| Revision as of 02:16, 26 September 2016 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,312,026 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Ruger Mini-14/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:23, 16 September 2024 edit undoLoVeloDogs (talk | contribs)446 editsm →Suggested reference for AC-556 as NFA on civilian market | ||
| (98 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| |counter = 1 | |counter = 1 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
| |algo = old(60d) | |algo = old(60d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Ruger Mini-14/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Ruger Mini-14/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{talkheader}} | {{talkheader}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
| {{WPGUNS | |||
| {{WikiProject Firearms|importance=high}} | |||
| |class=B | |||
| {{WikiProject Politics| gun-politics = yes}} | |||
| <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> | |||
| }} | |||
| |B-Class-1=yes | |||
| <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> | |||
| |B-Class-2=yes | |||
| <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> | |||
| |B-Class-3=yes | |||
| <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> | |||
| |B-Class-4=yes | |||
| <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | |||
| |B-Class-5=yes | |||
| |importance=high}} | |||
| {{archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=60|search=yes|auto=long}} | {{archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=60|search=yes|auto=long}} | ||
| == Citation 2 == | |||
| ==Is the photo in the Criminal Use section relevant?== | |||
| {{Archive top|result= This RfC was closed because the originator doesn't believe in 'Lost Causes.' Of any kind ] (]) 21:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC) }} | |||
| .... here is the entire RfC discussion... | |||
| Should the "Criminal Use" section contain a photo of the Plaque of the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre victims? | |||
| *'''Remove''' The image has nothing at all to do with the subject matter and adds nothing neutral or relevant to the section. The Mini-14 is a tool. That some people have used the tool criminally is an unfortunate fact and might reasonably be argued to belong in the pagespace. Memorializing the victims of one incident in pagespace about one of the weapons used is inappropriate. The image does seem to be used correctly at the perpetrator's page and at pagespace for the event and the institution. Not here. ] (]) 21:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Remove''' BusterD is right & I really can't say it better. This is an effort to make the rifle accountable, which is usual in the gun control argument. It's wrong in popular media & has no place here. ] ]</font> 21:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Remove:''' I said it before and I'll say it again: The article is about the weapon, not about its overall use in action. This image belongs in an article devoted to the incident. ] (]) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Remove'''. The image is not relevant in that it tells us nothing about the gun. (I am responding via notice placed at WP:NPOVN.) - ] (]) 22:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' Full disclosure: I'm the originator of this RFC. I'd like to thank all the commenters for an excellent exposition of their POVs. However, none of them have tied their expositions to any Misplaced Pages policy or Misplaced Pages guidelines, let alone explained how the image '''violates''' such policies or guidelines. The relevant policy/guideline states, "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." | |||
| :Here's a logical argument for the inclusion of the image. 1)The article contains a section entitled "Criminal Use." 2)The Ecole Polytechnique Massacre is listed in this section. 3)The Ecole Polytechnique Massacre was perpetrated using an M-14. 4)The picture illustrates an outcome of said criminal use. 5)The language of the picture's label describes the connection of points 1 through 4 in neutral language with no "hot" words. I believe this dovetails nicely with the guideline. It illustrates an activity already described in the article and the label states, in clear and neutral language, how it relates to said activity. I hope future comments can address this central issue. ] (]) 23:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 23:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Lets start with the blatant violation of the ]. Your POV pushing has no place in this article, and frankly the fact that all you have done is ] everyone else for inclusion of your exclusively held point of view is extraordinarily ]. We discussed this before, ] said lose the image, and now your ] in ] when you were the only one who lost on the deal. Is there any part of this that rings a bell? Its all there, every argument, and counter argument, every policy approved process to determine that the image shouldn't be in the article. And you should know that this is a dangerous point of view, on pages relating to pro-life movement some four years ago. ], so this time lets try abiding by the official decision to remove the image. ] (]) 04:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let's see. Yes, I was banned four years ago, and almost again last year, in part because of a typing mistake on my part (really, and not trying to duck responsibility for either). So you bring that up to insinuate that my behavior here approaches either of those occasions--which it doesn't. We're a few hours into this process, let's see if I'm alone at the end. If so, too bad. I've stated my argument logically. I notice you didn't try to refute it logically with reference to Misplaced Pages policy. You only labelled my behavior, again without any attempt to describe how my actions here dovetail with the labels. From my point of view, and I suspect others though I won't ] to find them, most of the arguments against the image are POV. And while I don't own anything @ Misplaced Pages, I did initiate this RFC, so please watch your language. ] (]) 05:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Very well then; I'll take your advice and let the RFC speak for me. ] (]) 06:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Remove''' per the ], which states that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." This would be the relevant Misplaced Pages guideline that the above editors would've tied their arguments to if they had decided to devote any time to finding such a common sense