, there might be evidence to this, as I've seen some P90 ammo pouches that have a cup that goes over the magazine lips, possibly to prevent rounds becoming loose). Since both mentions of the P90 having any feed problems come from a rival company that is competing with a rival product, I'd take it with a grain of salt. --YoungFreud 07:34, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If anyone's seen the anime series Gunslinger Girl, they may have wondered as i currently do if the ejected cartridge cases are a problem. In one scene the protagonist slips and falls because she treads on a number of spent cartridge cases which have fallen at her feet and roll underfoot, causing her to lose her balance. Does this actually happen IRL?--YourMessageHere 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is rumor, possibly put out by certain rival companies, nothing more. You can cause a malfunction by knocking the mag around, but not without using enough fource to damage it. There is a problem with a rounds coming loose from the feed lips when they're knocked about, hence the "cup" in FN made magazine pouches. This however does not cause jamming, it's simply inconvenient.
Also, whilst the follower does use rollers, being the plate on the end of the spring, it does not rotate the rounds. That would be the helical ramp on the end. See the Modern Firearms article. 58.7.77.2 09:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect weight?

I'm having trouble verifying the weight/mass of the P90 loaded and unloaded. Values I've found:

Some searching on Google for "p90 weight" give you plenty of hits to cull the information from, but I'm not sure which is correct.

In any event, the nice round numbers listed in the infobox seem to be either fictitious, convenient approximations, or mistaken.

--ABQCat 05:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The metric weight listed in the infobox is accurate, but the imperial is just a rounded approximation. I've edited the article to include accurate imperial values. Tronno 03:26, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
One of the sites listed is for an airsoft version of the P90, therefore all info from that site is invalid and any effects they had on the article need fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.75.0 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
That's already been addressed - all numbers in the article are from the real thing. Tronno —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC).

I added an external link on the FN P90 page (also the Five-seveN and 5.7x28mm pages) to point to my blog, where I have been collecting information about the 5.7x28mm weapons system. My hope is to distill/sanitize much of the information that I've been blogging into the Wikipedia entries.

