Talk:FN P90

Critic

When the Norwegian Armed Forces where upgrading their handheld weaponry recently the p90 lost out to the mp7 in the close combat and defence category. Rumor among some of the conscripts who tested it say that it lost out mainly due to its innability to adapt to different body builds and body armor loadouts. There has been no offical comment on this tough.

Introduction

The P90 is characterized by an extremely short barrel and its unique 50-round clip. Information provided is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.153.228 (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion is completely incorrect. If you bother to look at the specifications, the P90's barrel is 259 mm (10.2 in) long. That is by no means "extremely short". Typically, SMG barrels are between 7 and 10 inches with the compact size SMGs such as the MP5K and the TMP with pistol length barrels. Secondly, the term is "magazine" is the correct one not "clip". If you read the wikipedia entry on what a clip is, you would no doubt come to the same conclusion.

The article as it stands now:

The P90 is a submachine gun developed and manufactured by Fabrique Nationale de Herstal (FN Herstal). It is characterized by an unusual bullpup configuration and a 50-round magazine that is loaded on top of the weapon, parallel to the barrel.

is correct. Please refrain from editing to your words. Veritas Panther 06:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. This user has a long history of posting his "short barrel" claim in the article, despite many reverts and warnings on his talk page. He'll probably keep doing it until he is blocked. - Tronno ( t | c ) 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not regret any of my editing on the P90 article written by Tronno. I have changed the clip to magazine, but everything else is accurate, whether you agree or not. By the way, I cannot be blocked from editing the article on account that I am not violating any rules on Wikipedia. I am unsure where you all have received information proving my one-sentence contribution to the article as being completely untrue, but I must insist that you reread or look up the facts on the P90 again. Good day to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.153.228 (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Except the barrel isn't short, it is 10.2 inches long. While that is short it isn't extremely short. What is extremely short is the external barrel. And that is the way all bullpups are; they have short external barrels but longer internal barrels. So I will be changing this little detail.--LWF 03:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am providing some comparisons to prove that the P90's barrel isn't extremely short:

• FN P90-263 mm
• MAC-10-146 mm
• Steyr TMP-300 mm
• Vz 61-114 mm
• MP40-248 mm
• MP5-225 mm
• MP5K-115 mm
• Sten-196 mm
• Sterling submachine gun-196-198 mm
• Uzi-260 mm
• Spectre M4-130 mm
• PPSh-41-266 mm
• AKSU-74-207 mm
• Thompson submachine gun-266 mm
• M3 submachine gun-203 mm
• Ruger MP-9-173 mm

With these in mind, I will be reverting the latest change to the article, so it will no longer state, "extremely short barrel".--LWF 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User 24.22.153.228 just breached the 3RR rule. I think this is grounds for a block. - Tronno ( t | c ) 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To User 24.22.153.228, I would like to ask you which is more informative. Saying it is a bullpup, which is not obvious unless you look closely, or saying it has a short external barrel, which is quite obvious.--LWF 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I recently read the reverting war that occurred on the P90 article over the phrase "extremely short external barrel" and the much debate over it. I would like to point out that the statement IS in fact true, and that although stating it as a bullpup design is true as well the P90's 'extremely short external barrel' seems more accurate for this weapon. With THIS in mind, I will reverting this change. -Sam Jaine, director of firearm studies at the University of Washington.

Hahahaha this is hilarious. UW doesn't have a "director of firearm studies" and certainly not one named Sam Jaine. You're a fraud and I'd revert you if I could, but it's already been done. - Tronno ( t | c ) 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Short is a relative term. Saying it is a bullpup is not. Besides, when compared to other submachine guns, its barrel is not all that short. Compared to an artillery gun, it is extremely short. But when compared to other submachine guns it is not extremely short.

