Talk:List of most-produced firearms

Intro essay

The list is worthwhile. However I'm not sure that most of the introduction is helpful. It seems to go beyond reporting the information by offering opinions. Maybe it'd be better in another article, if it can be fully sourced, or just left out. Felsic2 (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Felsic2.

I'm a full-time journalist, so for me an article needs some context and something interesting. The sources quoted in the introduction set out the question of how many small arms are in circulation, which is the stepping-off point for a discussion of which arms have been most heavily produced.

The huge disparity in figures for AK-47 (and derivative) production is apparently due to the "respectable" sources on arms proliferation constantly inflating it in their publications. This is most certainly for political reasons.

I have seen your other message regarding the quality of sources quoted. Could you help me out by listing which ones you think are "self-published"? I have tried to replace the three you mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Tweedie (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I would add that it is only by compiling a list like this that you can really appreciate how production of sporting guns and self-defence handguns rivals that of military weapons. In that sense alone it is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Tweedie (talk • contribs) 22:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It's usually easy to determine which sources are self-published. If it's a one-person blog, if the "About Us" page lists a personal email, if there's no evidence of a corporation or editorial board, if the book is printed by a publisher like Lulu, or if the website looks amateurish, then the presumption is that it does not qualify. Forums and wikis don't qualify either. I gave you three examples on your talk page.

As for the opening essay, it seems to express opinions. Opinions should be attributed to specific persons. "John Smith, an expert in the arms trade, says that..." The fact is that there is really no need to for most of this text in this article. It's a list of the most-produced firearms. More relevant introductory material would be how those numbers are estimated. Felsic2 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Getting better! Felsic2 (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"bullets"

The Oxfam article mentions the production of "bullets", but I am not entirely sure whether they are using the correct terminology or are referring to ammunition. Quoting from the article:

Anna Macdonald, head of arms control campaigning at Oxfam, said: “Guns are useless without bullets; bullets are what turn guns into lethal weapons. It is absolutely essential that the sale of ammunition is included in the treaty and it is far better regulated.

Does she actually mean bullets, or entire cartridges? She seems to not be able to distinguish between the two, as it is not "a bullet" which makes a firearm lethal. You're going to need powder to get it out of the barrel, after all. Thom430 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Musical instrument version

It would be nice to make a similar list that covers musical instruments or instrument families. Does a list like that already exit? --M11rtinb (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of figures

I've added an edited-down version of several paragraphs dealing with the reliability of production figures for the AK-47 and derivatives. I think it's important to point out the wide variation in estimates, and the fact that some are based on inaccurate estimates of the size of certain nations' armed forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Tweedie (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC) James Tweedie (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Citations

I'm very grateful to the users who have helped expand and update the tables. But can I ask that you please insert citations for your figures? Wikipedia has been quite strict with me about this in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Tweedie (talk • contribs) 10:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC) James Tweedie (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"Bullets"

I think Anna MacDonald of Oxfam was just conflating the words 'cartridge' and 'bullet', like many people do. That's not to say that I endorse their claims. If you can find other figures you could add a sentence to that paragraph. James Tweedie (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The Remington 700 is made in 5,3 million copies.

As stated in subject. How can one forget Remington 700. Makes me Wonder about all the Guns forgotten by this list. 84.49.164.87 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

classifications of arms

I think a big issue of this list is that it is far too general in firearm classification. "derivative weapons" is simply far too general to explain historical variations of production. The original AK is not the same as an AK-74, Type 56. Colt M-16 is about as similar to a modern AR-15 as a F1 car to a Honda civic. It is especially incorrect to place the Type 30, Type 38, and Type 99 into the same categories, these were not similar enough. This is will more likely than not make false perceptions and stories of historical arms productions. 2603:8090:1500:384:2D59:50D:F88C:2BDF (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)