Esteves 21:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I oppose a list of every single appearance the FN P90 has made as a prop, be it in the form of prose, bulleted list, or table. I don't oppose using specific examples to illustrate how and why it is used in fiction, but there's no need for every single article to list every time the object appears in a work of fiction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not "every single article", its one of the few firearms to achive such a level of use. Its not your place to block readers access to this information. Ve3 04:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
There are at least a half-dozen guns with more prominent roles in fiction, and that's just off the top of my head. Plus, this list doesn't say anything about the gun's role in fiction that the prose does not.
It is my place, just as it is every editor's, to do something about indiscriminate lists of trivia, something Wikipedia is not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
There may be more prominent firearms, but that is not of concern for somone looking for more information on the P90's use. Including information directly relevant to the firearm is hardly "indscriminate". Ve3 04:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Look guys, it's obvious we're not going to end this conflict through sensible discussion, so we might as well end it for the sake of compromise (as per wiki etiquette). I propose we go ahead and trim the Pop Culture section to a short paragraph, with no lists. However, before that, we go into every article listed in Pop Culture and link to P90 from there, so that people interested in those subjects can easily read about the gun. MIB and I hate lists, but Ve3 has stated concerns with perceived censorship; I believe this is an adequate solution to both problems. Thoughts? Tronno 16:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
We may yet solve it with disussion or a compromise. However, your proposal is not a compromise when the issue is links from this page. It doesn't do people any good when they read the P90 article to have the data missing- even its because its been scattered across other articles. Whether we like lists, or dislike certain information is immaterial-its not our job to remove it any more then it is remove tables or detail other info because its 'disliked'. Ve3 16:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
In that case, please propose some other solution that satisfies all parties. Being adamant in your stance isn't going to lead us anywhere. Tronno 17:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
This already was a compromise- part of it was to merge in the content but in a more compact form, but also have the summary section. That is aside from issue that the content is a standard part of firearm articles, and its not our place to remove whole article sections. Ve3 18:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to Tronno's suggestion at all. I still don't see any value in the raw data of every work the P90 appears in; Wikipedia is the place for encyclopedic overview, not every single datum no matter how trivial or tangental. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
One last suggestion - a true compromise. If anybody wants a complete list of Wiki articles with even the vaguest connection to FN P90, they can hit What links here. Most of the pop culture stuff we have now (and some we don't) will appear there, clear as day, if you just link from it. If you're clever, you can file that stuff under its own column using a soft redirect & dedicated pop culture redirect combo. The end result is a clean pop culture list that is created and sort-of-automatically maintained by The System. It's not cruft, it's not censored, and it can be made complete and up-to-date with minimal effort (unlike the current list). Worth considering, Ve3. Please think about it. Tronno 03:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
PS - the new list would be stored in What links here, not in the article itself. Tronno
Once again, the current page is already a compromise. Its the same as suggesting 'compromise' that expands the debated sections. As for 'what links here' being a substitute- that is a listing of anything that list here. It would not only strip away info that makes it less indiscriminate, but be a major inconvenience to anyone actually trying track down the info. Not to mention that the entries, which can't be noted, will be scattered among dozens of links.
Anyone with a serious interest int he P90 deserves to have access to the information, and its not our job to block it. It relates directly to the firearm, is a standard part of firearm articles, and has been compacted down (listing game series rather than individual title for example). Ve3 15:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
No Ve3, it's not, because it's the same thing we've always had - a loosely associated bunch of games and movies. Going from a list to a table is not a change. It's not a compromise.
In any case, I'm tired of your stubborn refusal to adhere to the policies and the spirit of Wikipedia. You've stonewalled every attempt to discuss solutions that make everyone happy, you've ignored all sensible arguments, and have responded to all pleas with the same regurgitated rhetoric. I've had enough. I will now turn the other cheek and let you do whatever you want. Have fun, buddy. Do me a favor and brush up on the rules. Tronno 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the brief, informal listing of pop culture uses found at the Desert Eagle page is stylistically better, but as long as the table is still in the article I have a correction to make: the gun used by Major Kusanagi at the end of Ghost in the Shell isn't a P90. It's referred to as a Zastaba M23 and is larger than a P90 would be. Also, it loads from what look like M16 STANAG magazines as opposed to the real P90's top-loading system. Inspired by the P90, perhaps, but not a P90 itself. BobBQ —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC).
I agree with Tronno and A Man in Black on this as well. This article is SERIOUSLY becoming a source for trivia, something Wikipedia is not supposed to be. The Desert Eagle site is *REALLY* a trivia source (it *IS* better though :) ), and I don't want to see this article go farther down that hole. How about doing something along the lines of the Wikipedia:Fiction says is "good practice" to do with a long list of minor characters in a fiction work - create another article for them. Something like FN P90 Popular Culture References or along those lines, keep the detailed list there, and have a summary in this article saying something like "There are many popular culture appearances by the P90. These are detailed in the P90 appearances page, but include Stargate....blah...blah.....whatever." Anyone agree/disagree/think I'm on crack? Just something to think about. The Deviant 14:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
A separate page was posted for Pop Culture appearances of the P90. However, it was quickly tagged for deletion as administrators thought that it was too trival. --D.E. Watters 15:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Brilliant. The Deviant 20:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't "admins", it was MIB (a admin) who tagged it before even discussing. As a compromise, the AFD was withdrawn and the content merged here. Ve3 21:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the list again. It continues to get longer and longer, without adding any actual information or insight to the article. I still feel an ever-incomplete list of appearances where the gun features merely as an incidental prop is trivial and unencyclopedic, whether as part of this article or as a separate list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I salute the spirit of your gesture, but in practice it will just lead to another revert war / dead-end discussion. However, I will take this opportunity to ask a favor - namely, your support to move the list to a separate page (again). After that, I'm stepping out of the debate for good, I swear. Tronno (talk | contribs) 06:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding a side note to the pop culture section that the FN P90 is only the standard sidearm as of Season 5. It might seem trivial to others but it's just a few characters that makes all the difference to pedantic fans. - vainglory (unregistered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.53.155 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As expected, the reverts at FN P90 have started up again. I've moved the cruft away from the serious part of the article, to here -> FN P90 in popular culture. This time, please do not revert or request AFD. Tronno (talk | contribs) 02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain - but the link to FN P90 in pop culture doesn't go anywhere and there is no mention on the page to it's use in Pop Culture - I came here to see where else it was used other than SG-1/Atlantis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.164.10.10 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I dissagre with everyone who thinks that the P90 use in stargate should not be noted on the P90's page. This weapon is iconic to stagate fans, I think there should be at least a small mention of the use of the P90 in stargate! (or at least get the link to the P90 in popular fiction working) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehgow (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So, when is the "P90 in Popular Culture" page going to be up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.174.18 (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the N64 game Goldeneye, one of the best weapons was the RC-P90 based on the P90 I think. That should go in there! --Jim Raynor 01:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See, you've just demostrated the problem with trivial list like this, any fanboy will want to talk about is cool new game he play a lot and can shoot people with is super cool p90 that so awesome and great. But the fact that you can get a p90 in cal of duty 4 doesn't bring any IMPORTANt information the the weapon, should we make list about zippo in movie, cigarette in movies, car in movies, dogs in movie, come on!!!! those list are unuseful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase 'including information directly relevant to the firearm is hardly "indscriminate"' from Ve3 actually proves conclusively why the trivia section must not exist -- because it is actually not directly relevant to the firearm at all. Perhaps some are unfamiliar, but the "guns" you see in movies are often armourer's copies, props, replicas and the like (I have been to such an armourer myself, and handled "guns" from well-known films; guess what, they're not guns, they're props). Therefore a trivia section detailing every single instance where objects which RESEMBLE a P90 are seen is truly NOT 'directly relevant to the firearm'. Information about the P90 itself is. Frankly I find this entire line of reasoning from Ve3 disconcerting as it implies that popular culture entertainment is a primary source for firearms information and use.Twca (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

FN PS90 and P90

I have added a number of photos of my PS90 (a real civilian sporter version of the P90). There's no "Feeding" problem. It was very hard for me to even jostle the rounds in a half-full magazine. The HK MP7 uses a gas system and rotating bolt, which is more prone to failure (in a worst case scenario) than a delayed blowback system. The P90 has very few parts as you can see from the breakdown. The problems with the P90 are in the standard MC-10-80 reflex sight (same issues as the Trijicon Reflex) and slower mag changes than a drop free system. I've been a fan of the P90 since 10-15 years ago when I first heard about it. I stopped watching SG-1 after the 3rd season so I didnt realize they went to the P90 until afterwards (although I started watching re-runs of Season 8 and am catching up). I hope everyone enjoys the photographs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metroplex (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Also note that in Stargate (SG-1 or Atlantis) the P90 is the standard weapon, but the M9 / 9mm Beretta Full-sized pistol is still the standard sidearm of ALL SG members. Lt Col Shepperd usually deploys with the M9 and P90. Lt Col Mitchell also used both the P90 and M9 when he was attacked by a member of the Sodan. The REMF's like McKay on Atlantis are only issued the M9 on off-world missions, while Daniel Jackson, probably because he proved his worth, gets the P90. However, in some instances Lt Col Shepperd would deploy with the M16 or some variant (SPR, M4, etc...) for medium range sniping or other applications.