Besides, its status as a bullpup can not be contested. Whereas the statement on barrel length can be. So why couldn't it be stated that it is a bullpup? In fact in my opinion as well as in many others, the statement about it being a bullpup is more informative, and less contoversial.--LWF 02:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be bullpup. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a nice solution "It has an unusual bullpup configuration which results in a short external barrel ..." Veritas Panther 05:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears user 24.22.153.228 has decided to continue with his erroneous track, despite having his own information included that is the cause of this dispute. Is it time to take this to the next level for dispute resolution? Veritas Panther 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Block him. - Tronno ( t | c ) 04:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think Veritas Panther's suggestion was an excellent solution. I do not believe I changed it. Thanks for the kindness you have shown me Tronno and Thernlund, though Thernlund hasn't really had the courtesy of giving reasons to why these changes have to be made, only agreeing with Tronno's comments. Kind of like someone's female dog, if you know what I refer to. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.153.228 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you. You are completely innocent. Everyone please apologize! Veritas Panther 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I gather you mean to call me a bitch? Hmmmm... that wasn't very nice. But I'm above it. Cheers! —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes... i think i'd have to agree with 24.22.153.228. Thernlund you have been acting like a bitch from what i've read. Go form your own damn opinions. You a freaking faggot, and don't try to act like you're over it because you aren't. I bet your a fatass loser that thinks he can shoot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.245.193 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 March 2007.

-Oh i also think tronno is a faggot too, and this article is not even all that great. DO MORE RESEARCH. Oh and i cannot emphasize how much of a gay ass bitch that thernlund is. You're a fatass loser. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.233.105 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 March 2007.

Oh man, you're really breaking my heart. Why do you say these hurtful things? ;( - Tronno ( t | c ) 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

interesting ip... Towers84 07:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Feed system

I read somewhere that the p90 feed system is highly problematic (it's a huge magazine horizontal on the top of the weapon, that has to rotate the rounds 90 degrees to feed) and jams constantly, especially if the gun is knocked around with less than a full load in the clip. Can anyone find a source on this?

for the stargate reference, is the gun portrayed actually as a P90? or is it a sci-fi gun that uses the P90 as a starting point? Vroman 19:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's identified as the P90 -- though probably a lot of people don't realize it's a nonfictional weapon. It was brought in in the fourth(?) season, as an upgrade for the MP5. Inside the show, it's valued for its armor-piercing capability and magazine size. Outside the show, the downward ejection allows the actors to stand close together while shooting. --wwoods 20:24, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, O'Neil even mentions it by name in one episode.

-I read that the P-90's magazine loading system was streamlined to prevent such jamming.~Berserker

I've only run into two mentions of the feed problems and both would not be considered unbiased sources. The first mention of this was on the HKPRO website, a Heckler and Koch afficiando page, in an article on the then-new MP7 PDW H&K released. Another was from a blog posting on Defense Review (IIRC), in which the author took a submachinegun course through Heckler & Koch's firearms instructor group (who do a lot of training on weapons other than H&K). He was told, by the instructors, about the P90's feed problem, but he did not experience it when he fired the P90. He also said the issue might be with the half-full magazine outside the gun, not the magazine while it is in the gun (in fact, there might be evidence to this, as I've seen some P90 ammo pouches that have a cup that goes over the magazine lips, possibly to prevent rounds becoming loose). Since both mentions of the P90 having any feed problems come from a rival company that is competing with a rival product, I'd take it with a grain of salt.--YoungFreud 07:34, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If anyone's seen the anime series Gunslinger Girl, they may have wondered as i currently do if the ejected cartridge cases are a problem. In one scene the protagonist slips and falls because she treads on a number of spent cartridge cases which have fallen at her feet and roll underfoot, causing her to lose her balance. Does this actually happen IRL?--YourMessageHere 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is rumor, possibly put out by certain rival companies, nothing more. You can cause a malfunction by knocking the mag around, but not without using enough fource to damage it. There is a problem with a rounds coming loose from the feed lips when they're knocked about, hence the "cup" in FN made magazine pouches. This however does not cause jamming, it's simply inconvenient.

