Talk:Smith & Wesson Model 10

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Firearms Unassessed

	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
???	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]