As you can see, 5.7x28 is limited to about 200m in real life. In Season 4 or 5 when Carter demonstrated the P90 to the Go'Auld as a weapon of war, she made the reference that it was good out to 5 times that of the Staff weapon range (which was about 75 yd). If you do the math, that's more than 300m. If you manage to hit something with the 28-32gr .224" bullet at 300m, it won't do much damage especially against armor. 5.56x45 still plays an important role in Stargate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metroplex (talk • contribs) 11:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice job! Looks great. Just wondering, should we center the table? =) therearenospoons 00:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I second that comment! Also, I've been meaning to add something to the article about the PS90 SBR, but I'm confused about the gun's status on the market and with the BATFE... as I understand it, civilian owners can swap out their 16-inch barrels with the standard 10-inch P90 barrel, then register the whole thing as an SBR. However, I've also read about a bunch of FN-manufactured SBRs that have internal modifications which make them illegal for civilian ownership (ATF still considers them machine guns, even though they're semi-auto). Maybe somebody could clarify the situation... maybe Metroplex? XD - Tronno ( t | c ) 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wound Ballistics

I seem to recall that in reported combat use all shots were either to vital organs or the CNS. Anybody have any source material to support or disprove this? Veritas Panther 10:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

FN PS90 SBR...

SBRs are not legal in my neck of the woods, but it is legal in many states so long as you fill out the paperwork with the BATFE FIRST before you do anything with the weapon. Follow the procedures (engraving of the receiver is required) after the paperwork is processed, and get your 10" barrel. Other than the barrel, the SBR'd PS90s you see on the market do not have any other modifications on the inside. Some people have decided to void their warranties and dye the stock black. To each his own I suppose!

Metroplex 14:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Black stock PS90

"Some people have decided to void their warranties and dye the stock black. To each his own I suppose!"
Fun Fact: FN offers the PS90 in black to dealers that buy a certain amount of guns at once. They're rare but they're out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.250.235 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, FN does have black stocked PS90s for sale. However, many choose to dye their stocks with black liquid Rit dye (nothing wrong with that). However, the owner's manual states not to modify the PS90 in any way, otherwise it may void the warranty.
This is different from buying a factory black stock PS90.
(Metroplex 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

Bolt vs Breech

As per the FN Herstal owner's manual for the PS90, the operating principle is: Blowback mechanism firing from closed breech.

There is no bolt in the P90/PS90. There is, however, a breech block that contains the ejector and extractor.

(Metroplex 14:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

This looks like a "bolt" to me. http://www.world.guns.ru/smg/fn_p90_parts.jpg Also, "Bolt Vs Breech" doesn't make a bit of sense. Both are entirely two different things. The statment in the manual ("Blowback mechanism firing from closed breech") simply means that the bolt is in it's fully closed position at the time of trigger pull. This is opposite a weapon like the Thompson SMG that fired from an open bolt design that eliminated some jamming issues at the time, also making reloading quicker. But that is beside the point. I say it has a "bolt" for sure.
68.205.94.87 03:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The terms are interchangable, in the context of the operating principles and not of components. A bolt isn't a breech and vice versa. However the term "breech block" (both words included may I emphasise) is generally considered intechangable with bolt. Others experts believe that a bolt and breech-block are different. A bolt's movement axis is parrallel to the barrel while a breech-block's is generally more perpendicular in operation.Veritas Panther 03:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that statement, mostly. I tend to believe that a bolt and a breechblock behave as mentioned in the statement above. I believe that taking a look at some of the old falling block designs illustrates what a "breech block" may typically be. The P90 does not operate on this loading/extraction principle. So, my vote is for "bolt", though it is sort of a semantical argument, really.
JasonM45 11:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

BREECH The rear end of the barrel.

BREECH BLOCK A mechanism which does not operate in line with the axis of the bore, and which is intended to support, properly, the head of the cartridge.

BREECH BOLT The locking and cartridge head supporting mechanism of a firearm that operates in line with the axis of the bore.

BOLT 1. See Breech Bolt.

http://www.saami.org/Glossary/display.cfm?letter=B

From the sporting arms and manufacturers institute.

In practice, Bolt, Breech Bolt and Breech Block are often used interchangeably, however only breech bolt and bolt are indeed interchangeable.

The breech is just the rear end of the barrel and is completely different. Sort of like the opposite of the muzzle.

220.239.88.91 09:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

P90 TR

Is this variant real? so far as I know it exists only as an Airsoft creation by Tokyo Marui, who originally made a standard P90 replica but have since discontinued it and now sell only the TR version. They also make some other unreal variants of real firearms, most noteably the G3 SAS and AK47 Beta Spetznaz, so my suspicions were aroused. I read of the airsoft version being liked except for the sight, which apparently was somewhat susceptible to breakage if hit by BBs, and certain people disliked not being able to mount their own optics on it. The creation of the TR variant addressed these problems and also makes them cheaper to make. Can anyone rule definitively on this?--YourMessageHere 05:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does exist as a real variant of the P90. Jane's Infantry Weapons confirms it. --D.E. Watters 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Refer to the owner's manual....

