Talk:Owen gun

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Owen gun article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal Owen gun is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / South Pacific / World War II / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Better photo please

Can someone please add a good photo or graphic of the Owen so those of us not familiar with it can compare it to other firearms?

Article moved; not

Why on earth has this been moved? Owen Gun was and is the common name.Grant65 (Talk) 10:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

It hasn't been moved, check the history! I merged a lesser article "Owen Gun" into this article and turned the other into a redirect. GraemeLeggett 17:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme, I really think the redirect should be reversed. I've never seen or heard the name "Owen machine carbine" in official war histories, academic histories or in popular culture. It is always the Owen Gun, and there is no danger of confusion.Grant65 (Talk) 13:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Try these links http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/weapons/owen/owen.htm and http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/omc.htm but I understand what you're saying and we can do the rearrangement, the Sten machine carbine is under Sten after all. GraemeLeggett 13:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the above discussion, I have now requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves that the article be moved to Owen Gun. Grant65 (Talk) 13:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Unnecessary disambiguation removed. Dragons flight 01:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most strange the edit of the 2nd Oct didnt show in my watchlist. No move tag temlate either! GL

MCEM 1 Submachine gun relation?

Did the Owen gun lead to the MCEM 1 SMG?, Just asking since it has a similar layout User:EX STAB, 2nd April 2007

72-Round Magazine?

I've read references to, and seen pictures of, a 72-round magazine for this submachine gun. If we had more specifics, it might be an interesting piece of information to briefly mention. [1][2] Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo caption.

A minor point. I believe the soldier on the right is a from the Dutch KNIL. The gent on the left is Australian. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both are identified (by name) as Australians of the 19th Btn in the Offical AWM caption Baska436 (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any proof of American military use?

It seems highly unlikely that a conventional American military unit would have used a 9mm weapon during the Second World War, Korea, or Vietnam. Is there any proof of this? Unconventional units may have access to weapons that would not be GI but that should not come under an article implying American use. Foofbun (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it seems incredibly unlikely that it was ever officially adopted by the US. I have read of accounts of individual GIs trading for Owens, but that would certainly not qualify. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot of improvement and expert attention

In the past few years I have seen at least two whole books written about the Owen gun. One I did read was "The Owen gun files: an Australian wartime controversy" by Kevin Smith. the other was "the Owen Gun" by Wayne Wardman.

This article seems to be based on the commonly repeated wartime myths of the Owen, myths that were officially endorsed to boost wartime morale and later to push partisan politics.

Just off the top of my head: -The bit about the army dismissing Owen's invention in 1939 is partly true, but in all fairness the prototype he showed them was little more than a well made zip-gun with a spring operated "cylinder" full of .22 cal cartridges (not a Thompson-style "drum magazine").The "trigger" was a push button at the rear of the breech.needless to say no safety.

-It took a lot of work by Lysaghts and a professional german-trained gunsmith they brought in to make a viable weapon. Owen apparently had unconvential engineering ideas, quickly lost interest and had an alcohol problem that apparently worsened when he felt he was being "sidelined" by Lysaghts

-One of the prototypes was in .32 ACP thanks to a large stockpile of ammo in that calibre held by the Victoria Police Dept.

-One of the test guns in the "mud test" was a German MP-38 that customs had seized. I'm not sure a Sten was involved at all. Benvenuto (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add material from these books into the article? Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't currently have access to themBenvenuto (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'This was very important to the Australian Army.'

This sentence at the bottom of the fourth paragraph in the history section needs some clarification. Is it regarding the adoption of the 9mm round, the rifle in general, of that it surpassed the other guns in the trial? Someone with greater knowledge needs to clear up this sentence.--Monkofbob (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

There are two articles (MCEM 1 submachine gun & Kokoda submachine gun) about firearms that appear to be related this firearm. Rather than outright deleting those articles, I propose that the articles be merged here (what can be supported by reliable sourced of course) and redirects from those former articles be directed to this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any reliable sources at all which prove that these weapons exist, I'll agree. However, I was unable to find anything of the sort, and the articles appear to be hoaxes. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will drop MCEM, and support the PROD, I could not find any reliable sources regarding it's existance.

I have found 1 mention of the Kokoda submachine gun in a book that cannot be read online via Google Books:

Ezell, Edward Clinton (1977). Small arms of the world: a basic manual of small arms. Stackpole Books. p. 671. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EL

One EL has been persistently added, a 20 second video showing that the Owen remains functional when covered in mud. WP:LINKSTOAVOID states that "the site [being linked to] should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." The design section of this article already mentions specifically that the Owen can function when covered in mud, and already details its reliability in a considerable level of detail, and so I'd consider the addition of this EL rather unnecessary. Loafiewa (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respectfully disagree, the video clip from 1942 is very graphic evidence of this capability and gives comprehensive and contemporaneous visual proof of the Owen's unique ability to function after full submersion in mud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathat906 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not any more comprehensive than the other sources and prose in the article, which already explain that the Owen is capable of functioning under this exact same scenario. And as already stated, a link should not be added if it only repeats information that is already in the article.Loafiewa (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think independent dispute resolution is now required. In my view a link to a contemporaneous wartime video demonstrating this capability, (which is more or less unique in weapons of this type), is helpful to those accessing a Wikipedia article for information about the Owen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathat906 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and requested a third opinion. Loafiewa (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently no argument to include the link. Cathat906's statement amounting to little more than "I think it's useful." This does not address the clear meaning of the ELNO failing referred to. I see no reason to retain the link. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC) I will be more specific, watching a short contemporaneous wartime video that demonstrates a unique capability is more valuable than a written reference. That is what makes Wikipedia different from 20th century text encyclopedias and why Wikipedia allows links to video material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathat906 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia allows links to video material, but only under certain circumstances, and WP:ELNO explains why this is not one of them. Loafiewa (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]