Also, whilst the follower does use rollers, being the plate on the end of the spring, it does not rotate the rounds. That would be the helical ramp on the end. See the Modern Firearms article.58.7.77.2 09:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

P90 TR

Is this variant real? so far as I know it exists only as an Airsoft creation by Tokyo Marui, who originally made a standard P90 replica but have since discontinued it and now sell only the TR version. They also make some other unreal variants of real firearms, most noteably the G3 SAS and AK47 Beta Spetznaz, so my suspicions were aroused. I read of the airsoft version being liked except for the sight, which apparently was somewhat susceptible to breakage if hit by BBs, and certain people disliked not being able to mount their own optics on it. The creation of the TR variant addressed these problems and also makes them cheaper to make. Can anyone rule definitively on this?--YourMessageHere 05:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does exist as a real variant of the P90. Jane's Infantry Weapons confirms it. --D.E. Watters 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wound Ballistics

I seem to recall that in reported combat use all shots were either to vital organs or the CNS. Anybody have any source material to support or disprove this? Veritas Panther 10:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?

This article is a word-by-word copy of http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm, seems to be the same problem as with combat shotgun. Now I might be mistaken and whoever posted this actually have the permission (or is just the original author anyway), but then an indication of that (probably together with a link to the original article) would be nice.

Part of the article ("Overview" section, excluding the final paragraph and all other sections) was originally lifted directly from that site, apaprently without the author's permission. If nobody can prove otherwise, I'd be willing to rewrite the copyrighted sections. However, it is my opinion that the original author does a much better job of overviewing the P90 than I possibly could, so if anyone can show that we already have his permission you'd be doing us all a great service. Tronno 23:53, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since nobody has come forward to provide proof that the copyrighted text was reproduced with permission, I have rewritten the paragraphs in question. The article is now clean. Tronno 20:36, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect weight?

I'm having trouble verifying the weight/mass of the P90 loaded and unloaded. Values I've found:

• 6.6 lbs (loaded) - http://www.fnmfg.com/products/p90/p90.htm
• 6.6 lbs (loaded)- http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/tw_p90.htm
• 2800g (6.18 lbs) (empty) - http://www.floridaairsoft.com/reviews/p90/

Some searching on Google for "p90 weight" give you plenty of hits to cull the information from, but I'm not sure which is correct.
In any event, the nice round numbers listed in the infobox seem to be either fictitious, convenient approximations, or mistaken.
--ABQCat 05:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The metric weight listed in the infobox is accurate, but the imperial is just a rounded approximation. I've edited the article to include accurate imperial values. Tronno 03:26, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

One of the sites listed is for an airsoft version of the P90, therefore all info from that site is invalid and any effects they had on the article need fixing.

That's already been addressed - all numbers in the article are from the real thing. Tronno

Added external link

I added an external link on the FN P90 page (also the Five-seveN and 5.7x28mm pages) to point to my blog, where I have been collecting information about the 5.7x28mm weapons system. My hope is to distill/sanitize much of the information that I've been blogging into the Wikipedia entries.

Esteves 21:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Popular culture

Just so it's clear, I oppose a list of every single appearance the FN P90 has made as a prop, be it in the form of prose, bulleted list, or table. I don't oppose using specific examples to illustrate how and why it is used in fiction, but there's no need for every single article to list every time the object appears in a work of fiction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not "every single article", its one of the few firearms to achive such a level of use. Its not your place to block readers access to this information. Ve3 04:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There are at least a half-dozen guns with more prominent roles in fiction, and that's just off the top of my head. Plus, this list doesn't say anything about the gun's role in fiction that the prose does not.