policy. It is true that the memorial plaque is indirectly relevant/related to the Ruger Mini-14. However the plaque neither mentions nor depicts the gun (for good reason), and thus adds nothing to the article besides an appeal to emotion. Since the plaque at least a step removed from the subject matter of the article, I don't find it credible that it can be seen as "significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The massacre is linked, and the plaque is rightfully there. I'll also note that the above discussion seems to have come to a consensus, but the opener of this RfC didn't like it and started this thread, a textbook example of ]. ---- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Remove''' (well, it is removed, but please don't include it). I don't see that it is significantly related to the topic of the article. The plaque does not depict the weapon, and at least one other weapon was used in the assault. In addition, the material in the Criminal Use section is not properly sourced with page numbers, and indeed, one statement is not sourced at all. Consequently, this section conceivably violates ]. ] ] 17:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Closed''' I'd like to be completely honest about the reasons for closure, but that would be ''much'' more stupid than going up against organized ideologues was in the first place. Now I'm going to get my m-14 and do some long range prairie dog hunting. ] (]) 21:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
| *Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2001/Nov/Focus_on.htm | |||
| *Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5835&return=Y | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090608193505/http://www.surrey.police.uk:80/about/firearms.asp to http://www.surrey.police.uk/about/firearms.asp | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The ''National Defense Magazine'' link is coming back dead. ] ]</font> 22:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Is the '']'' TV show of greater importance than the ]? == | |||
| How come we have a section devoted to this firearms use on a fictional TV show but no mention of a very famous use in real life? ] (]) 18:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :If there's no objection I'll restore the weapon's use in some famous mass shootings. ] (]) 22:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Given the recent edits to the page I would guess that there are objections and you shouldn't restore the material without discussion. ] (]) 22:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Seeing as this is a discussion page, this is my effort at a discussion. ] (]) 23:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::The two items aren't connected. If the A-Team mention doesn't meet ] and relevant guidelines, then propose removing it on that basis alone. Trying to piggyback your preferred info onto its inclusion isn't really a good argument. - ] (]) 00:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you support the inclusion of the ''A-Team''? Do you object to inclusion of real life notable events? ] (]) 00:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| The link for citation 2 is dead ] (]) 10:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't support the activities of sock puppets, per WP policies, which is why I reverted the diff you linked to above. You haven't given a valid reason for re-including that info, nor have you given a valid reason for removing the A-Team info. - ] (]) 00:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure which ref you meant, as #2 didn't actually have a hyperlink, but it was also one of multiple refs citing the same book, so I have combined them (which does include a link now). I hope this is what you were suggesting. - ] (]) 16:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::He was referring to the first of two refs I removed in (on account of being self-published web forums), so I guess we don't need to worry about it being a dead link anymore. ] (]) 20:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == RUC was still using at least some of these rifles post-1995 == | |||
| :::::The "valid reason" for including the criminal use material is that it is widely reported information about the subject of the article. It is certainly more noted than the use of the weapon in an American TV show. If there's no one registering an objection I'll restore it. ] (]) 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I was in Belfast in 1999 and observed two RUC officers with Mini-14GBs. I am quite familiar with the Mini-14, and was close enough that there was absolutely no doubt that these were Mini-14s. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::::The last two items weren't properly sourced, so be sure to include reliable sources for all the claims made. - ] (]) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :That's great to hear, but unfortunately, your word is not exactly a ]. You wouldn't happen to have any newspaper articles, etc. to back this up? - ] (]) 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Got it. ] (]) 22:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Given the number of times this information has been removed from the article please get consensus for the addition before adding it. ] (]) 02:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Since I started this thread 12 days ago no one's posted any objection to including the Breivik material. The discussion has been open and I haven't rushed to make an edit. ] (]) 00:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Please see . The exact edits that you want to make have just been reverted 10 times by 5 different editors resulting in IP user 86.153.166.89 being blocked. And, as you are fully aware of this, even commenting on said users talk page, don't pretend that there are no objections and restore the edits. --] (]) 00:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see anyone, from either side, discussing those edits. An unproductive edit war shouldn't affect the content of the article. The edits seem to have been reverted because they were made by a banned sock, not because of the material itself. ] (]) 01:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well then lets make it official...'''I object to and oppose''' the addition of a "criminal use" or body count or what ever you want to call it section, to the Mini-14 page.