Jump to content

Talk:Smith & Wesson Model 10: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
assessed
m add project tag
Line 3: Line 3:
|Weaponry-task-force=yes
|Weaponry-task-force=yes
}}
}}
{{WPGUNS}}
There is more content here about the M1917 than the M&P. Please create an article for the M1917 and move that there! [[User:Lord Bodak|Lord Bodak]] 00:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
There is more content here about the M1917 than the M&P. Please create an article for the M1917 and move that there! [[User:Lord Bodak|Lord Bodak]] 00:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)



Revision as of 16:58, 17 February 2007

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
WikiProject iconFirearms Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

There is more content here about the M1917 than the M&P. Please create an article for the M1917 and move that there! Lord Bodak 00:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S&W Victory

I'ved added information on the S&W Victory Revolver, arguably the best-known version of the S&W M&P series. --Commander Zulu 09:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template overload

Does anyone know of a standard or guideline on the number of templates at the bottom of an article, these 3 seem a little too much? Perhaps if a weapon was used by one army in WWII then fine, but now we have two armies and ".38" weapons... perhaps for starters we can lose the ".38" as it doesn't add mouch does it (maybe replace with a link in "See also"?) --Deon Steyn 13:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the ".38" template hustled into a car with dark windows and Ministry of The Interior licence plates ;) --Commander Zulu 14:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that looks much better! Now, if only they can make those templates the same width, some sort of an "at least X wide" setting. ~~----

10-6 in .357 magnum?

I own a Model 10-6 chambered in .357 Magnum. Is there anybody who knows more about these? Would this be a modification, and would it be a common one? It'd make an interesting sidenote for the article if such a thing is common.

Isn't the 10-6 a .38 Special? You can fire .38s in a .357, but not the other way around. Sounds like a mod to me. I'm not extremely familiar with Smith revolvers though. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]