Call it whatever you want, I'm just using the nomenclature verbatim from the FN owner's manual.

(Metroplex 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

Mexico references

I ask you to follow your own advice and seek out a reference for Mexico because I can't find anything. Koalorka (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am following my own advice, to the extent I can until the language barrier prevents me from going further. I'm not using the wiki page as a source or I'd have entered it as one. I'm just saying that it's passed muster on that page (which I would assume does have fluent editors), so if you asked those editors they might know where the source is. By the way what's unlikely about it, and where and how did you do the search? And why should Mexico be removed? Sourcing is definitely a problem, but if we went strictly by that criteria there would be no list. Westrim (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in any other pages on Mexican Armed Forces, again, this is very simple, no verifiable use, no mention. You don't contribute much to the actual pages discussed, but you certainly make a lot of noise. Perhaps you can find a way to be a little more productive? Koalorka (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You not only didn't answer my question, you answered ones I didn't ask. What other pages on the Mexican Armed Forces are you talking about? The only relevant ones are Mexican Navy and Mexican Army pages. And again, ask the editors of those two pages how they verified it- not speaking Spanish, neither of us are qualified to do so, but they apparently did verify it, since it survived several months and major edits without being removed from either page. I don't contribute anything to those pages, and never said I did, as I know very little about the Mexican military. I only said that you should ask those who do edit it why the P90 is listed. If you don't believe their army or marines use it, then remove them from the list on those pages. Until then, I'm adding it to ours. Westrim (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'm not interested in the quality or accuracy of the other pages. You do not provide a source and I cannot verify the information. 23:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You still aren't answering questions, and are sidestepping the point under discussion, so I'll take a different tack. The two users under discussion do not have references that either of us can verify, due to a language barrier, but to my knowledge most of the other listed users do not have references at all, either here or on the Wikipedia page of the listed weapon user. At the very least, 90% of the list doesn't have references on this article. So if we go ahead and apply the "no listing without a source" principle evenly, the list gets pared down to this [[1]]. It may be best to omit the list entirely, as demonstrated here [[2]], as many weapons articles don't have it anyway. Let me know what you think (but without the shouting in your most recent edit summary or the accusations of breaking 3RR on my talk page, please). Westrim (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Content update

I've made a few changes as laid out here which improve the article flow and make it quantifiably more MoS-compliant (instead of "compliant-by-repeated-assertion", a common argument for why articles should not be edited). A brief summary:

  1. As the section currently headed "development" includes only one line on design other than on ammunition, it has been repurposed as "Ammunition" and moved below the more general details in the following section.
  2. As the current lede is too short, and does not adequately summarise the article, I have expanded it to provide a more complete overview.
  3. Various tweaks, including the removal of curly quotes, further use of {{convert}} for lengths et cetera.

I don't see that any of this is controversial, so unless I'm missing a guidelines somewhere I'm going to replace it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Any takers? If there's no opposition then I'm going to undo the recent revert. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Much opposition. The layout of the article is fine unless you can find a valid reason to amend it, the page in this current version has been around with little to no conflict for over a year. If you have actual content to contribute, by all means, I encourage it, if you are an agitator here to transform the page to your personal vision, you will be contested tenaciously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koalorka (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure that the edits Chris made were really necessary. Firearms articles have a standardized format and it gets confusing if you deviate from that. Chris, looking at your edit history, it appears that you are active outside the firearms articles, however your position does not seem to reflect the community wishes. If you feel strongly about making these changes, abusing Koalorka on his talk page isn't really going to get you anywhere. Try the project page on WP:GUN and see if your edits conform to what we're trying to do there. If not, feel free to lobby on the talk page there to change the accepted format of Firearms pages. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to "abuse" Koalorka, but I'm sorry if I upset him. Anyway, I've left a comment on the WP:GUNS talk page. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken, just trying to preserve other people's hard work, particularly if there's nothing wrong with it. Koalorka (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the draft to reflect the suggestions given on the WikiProject page; I'd appreciate any thoughts. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. My only suggestion would be to replace the phrase "stopping power" with "penetrating ability" and return the characteristics of the 5.7 mm (flatter trajectory etc) into the development portion of the page, since it already goes into detail about the SS190 and SS90 rounds. Otherwise very good. But I also just realized the list of users that you amended earlier will not be practical for our purposes, and will revert it to the old layout. The double column won't work with say the MP5 or G3 articles, and even in the P90 it looks too busy and cluttered. Koalorka (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made the requested changes - I just removed the phrase "stopping power", as "penetrating ability" is included in the next paragraph. I'm going to start migrating my changes over to the article one section at a time, which makes it easier to correct individual changes without rolling the lot back. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the changes to the infobox are unhelpful and go against months of our work in attempting to standardize the template. I don't want to revert you again, so please do it yourself. Absolutely nothing wrong with the current layout. The caption of the photo should also be maintained, because for many other articles we have at times only an image of a later model or variant of the titular base weapon, and the caption is used to properly identify the firearm. For instance, the P90 has variants with IR and laser pointers built into the stock that are difficult to ID with a profile image. Koalorka (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
One more issue I have with step 5. We have a standard of using bold text for derivative variants where first mentioned. Koalorka (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Regarding the infobox edits, which ones are problematic; the use of {{convert}} (which is already in use) or the whitespace changes? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks good now, yes, I was referring to the spaces, the conversion template is fine, it's just that I try to use the one that provides a wiki link to the units with the first set of units, so for example there are 3 different length specs for three different variants, I will use the live link conversion for the first value, then say we have three different weights, the first weight will have an active wiki link as well and so forth. I'm familiar with the MOS:Overlinking guide, but I think at least one active link to the units involved is reasonable for people not familiar with either SI or imperial standards. BTW, good work, the intro is more refined now. Koalorka (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Cheers! I've updated the infobox to use {{convert}} with the lk=on option for the two templates, which preserves the links. I'm glad we got here in the end; here's to more productive collaborations in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Guns are for killing