It is my place, just as it is every editor's, to do something about indiscriminate lists of trivia, something Wikipedia is not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There may be more prominent firearms, but that is not of concern for somone looking for more information on the P90's use. Including information directly relevant to the firearm is hardly "indscriminate". Ve3 04:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Look guys, it's obvious we're not going to end this conflict through sensible discussion, so we might as well end it for the sake of compromise (as per wiki etiquette). I propose we go ahead and trim the Pop Culture section to a short paragraph, with no lists. However, before that, we go into every article listed in Pop Culture and link to P90 from there, so that people interested in those subjects can easily read about the gun. MIB and I hate lists, but Ve3 has stated concerns with perceived censorship; I believe this is an adequate solution to both problems. Thoughts? Tronno 16:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We may yet solve it with disussion or a compromise. However, your proposal is not a compromise when the issue is links from this page. It doesn't do people any good when they read the P90 article to have the data missing- even its because its been scattered across other articles. Whether we like lists, or dislike certain information is immaterial-its not our job to remove it any more then it is remove tables or detail other info because its 'disliked'. Ve3 16:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In that case, please propose some other solution that satisfies all parties. Being adamant in your stance isn't going to lead us anywhere. Tronno 17:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This already was a compromise- part of it was to merge in the content but in a more compact form, but also have the summary section. That is aside from issue that the content is a standard part of firearm articles, and its not our place to remove whole article sections. Ve3 18:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to Tronno's suggestion at all. I still don't see any value in the raw data of every work the P90 appears in; Wikipedia is the place for encyclopedic overview, not every single datum no matter how trivial or tangental. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

One last suggestion - a true compromise. If anybody wants a complete list of Wiki articles with even the vaguest connection to FN P90, they can hit What links here. Most of the pop culture stuff we have now (and some we don't) will appear there, clear as day, if you just link from it. If you're clever, you can file that stuff under its own column using a soft redirect & dedicated pop culture redirect combo. The end result is a clean pop culture list that is created and sort-of-automatically maintained by The System. It's not cruft, it's not censored, and it can be made complete and up-to-date with minimal effort (unlike the current list). Worth considering, Ve3. Please think about it. Tronno 03:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

PS - the new list would be stored in What links here, not in the article itself. Tronno

Once again, the current page is already a compromise. Its the same as suggesting 'compromise' that expands the debated sections. As for 'what links here' being a substitute- that is a listing of anything that list here. It would not only strip away info that makes it less indiscriminate, but be a major inconvenience to anyone actually trying track down the info. Not to mention that the entries, which can't be noted, will be scattered among dozens of links.

Anyone with a serious interest int he P90 deserves to have access to the information, and its not our job to block it. It relates directly to the firearm, is a standard part of firearm articles, and has been compacted down (listing game series rather than individual title for example). Ve3 15:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No Ve3, it's not, because it's the same thing we've always had - a loosely associated bunch of games and movies. Going from a list to a table is not a change. It's not a compromise.

In any case, I'm tired of your stubborn refusal to adhere to the policies and the spirit of Wikipedia. You've stonewalled every attempt to discuss solutions that make everyone happy, you've ignored all sensible arguments, and have responded to all pleas with the same regurgitated rhetoric. I've had enough. I will now turn the other cheek and let you do whatever you want. Have fun, buddy. Do me a favor and brush up on the rules. Tronno 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the brief, informal listing of pop culture uses found at the Desert Eagle page is stylistically better, but as long as the table is still in the article I have a correction to make: the gun used by Major Kusanagi at the end of Ghost in the Shell isn't a P90. It's referred to as a Zastaba M23 and is larger than a P90 would be. Also, it loads from what look like M16 STANAG magazines as opposed to the real P90's top-loading system. Inspired by the P90, perhaps, but not a P90 itself. BobBQ

