Brigadier General James Monroe Williams

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 / North America / United States / Post-Cold War C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force

Nice job on the page. I see quite an extensive list of handguns on the page List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces#Sidearms. Perhaps you can find some important ones here, or maybe correctly identify ones already listed? --Deon Steyn 10:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if one can classify anything anything from the Civil War period (or earlier) as a "service pistol", because there doesn't seem to a single military service for one thing and more importantly there was many different handguns being used (seemingly even within one wing of the armed services). Perhaps the list should include only the first real single standardised handgun... not sure what that would be though? Deon Steyn 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tough one, especially since the list could technically be enormous, covering every variation on the Navy Colt cap & ball revolver and almost every modern 9mm Semi-Auto. I'm trying to compromise between completeness, readability, and practicality here- and for NPOV reasons it seemed important to mention the LeMat, which was the closest thing the Confederate States had to a "Service Pistol", even though it wasn't all that widely issued. I'm not a US military weapons expert, but it would seem that the first gun issued to EVERYONE was the Colt M1911A1, but even then there were people using Colt and S&W .45 revolvers until well after WWII, and even now it seems every branch of the US military uses a different gun. --Commander Zulu 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently changed the Beretta 92 pages. They are now consolidated onto only 1 page (Beretta 92), but the M9 Pistol remains (and rightly so in my opinion). On the single page it mentions the historical and current variants as well as the specific version (92G) adopted by the French military. The Italian military might also have adopted a difference version to the 92FS, but I don't information one way or the other. --Deon Steyn 11:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The data listed seem suited to tables, perhaps something like this (for Russia):

Firearm	Type	Caliber	Service
Smith & Wesson No 3	Revolver	.44 Russian	1874-1895
Nagant M1895	Revolver	7.62x38R	1895-1945
Tokarev TT-33	Pistol	7.62x25 Tokarev	1933-1955
Makarov PM	Pistol	9mm Makarov	1951-Present

Deon Steyn 11:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you (Commander Zulu) have added it to the page? Shall I do the conversion of the rest (so we don't duplicate work)? -- Deon Steyn 12:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I just did it... but thanks very much for the excellent suggestion and the link to the US weapons! I'm pretty sure there's another French gun between the MAB D and the Beretta M92FS, but I just can't for the life of me remember what it is... --Commander Zulu 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job... other things we can look at:

• removing indent ":" left-over from talk page formatting.
• perhaps edition of style="width:450px" to create consistent size (might lead to other problems though)?
• Only linking first occurence of each caliber in a table?
• Wiki standard for things like "8 mm" instead of "8mm".
• On that point, I most commonly see things cartridges in the form "A x B mm" (spaces everywhere)?

I have to confess I tend to use the commercial names for ammunition (being both a collector and a shooter)... for example, most people wouldn't walk into a gunshop and ask for a box of "9x19" cartridges... they'd ask for 9mm Parabellum or 9mm Luger, depending where they lived. I figured it's probably the best balance between accessibility for the casual reader and factual correctness, but I'm more than willing to hear views to the contrary. The Wiki Standard for calibres seems to be X mm, but I just can't quite bring myself to do it... it just looks wrong, in some way I can't put my finger on. Again, I'm willing to accept that my way (Xmm) may not actually be the correct one, though... Agree totally about the only linking the first occurence of each calibre (you can tell I cut and pasted a lot, can't you?) Also, I'd like to expand the "History" section but I really don't know what to say without either getting bogged down in the individual histories of the major service pistols (must... not... talk... about... Webley Revolvers! :D) Any ideas? --Commander Zulu 13:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a tricky one, there is one point in the Manual of style addressing this saying one should have a space before the unit of measurement, see last bullet at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement. As for 9mm Para, I don't mind either way as I see it in all different formats and I'd tend to agree with a preference for the words over "9x19". For the rest I think "A × B mm" or "A mm" would be most standard if not a standard?

As for history, perhaps something on sidearm versus/replacing sword... maybe current state of affairs (who gets them, who don't?).