User:Koalorka has twice reverted an edit of mine. I don't see any reason for Wikipedia to be politically correct. Guns ARE for killing. That's why they're good and valuable. This gun is designed to shoot body-armor-piercing projectiles. Sure, you can fire this gun at a target, and I don't doubt that people do. But the purpose of shooting at targets is to get good at shooting at people. I don't see anything sensationalist about this. So, I think the wording of this article should be:

"...as it had become evident that such weapons were ineffective against people wearing body armour, even with the longer barrel..."

Wikipedia is not censored. If the wording doesn't say that the gun is effective against people wearing body armor, then the entire explanation section about why the gun was developed makes no sense. Wikipedia exists to convey information, not to hide information. RussNelson (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Guns are tools for firing projectiles at high velocity by the rapid burning of gunpower. The VAST majority of the time, they are fired at non-living targets. I'd venture to guess that it's between 10 million and 100 million bullets fired for every person killed. If you don't like THAT fact, why don't you stop editing firearms articles. Your edit is POV in the extreme. --Winged Brick (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
In all these gun articles it would be interesting to know approximately how many people each gun had killed. And incidentally, "Because of this ability to punch through body armor, cartel enforcers call the weapons “matapolicias,” Spanish for “cop killers.”"[3]--Timtak (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the dumbest edit wars I've ever seen. Russ, No one is trying to censor wikipedia or even imply that killing people/animals aren't a guns purpose. Just pointing out that when studying the effect of whether or not a bullet goes through body armor, the majority of data will come from dummies in a testing environment where external variables that could otherwise skew the data can be controlled. Nar Matteru (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, Nar, fine. But look at the wording of that line. Nobody designs weapons so they're betting at shooting armored targets. Why bother putting armor on a target unless you're testing the armor, the projectile, or the gun? Putting armor on a target when its the target you're aiming at is just a waste of good armor. The REASON the gun was devised is because long-barrel pistols didn't work against PEOPLE wearing armor. If you don't say "people" then the reason is inexplicable.
I just read the citation, and it says "adversaries". Can we compromise with that? RussNelson (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm mostly with Nar Matteru on this one. This is the dumbest edit war I've ever seen. "Adversaries wearing body armour" is better than "people wearing body armour" and "targets wearing body armour", but you know what? It really isn't important who or what's wearing the armour. The important part is the armour itself. So I've changed it to just read "body armour". Oh, and I fixed the link too. It should go to Ballistic vest, not Body armour. — NRen2k5(TALK), 14:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor style edits

I really don't want to edit war over this, so in the interests of making my reasoning clear I'm posting here regarding the reasoning behind the recent reverts to the caption and lede paragraphs.

  1. WP:LEDE says that the lede should be split into paragraphs per topic. The first paragraph introduces the article. The second discusses development. The last is usage. That's three different topics, so it should be three paragraphs.
  2. MOS:CAPTIONS says this of image captions: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (sentence fragments) that should not end with a period.". "A P90" is not a sentence, and if other WP:GUNS articles are doing this then they shouldn't be. Either the period should be re-removed, or the caption expanded into an actual sentence.

I don't see that either of these is controversial, so in the interests of following the MoS I'll restore the previous version once the above argument is over. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I stand corrected. Thanks for clearing that up. But I still won't accept sanitized wording for "people" as a shooting target. That is wholly unnacceptable. Koalorka (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that the two aren't mutually incompatible, then. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Country list

Quite a few of these don't have references. Any takers on verifying them? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the countries listed have been verified by me, even though missing refrences, partly because a lot of what I went by was photographs on military forums etc. But I have gutted the list of those I could not verify by any means. Koalorka (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I know certain Philippine security forces use the P90. Problem is it's hard to check them out. I remember seeing an old picture of a Special Action Force operator with the P90. Ominae (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Ominae, you're going to have to do much better than that with the Philippines. It has to be verifiable. The "Filipino Bandit" has poisoned the pot on this one by adding the Phillipines as a user of every firearm known to man. Therefore, in the interest of verifiability, ever entry on the Philippines requires a valid reference. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I know. Dangit, I can't seem to find a good reference these days.... 17:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to look myself as well. Koalorka does a better job at trackning down sources and keeping the users sections honest. And, only one "L"...??? How can I spell "Filipino" right and "Phillipines" wrong? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
You're suppose to remove one L from Philippines. Ominae (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm more confused than ever. Philippines has one "L" and two "P"s. Filipino has one "L" and one "P". They also change the "PH" to an "F". --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The single "L" comes from the Philippines being named after King Philip of Spain, and the second "P" being similar to a suffix added to Philip, resulting in two "P"s. Filipino is due to the nature of the various Filipino languages, and the sounds contained in the name when it is spoken. I don't speak Tagalog, so I'm not an expert on the language, but I believe what I've said is accurate.--LWF (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The mess of USA states and local government using these weapons is total chaos. i will organize into some readable pattern. please feel free to change back into scrambled paragraph form if anyone has a problem. Skiendog (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Origine du P90