I agree with Tronno and A Man in Black on this as well. This article is SERIOUSLY becoming a source for trivia, something Wikipedia is not supposed to be. The Desert Eagle site is *REALLY* a trivia source (it *IS* better though :) ), and I don't want to see this article go farther down that hole. How about doing something along the lines of the Wikipedia:Fiction says is "good practice" to do with a long list of minor characters in a fiction work - create another article for them. Something like FN P90 Popular Culture References or along those lines, keep the detailed list there, and have a summary in this article saying something like "There are many popular culture appearances by the P90. These are detailed in the P90 appearances page, but include Stargate....blah...blah.....whatever." Anyone agree/disagree/think I'm on crack? Just something to think about. The Deviant 14:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A separate page was posted for Pop Culture appearances of the P90. However, it was quickly tagged for deletion as administrators thought that it was too trival. --D.E. Watters 15:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant. The Deviant 20:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't "admins", it was MIB (a admin) who tagged it before even discussing. As a compromise, the AFD was withdrawn and the content merged here. Ve3 21:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the list again. It continues to get longer and longer, without adding any actual information or insight to the article. I still feel an ever-incomplete list of appearances where the gun features merely as an incidental prop is trivial and unencyclopedic, whether as part of this article or as a separate list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I salute the spirit of your gesture, but in practice it will just lead to another revert war / dead-end discussion. However, I will take this opportunity to ask a favor - namely, your support to move the list to a separate page (again). After that, I'm stepping out of the debate for good, I swear. Tronno (talk | contribs) 06:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding a side note to the pop culture section that the FN P90 is only the standard sidearm as of Season 5. It might seem trivial to others but it's just a few characters that makes all the difference to pedantic fans. - vainglory (unregistered)

As expected, the reverts at FN P90 have started up again. I've moved the cruft away from the serious part of the article, to here -> FN P90 in popular culture. This time, please do not revert or request AFD. Tronno (talk | contribs) 02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain - but the link to FN P90 in pop culture doesn't go anywhere and there is no mention on the page to it's use in Pop Culture - I came here to see where else it was used other than SG-1/Atlantis

I dissagre with everyone who thinks that the P90 use in stargate should not be noted on the P90's page. This weapon is iconic to stagate fans, I think there should be at least a small mention of the use of the P90 in stargate! (or at least get the link to the P90 in popular fiction working) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehgow (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So, when is the "P90 in Popular Culture" page going to be up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.174.18 (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the N64 game Goldeneye, one of the best weapons was the RC-P90 based on the P90 I think. That should go in there! --Jim Raynor 01:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See, you've just demostrated the problem with trivial list like this, any fanboy will want to talk about is cool new game he play a lot and can shoot people with is super cool p90 that so awesome and great. But the fact that you can get a p90 in cal of duty 4 doesn't bring any IMPORTANt information the the weapon, should we make list about zippo in movie, cigarette in movies, car in movies, dogs in movie, come on!!!! those list are unuseful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase 'including information directly relevant to the firearm is hardly "indscriminate"' from Ve3 actually proves conclusively why the trivia section must not exist -- because it is actually not directly relevant to the firearm at all. Perhaps some are unfamiliar, but the "guns" you see in movies are often armourer's copies, props, replicas and the like (I have been to such an armourer myself, and handled "guns" from well-known films; guess what, they're not guns, they're props). Therefore a trivia section detailing every single instance where objects which RESEMBLE a P90 are seen is truly NOT 'directly relevant to the firearm'. Information about the P90 itself is. Frankly I find this entire line of reasoning from Ve3 disconcerting as it implies that popular culture entertainment is a primary source for firearms information and use.Twca (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

FN PS90 and P90

I have added a number of photos of my PS90 (a real civilian sporter version of the P90). There's no "Feeding" problem. It was very hard for me to even jostle the rounds in a half-full magazine. The HK MP7 uses a gas system and rotating bolt, which is more prone to failure (in a worst case scenario) than a delayed blowback system. The P90 has very few parts as you can see from the breakdown. The problems with the P90 are in the standard MC-10-80 reflex sight (same issues as the Trijicon Reflex) and slower mag changes than a drop free system. I've been a fan of the P90 since 10-15 years ago when I first heard about it. I stopped watching SG-1 after the 3rd season so I didnt realize they went to the P90 until afterwards (although I started watching re-runs of Season 8 and am catching up). I hope everyone enjoys the photographs.