--] (]) 01:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This isn't a vote. You need to provide reason, preferably based on actual Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Please see ], my essay discussing some commonly made arguments. ] (]) 01:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::At the top of the page there is a discussion that is related to the material in question. I see this in the same light as the Chevy Caprice material you added ]. Yes, the crime is clearly significant but that doesn't mean the gun in question was impacted by it's use in the crime. ] (]) 01:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{ping|Springee}} The discussion at ] above seems to overwhelming favor inclusion, five to one. Cars anf guns are different. The more comparable article would be ]. ] (]) 14:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It isn't a vote, but the addition having been challenged, you need a consensus before you can reintroduce the content. At this point, I join {{U|RAF910}} in opposing it, and neither they nor I need to convince you of or even share with you our reasons for doing so. The onus is on you to achieve consensus, not on us to tell you why you don't have it. See ]. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 01:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks for pointing me to ]. Here's some of what it says: | |||
| ::::::::*''Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines....A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. '' | |||
| ::::::::If you don't raise any "proper concerns" then there's no way of taking them into account. | |||
| ::::::::*''In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.'' | |||
| ::::::::How much weight should we give to an argument based on undisclosed arguments? Based on that policy, the answer appears to be "no weight whatsoever". | |||
| ::::::::*'' The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Misplaced Pages; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately'' | |||
| ::::::::What would be an acceptable compromise? ] (]) 14:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| There can be '''No Compromise''' as there is '''NO Encyclopedic value''' to adding a gratuitous body count to this page or any other page on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps you should read ], ] & ].--] (]) 14:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::If your standard is "encyclopedic value" then can you please provide an objective definition? What is "encyclopedic value"? ] (]) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I don't have to answer any of your questions. It is enough that '''I oppose your position'''. Perhaps you should read ] as well. --] (]) 15:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::]: ''The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.'' If you want your objection to carry any weight it must have reasoned arguments. ] (]) | |||
| This discussion is going nowhere. Enough is enough...If you think that you have consensus, then make the edits and live with the consequences.--] (]) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :What I haven't seen is anyone provide a reasoned argument against inclusion. I don't know what "consequences" there would be for making an edit. What are you talking about? ] (]) 15:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Conversely, I haven't yet seen you make a reasoned argument ''for'' inclusion of the information that has been challenged (which is what you are expected to do in order to build consensus for a change, not just gripe that no one's given you a good reason to not include it). As a start, you could identify other articles concerning assault weapons that include a digest of criminal incidents in which that particular weapon was used. So far, I haven't found one. Since other editors will be expected to help keep such a list up to date, they have a right to understand why you think it will be valuable that they do so. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 17:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::As for your argument that "it is widely reported information about the subject of the article", I'd hazard a guess that very few of the reports you were referring to were focused on the model of weapon used in the incidents. If you can find an article that suggests that the Mini 14 is so disproportionately used in such incidents that it is by itself a notable factor in the incidents, and why, then I might agree. Otherwise this information will be primarily of technical interest to arms dealers and aficionados (perhaps along with terrorists who want to emulate Breivik), not to the average reader of the encyclopedia. The average reader will likely find such "scorekeeping" offensive in light of the loss of life in the incidents you propose to list. (I know I do.) <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 18:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, though I'll also note that no one has offered any support for the ''A-Team'' mention. Other articles don't really matter, per ], right? Even so, there are numerous articles about weapons, explosives, posions, etc, that mention notable assoicated deaths. Here are a few: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (Note these edits and summaries: ), and many more. If those article can mention deadly uses, why not this one? | |||
| :::One of the main content policies, and the only one that discusses what should be in an article, is ]. One part, ], says that articles should reflect issues discussed in reliable sources, proportionate to their prominence. In other words, if a matter has been discussed in many sources then it shouldn't be excluded. | |||
| :::Breivik's use of this firearm is far more noteworthy than its use in Bermuda or Rhodesia. If we want to remain neutral, we should report each user with the weight given by sources using a consistent, objective standard. | |||
| :::Information on the historical significance of this firearm is of interest to general readers. The material of interest to enthusiasts and professionals, which are not the intended audience, probably includes minute details like weight, length, obscure variants, and so forth. | |||
| :::We include information whether it's pleasant or unpleasant. Misplaced Pages isn't censored. We have long articles on Breivik and his crime. That means Misplaced Pages is already "scorekeeping" whether we like it or not. Major crimes are of intense interest to the public and also to scholars. In excluding this material, the article is excluding the views of priminent mainstream sources. ] (]) 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If no one has a policy-based objection I'll go ahead and post a mention of the Breivik attack. ] (]) 11:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], ] and while you are reading please review ]. ] (]) 21:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggested reference for AC-556 as NFA on civilian market == | |||