S'il est bien reconnu que l'arme et sa munition 5,7mm ont été développées à la F.N. HERSTAL par une équipe pluridisciplinaire réunissant des armuriers et des balisticiens, il convient de noter que deux techniciens en particulier ont apporté une contribution majeure : Il s'agit de René Predazer à qui on doit le développement du chargeur longitudinal placé dans l'axe du canon, et Jean Pol Denis qui a développé la cartouche 5,7mm. Par contre, la référence à un certain Stephane Ferrard présenté comme designer de l'arme est totalement inexacte, cette personne n'étant jamais intervenue à quelque stade que ce soit du projet. (Hermes912 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry, if you're going to come on English Wikipedia, and make the statement that someone other than the stated designer is the actual designer you'll do better if you can raise this question in English. I'm sorry, but most people don't speak French, or are like myself, and can't remember the French they had learned.--LWF (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
René Predazzer holds the patent for the P90's magazine: US Patent #4,905,394. Jean-Paul Denis and Marc Neuforge hold the patent for the original SS90 projectile: US Patent #5,012,743. I can't find any US or International patents held by Stéphane Ferrard. A Google search for Ferrard (not mentioning the P90) indicates that he is a defense journalist, author, and museum curator. Searches related to the P90 are either mirrors or derivatives of this article --D.E. Watters (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
While my French is so rusty I can't translate "no", Google translator seems to say that everybody here agrees: Hermes912 is trying to say that Ferrard was not involved. See translation here? I've removed him from the article. --Winged Brick (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Strange, let me re-read my source.... Koalorka (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, I did get that part. The claim is that Stephen Ferrard was never involved in the design process, and that Rene Predazer designed the magazine, and Jean Pol Denis designed the cartridge.--LWF (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Project 90

There seems to be a fair amount of undo button-stabbing regarding this. The source says:

Ironically, however, the P90 was not named for the year of its initial production, but rather for FN's "Project 9.0" which spawned it.

Firstly, that's Project 9.0 and not Project 90. Secondly, it seems to go out of its way to refute the claimed link between the number and the year. Is there another source which can clear this up? No offence to the contributing editors, but it'd be better for readers to be able to verify for themselves that the article's facts were right by checking them against their sources than to rely on WP editors having vouched for the information being correct even where the source contradicts it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon

I have added Lebanon to the operators. After a long discussion with Nukes4Tots we agreed to include Lebanon while fact tag it. Basically we have photos as reference, but because photos are not considered an solid proof on Wikipedia, we are requesting text references.

You can check the following photos for the Lebanese Republican Guard Brigade during the military parade on Lebanon's independence day

Regards --Zaher1988 · Talk|Contributions 09:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

merge with ps90

I think this article should be merged with the ps90, since the ps90 is a semi auto variant of the p90. I don't know how, i don't think i have the authority either, but thats wat i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krasilschic (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but that's been done over half a year ago.. Koalorka (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

woops. sorry.--Krasilschic (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Media Usage

Would it be worth noting that off-world teams in the Sci-Fi series Stargate SG1 (and Atlantis) make almost exclusive use of the P90 as a personal earth-technology weapon (as opposed to the sci-fi/fantasy weapons created for the show. One episode in particular serves to highlight the abilities (accurately?) of the weapon when used by a skilled operator. Media clip here: http://www.d3lf.net/p90/media.htm ‘Stargate:SG1’ Sam Carter demonstrates the ability of the FN P90 to the rebel Jaff'r. (clip from Series 5, episode 18 - The Warrior) Filesize: 10.37mb Length: 2m 58s Size: 320x240 Video codec: wmv 9, 400k/s bitrate, 25fps Audio codec: wma 9, 44khz, 16bit, stereo

Thistledowne (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms has some guidelines at WP:GUNS#Pop culture. In short, unless the fictional content in question can be proven to have had a demonstrable real-world impact on the subject's perception, then it shouldn't be included. While there are certainly lots of people who think of the P90 as the "Stargate gun" or the "GoldenEye gun", it hasn't been proven to have impacted popular perception. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly a better weapon than Raknor's staff, it must be the teflon-coated magazine. Koalorka (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
How does one demonstrate real world impact? It is surely more notable that SG-1 uses it, than the Bryan Police department. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Except one is fiction and the other (Bryan police department) is not. Fiction must be particularly notable to be included in the article. ROG5728 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I click the link to the pop culture guidelines on firearms, and it must have changed since april 2009, because it says nothing about real world impact on the gun's perception. I agree that fiction must be more notable than non-fiction, as a movie and television franchise is very notable.67.176.160.47 (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Citations are needed if the notability of an appearance is disputed; these citations should not be a list of appearances but should be a source actually showing increased fame or notoriety because of the appearances."