Deon Steyn 13:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the sword idea, but I'm not really qualified to comment on who gets issued handguns and who doesn't, since I'm not in the military and don't know enough about how they decide that sort of thing. --Commander Zulu 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

I should probably mention that "Calibre" is not a spelling error in Commonwealth English, hence it's usage here. I don't want to get pedantic about the whole thing, but I'm fairly sure the Wikipedia policy is to go with the spelling of the article's creator where possible, so I'd prefer to use the Commonwealth English spelling, unless anyone has any major objections. --Commander Zulu 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct, the spelling should remain as "calibre", see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National varieties of English .Deon Steyn 08:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Mauser Broomhandles

Can anyone provide more information on these? I know the Chinese were VERY fond of the C96 Broomhandle design, but apparently there's some confusion over which pistols were actual Mausers and which were Chinese knock-offs. As far as I'm concerned, the Type 17 .45ACP knockoffs should be considered a "Mauser Broomhandle", but I'm not really an expert on Asian firearms... --Commander Zulu 15:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To confuse things even more, Chinese also used Spanish Astra and Royal pistols, which outwardly resemble C96, but are quite different inside.--81.197.239.57 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Royal MM 31, MM 34
• Astra 900 serie --81.197.239.57 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "BROOM HANDLE" Chinese Variations
• Hanyang "BROOM HANDLE"
• Shansei "BROOM HANDLE" Chinese Variations
• GIANT .45 'BROOMHANDLE'

--81.197.239.57 17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few countries are not listed, even though they do have (a) standard issue sidearm(s).

"Swords are still retained for ceremonial use by most armies, but are never carried into combat in the modern era. The last military to routinely issue swords to officers and NCOs- with the expectation they would see combat- was Imperial Japan." - what about Gurkha regiments? or are they not included, as they are not an entire military force? Nessieliberation 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the Ghurkas are issued with Kukris, which are considered "Knives" rather than swords. Still, if the Ghurkas are in fact issued with swords- with the expectation they will be used in combat- then I'd be more than happy to edit the article accordingly. --Commander Zulu 14:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this page has stated that the designation of "service pistol" starts with early revolvers. I would like to mention that Britain, France, Belgium, Russia, and most other european nations had standardised military pistol designs long before revolvers were common. There are many reproductions of single shot flint lock military pistols available today that represent historic versions. You may want to mention these early single shot pistols.

Prior to WWII, British and Empire Officers were expected to purchase their own service pistols. There were standard designs- to an extent- dating from the late 18th Century, but nothing that could be considered a "Service Pistol" in the sense we know it until the middle of the 19th century, which the advent of cap & ball revolvers. --Commander Zulu 08:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it is my understanding that some non-officer non-combat troops, such as musicians for example, would have been issued a pistol. Thom430 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think "list" better describes what we have here, since it's a little about the concept itself, and the a huge list, rather than the other way around. Plus, I think it'd get more readers with a clearer title. Objections? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A split would be better. The subject itself is interesting and more should be written on it. That most of it consists of a list presently is unfortunate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who has solved that it Soviet POLITICAL officer? Soviet political officer had no any emblems on a collar, but had stars on sleeves (till 1942). This photo in Russia is axiomatic. On it it is represented usual (not the political officer), the simple commander of a infantry platoon in a rank "second lieutenant". Its accessory to command (but not political) is visible to structure from emblems on its collar. Therefore I clean a word «POLITICAL» of the signature under photos. Slow Rider (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is is not a service pistol in law enforcement also? Ought the article be changed to reflect this? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• First-year H&K USP 9mm (32415150000).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a bunch of listings from Canada that was recently added, since they were police sidearms. I've removed similar listings before for Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Perhaps it should be specified that this listing is about MILITARY service pistols? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.252.215.201 (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should reinstate the years old table of service pistols. It clearly defined all service pistols used around the world by each country instead of just being US-centric which wards off international Wikipedia users. 66.26.9.244 (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]