| == Criminal Use revert? == | |||
| Requesting citation here due to COI. | |||
| ] please, what is your reason for reverting my edits ? My edits seem in accord with the guidelines and other articles. Would you have better wording? | |||
| Last sentence under ], suggesting this citation as proof that the AC-556 is still circulating on the civilian NFA market (item #20 on source's list): | |||
| "By that time, some models became available for private civilian purchase in the NFA market.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.guns.com/news/2014/03/10/ruger-ac556-totally-legal-totally-full-auto-mini-14-video|title= RUGER AC556: THE TOTALLY LEGAL, TOTALLY SELECT FIRE MINI 14 (VIDEO)|date=March 10, 2014|access-date=April 24, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gunbroker.com/c/article/22-most-expensive-guns-sold-on-gunbroker-in-february-2024/#foogallery-75603/p:5|title= 22 Most Expensive Guns Sold on GunBroker in February 2024|date=March 10, 2014|access-date=April 24, 2020}}</ref>" ] (]) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| After I scanned the discussion in this talk page, I did not make the same edits as the IP you mentioned. No "body counts", no repeat of the incident descriptions, which I don't think need to be repeated in this article, used neutral wording, not imflammatory, (to me) added criteria for 2 incidents, following the https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use guidelines, as I understand them, and applied my edits in the similar text pattern, I believe, as I read in these articles; ], ], ] | |||
| :Adding to this, another was sold on 30 June 2024 for $17,802.77 (items #8, #13, & #19 on https://www.gunbroker.com/c/article/25-most-expensive-guns-sold-on-gunbroker-in-june-2024/). This and the https://www.gunbroker.com/c/article/22-most-expensive-guns-sold-on-gunbroker-in-february-2024/ could also be used as references to the value of the models in civilian circulation. ] (]) 19:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, I did not clarify the talk page in my edit comment. I was referring to comments in the WP:Guns project talk page, and did read the discussion in this talk page first. Now if I did, I did not mean to irritate you or anyone; and have no agenda, my interest is building an encyclopedia. I think uses, good and bad, belong in this article, like other articles and subjects, in an encyclopedia. | |||
| I only listed 2 incidents instead of the original 4 incidents since only 2 seemed appropriate to me to be in this article after my research. Thank you,] (]) 16:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| ''Project page talk page excerpts I was referring to in my edit comment:Draft Example: Notoriety: The Mini 14 was used in the: 1986 FBI Miami shootout, École Polytechnique Massacre, Byron_David_Smith_killings and Utoya mass shooting incidents."CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC) That'd be sensible. Felsic2 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I would support a bulleted list of article links for incidents (both positive and negative) with notability sufficient for separate[REDACTED] articles. See Also might be a more neutral list title option than Notoriety or Popular culture. Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| '' | |||
| ::Just like the ]...Perhaps you should read ]. The person adding the information has to convince his follow editors that the information has encyclopedic value, not the other way around. And, '''I object to adding a body count to this article.''' If you don't understand my position, then read ]. I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time...This time I recommend that you actually read the WP pages. Especially, as those same edit were just reverted 10 times by 5 different editors, resulting in an IP user being blocked and the Mini-14 page being protected.--] (]) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:23, 16 September 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruger Mini-14 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Citation 2
The link for citation 2 is dead Marthfox6040 (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which ref you meant, as #2 didn't actually have a hyperlink, but it was also one of multiple refs citing the same book, so I have combined them (which does include a link now). I hope this is what you were suggesting. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- He was referring to the first of two refs I removed in this edit (on account of being self-published web forums), so I guess we don't need to worry about it being a dead link anymore. Loafiewa (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
RUC was still using at least some of these rifles post-1995
I was in Belfast in 1999 and observed two RUC officers with Mini-14GBs. I am quite familiar with the Mini-14, and was close enough that there was absolutely no doubt that these were Mini-14s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.51 (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's great to hear, but unfortunately, your word is not exactly a reliable source. You wouldn't happen to have any newspaper articles, etc. to back this up? - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Suggested reference for AC-556 as NFA on civilian market
Requesting citation here due to COI. Last sentence under Ruger_Mini-14#AC-556, suggesting this citation as proof that the AC-556 is still circulating on the civilian NFA market (item #20 on source's list):
"By that time, some models became available for private civilian purchase in the NFA market." LoVeloDogs (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Adding to this, another was sold on 30 June 2024 for $17,802.77 (items #8, #13, & #19 on https://www.gunbroker.com/c/article/25-most-expensive-guns-sold-on-gunbroker-in-june-2024/). This and the https://www.gunbroker.com/c/article/22-most-expensive-guns-sold-on-gunbroker-in-february-2024/ could also be used as references to the value of the models in civilian circulation. LoVeloDogs (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- "RUGER AC556: THE TOTALLY LEGAL, TOTALLY SELECT FIRE MINI 14 (VIDEO)". March 10, 2014. Retrieved April 24, 2020.
- "22 Most Expensive Guns Sold on GunBroker in February 2024". March 10, 2014. Retrieved April 24, 2020.