ROG5728 (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on. We have been over the stargate thing at least ten times now, and pop culture as a whole easily over 100 times. Every time consensus was that stargate was irrelevant in this article. Also, about demonstrating real world impact; I would say that a reliable source, not associated in any way with stargate, that was writing an article or speaking about the P90 and mentioned stargate, would be a good example of its notability.
Since Wikipedia is not the place for this, why don't you go contribute to the imfdb, where the whole wiki is about this stuff. — DanMP5 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not on a mission to get stargate added to this article. of course if this is an issue that constantly reoccurs, that may be evidence that it should be relevant. anyway, I just wanted to know what "demonstrating real world impact." meant. I now fully understand the reasons why it is not part of the article. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this article a reliable source? [6] 210.49.66.141 (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, not to fan the flames but, after a quick search, I've found 2 more articles that mention Stargate, the P90 and seem to be reliable sources, including one from FNH USA: [7], [8] [SCΛRECROW]CrossCom 2.0 09:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, finally some actual sources. It seems that stargate has had at least some impact on the P90 beyond the realm of actual stargate fans. In fact, with those sources I believe it could be notable enough for a single sentence similar to the one in question in the Law and Order magazine. I'll let others weigh in. — DanMP5 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, neither of those references is more than trivial. I am honestly astounded that a better RS hasn't showed up yet - given how many fanboys both Stargate and the P90 have you'd think someone would have written about the impact of the weapon in the series in a reliable publication by now. But until we can reference it to something which is both reliable and non-trivial we should stand our ground here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the Heckler & Koch MP7 a bullpup competitor to the FN P90?

Is the Heckler & Koch MP7 a comparable competitor to the FN P90? The H&K MP7 article says so but I see no mention of it in this article. Also, is the Heckler & Koch MP7 a bullpup design? That is not mentioned in the H&K article while it is discussed explicitly in this article. I don't know a lot about either firearm, so will leave it to other editors to weigh in. N2e (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not bullpup, but neither is the p90. I believe both guns serve different purposes, so I don't believe they compete much.72.199.100.223 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The P90 is a bullpup firearm by the definition used here. It's a firearm configuration in which both the action and magazine are located behind the trigger and alongside the shooter's face. Even FN Herstal has referred to the P90 as a bullpup firearm. In fact, I'm not aware of any reliable external source that says the P90 isn't a bullpup firearm. As for the Heckler & Koch MP7, it's not a bullpup firearm but it's still comparable to the P90 in several aspects. That is why the MP7 is listed in See Also section of the P90 article. ROG5728 (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ft. Hood Incident

I put a reference to the Ft. Hood shooting in the ammunition section and it was deleted, noting that the entry had already been made in the article on the Five Seven. I think that was a mistake. It is irrelevant to this article that the ammunition is controversial, which is the gist of the entry regarding the Five Seven. As a starting point, I don't think it's particularly controversial and I don't care if it is. However, the article here discusses the disputed stopping power of the 5.7x28mm round, and on that point the fact that a single individual firing 5.7x28mm ammunition took down 43 people in a short period of time is rather compelling real-world evidence regarding that point of contention, on which little hard evidence exists, and for that reason I think it should remain in the article. 164.144.232.10 (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, however this is the P90 article, not the Five-Seven or 5.7x28mm article. References to the Ft. Hood shooting in the discussion of the stopping power of the ammunition should be presented in the relevant Five-Seven or 5.7x28mm articles. [SCΛRECROW]Cross-Com 2.0 02:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Not only are the ballistics of the 5.7x28 very different when coming out of a Five seven and a P90, I don't think this is a good example of "confirming the lethality of the round". While Hasan managed to shoot 43 people, many of them 3 or more times; only 13 were killed. One person was shot a total of six times and survived[9]. In my opinion, these aren't very good numbers to disprove the concerns about the rounds performance. Of course this is only my opinion, and it seems to only be your opinion that it does. However, if you can find a reliable source supporting your position, you can go ahead and add it to the 5.7x28 or Five seven article. — DanMP5 05:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
A high number of wounded survivors isn't unusual in these cases. The Virginia Tech massacre resulted in more deaths than this case but that shooter was not shot by police, and he fired about twice as many rounds as Hasan. The Columbine massacre resulted in a similar number of dead and wounded to this case but lasted much longer (~1 hour vs a few minutes) and involved two shooters. Each of those shooters also individually fired roughly the same number of rounds as Hasan fired. At the rate Hasan was going, one hour of shooting would have resulted in an overwhelming number of deaths. Also it's currently estimated that the shooter fired ~100 rounds, so with ~50 total victims it isn't possible many of them were directly shot 3+ times. Essentially each victim would be shot on average 2 times. This is assuming he never missed. The details so far have also indicated that most of the survivors were shot in non-vital areas. Some were only hit by shrapnel or grazed. We don't know where Shawn Manning was shot six times. Either way, many of the Columbine kids survived multiple shots to the neck, head, chest, etc. Police and medical response was very fast (much faster) in the Fort Hood incident. Overall, it can't be disputed that the shooter did an overwhelming amount of damage in a very short timespan. With that said, I do NOT think that this information belongs in the P90 article. ROG5728 (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:FN P90/Archive 1/GA1

Users table

I'm not too keen on the arrangement of users into a table. Enclosing this information in a table removes a lot of details surrounding the procurement dates, processes, distribution of weapons etc. Expanding a table is also considerably more difficult for non-wiki literate users who wish to contribute information. From what I have also seen, most gun articles do not use tables, but open lists. 99.232.219.131 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case, the users list is far too big to be easily readable in the usual format. The table format is more easily readable, especially in cases where one country (such as Belgium or the United States) has many entries. The procurement dates and most of the details are still included in the table. ROG5728 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

users

the user list includes towns with less than 6,000 people. is that notable? couldn't these all be listed under "various local police" State police, and maybe the police of a major city, but why list every police department that uses it. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The users list is a list of organizations using the weapon, and any non-fictional organization is sufficiently notable. The size of the town is irrelevant. In some cases, the organizations in smaller towns have even used the weapons in shootings, while other larger organizations have not. For example, Duluth police department has used the FN Five-seven in at least one shooting, while the US Secret Service has not. ROG5728 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
the size indicates notability. obviously it doesn't determine it. So if me and my buds start a gun club a buy a p90, is that notable? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
mainly the reason that I don't think every jurisdiction should be listed, is because we can't. if there was a notable event with a p90, then that should be part of the article, but not in the list of users. of course, I don't think it is the case with smgs, but with side arms, individuals are often allowed to choose from a large variety of firearms, therefore, actually being discharged could mean, one person uses it, or that it is standard issue. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, some of the tiny organizations have used the weapons more frequently than other large organizations. The size of the town where the organization is located is utterly irrelevant. Your gun club would not be notable for purchasing the P90 because your gun club is not a military or law enforcement organization. ROG5728 (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the notability comes from the notability of the user, and how it was used. for example John Allen Muhammad is one man, not an organization, but his use of the Bushmaster XM-15 is very notable. I would also like to note that the Glock pistol article does not list all the police forces that use that sidearm. Anyway, NYPD is more notable than a small town police department, and that is because of size, anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the firearm project guidelines, John Allen Muhammad's use of said weapon isn't noteworthy because it didn't significantly increase the weapon's notoriety. Even if it was notable, it would have to be added elsewhere in the article because it would not be appropriate to include it in a list of military and law enforcement organizations that use the weapon. The Glock pistol users list does not go into as much detail as the P90 users list partly because the Glock pistol is much more widely used. ROG5728 (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

I have added this topeer review here.

CoercorashTalkContr. 10:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's a P90.

What!? No mention of it's usage on the Stargate series!?! --TiagoTiago (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(this is going to sound noobish, but what the hell) I do remember reading somewhere that when Stargate came along, a lot of people thought it was not a real weapon, and got it some attention. It was a long time ago, but I will try to find the source. BrickBreak (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
There's no Stargate mention because after years of asking nobody has been able to come up with a reliable, non-trivial secondary source which indicates that the P90 is in some way associated in popular culture with SG-1. Simply being in it is not enough to warrant inclusion, per the tests at WP:POPCULTURE. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, several modified prop versions of the P90 have made an appearance in Doctor Who. Off the top of my head: the episode "The Doctor's Daughter" (Link). Not sure if it counts, though. --80.7.248.15 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Straight blowback or short recoil barrel?

I thought P90 uses straight blowback, but there is strange part in the text (Design): 

The P90 is a selective fire straight blowback-operated weapon with a short recoiling barrel and fires from a closed bolt.

There are three references for this sentence, but I think it is a lie. P90 uses straight blowback.Zaqq (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is straight blowback and the sources say that. A short recoiling barrel is never mentioned in the sources so I don't know where that text came from. ROG5728 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It's delayed blowback, the barrel recoils. It's "locked" temporarily to the bolt via cartridge pressure, as in the Five seven pistol. 203.59.35.6 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sources

There were recently a relatively large deletion of a lot of the existing source citations from this article. Sources should not be removed just to "remove clutter." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and requires that the stuff we say here is verifiable. The other recent changes are fine; but the citations supporting many claims should not be deleted unless the claim the citation supports is also deleted. Mvialt (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edits more closely, the citations were moved to a new column in the table. In the cases where I removed citations to reduce clutter, I retained several other citations that support the same information. Everything in the table is still supported by a verifiable source -- see the reference column. ROG5728 (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your clear and kind response. I will look at the edits more thoroughly on another day when I have more time. In the meantime, I'm fine with the source removal based on your claim that every item in the tables are actually sourced by the remaining sources that have been left. Mvialt (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Caldwell Borough, NJ police department

The source in question says that the Sparta, NJ police department, not the Caldwell Borough, NJ police department, uses the P90. Furthermore, the Sparta, NJ police department is already listed in the table as a user (actually, the IP editor who added Caldwell Borough to the table simply copied the citation from Sparta's entry in the table). ROG5728 (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. Remove it then. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Feed issues?

There is nothing here indicating that it has feed issues due to it's magazine. Was this article written by a fan-boy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.183.102 (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The P90 magazine does not have feed issues. That was a myth created by HKPro (and perpetuated by people who don't know any better). ROG5728 (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Assault Rifle?

The introduction reads "could be classed as a compact assault rifle" This is erroneous as the 5.7x28 (as well as the 4.6x30, 7.92 VBR, etc.) is an armor-piercing 9mm replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.163.20 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

HKPRO

I deleted a citation to HKPRO.com. It is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles because its articles are anonymously posted and there's no discernible editorial review process. See WP:V for general rules, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#HKPRO/ hkpro.com for a specific discussion of this source. Rezin (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FN P90. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 external links on FN P90. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on FN P90. 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) 21:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FN_P90/Archive_1&oldid=1248625803"