Also note that in Stargate (SG-1 or Atlantis) the P90 is the standard weapon, but the M9 / 9mm Beretta Full-sized pistol is still the standard sidearm of ALL SG members. Lt Col Shepperd usually deploys with the M9 and P90. Lt Col Mitchell also used both the P90 and M9 when he was attacked by a member of the Sodan. The REMF's like McKay on Atlantis are only issued the M9 on off-world missions, while Daniel Jackson, probably because he proved his worth, gets the P90. However, in some instances Lt Col Shepperd would deploy with the M16 or some variant (SPR, M4, etc...) for medium range sniping or other applications.

As you can see, 5.7x28 is limited to about 200m in real life. In Season 4 or 5 when Carter demonstrated the P90 to the Go'Auld as a weapon of war, she made the reference that it was good out to 5 times that of the Staff weapon range (which was about 75 yd). If you do the math, that's more than 300m. If you manage to hit something with the 28-32gr .224" bullet at 300m, it won't do much damage especially against armor. 5.56x45 still plays an important role in Stargate.

Metroplex

Nice job! Looks great. Just wondering, should we center the table? =) therearenospoons 00:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I second that comment! Also, I've been meaning to add something to the article about the PS90 SBR, but I'm confused about the gun's status on the market and with the BATFE... as I understand it, civilian owners can swap out their 16-inch barrels with the standard 10-inch P90 barrel, then register the whole thing as an SBR. However, I've also read about a bunch of FN-manufactured SBRs that have internal modifications which make them illegal for civilian ownership (ATF still considers them machine guns, even though they're semi-auto). Maybe somebody could clarify the situation... maybe Metroplex? XD - Tronno ( t | c ) 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

FN PS90 SBR...

SBRs are not legal in my neck of the woods, but it is legal in many states so long as you fill out the paperwork with the BATFE FIRST before you do anything with the weapon. Follow the procedures (engraving of the receiver is required) after the paperwork is processed, and get your 10" barrel. Other than the barrel, the SBR'd PS90s you see on the market do not have any other modifications on the inside. Some people have decided to void their warranties and dye the stock black. To each his own I suppose!

Metroplex 14:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Black stock PS90

Yes, FN does have black stocked PS90s for sale. However, many choose to dye their stocks with black liquid Rit dye (nothing wrong with that). However, the owner's manual states not to modify the PS90 in any way, otherwise it may void the warranty.

This is different from buying a factory black stock PS90.

(Metroplex 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

Bolt vs Breech

As per the FN Herstal owner's manual for the PS90, the operating principle is: Blowback mechanism firing from closed breech.

There is no bolt in the P90/PS90. There is, however, a breech block that contains the ejector and extractor.

(Metroplex 14:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

This looks like a "bolt" to me. http://www.world.guns.ru/smg/fn_p90_parts.jpg Also, "Bolt Vs Breech" doesn't make a bit of sense. Both are entirely two different things. The statment in the manual ("Blowback mechanism firing from closed breech") simply means that the bolt is in it's fully closed position at the time of trigger pull. This is opposite a weapon like the Thompson SMG that fired from an open bolt design that eliminated some jamming issues at the time, also making reloading quicker. But that is beside the point. I say it has a "bolt" for sure.

68.205.94.87 03:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The terms are interchangable, in the context of the operating principles and not of components. A bolt isn't a breech and vice versa. However the term "breech block" (both words included may I emphasise) is generally considered intechangable with bolt. Others experts believe that a bolt and breech-block are different. A bolt's movement axis is parrallel to the barrel while a breech-block's is generally more perpendicular in operation.Veritas Panther 03:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that statement, mostly. I tend to believe that a bolt and a breechblock behave as mentioned in the statement above. I believe that taking a look at some of the old falling block designs illustrates what a "breech block" may typically be. The P90 does not operate on this loading/extraction principle. So, my vote is for "bolt", though it is sort of a semantical argument, really.

JasonM45 11:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

BREECH

   The rear end of the barrel.

BREECH BLOCK

   A mechanism which does not operate in line with the axis of the bore, and which is intended to support, properly, the head of the cartridge.

BREECH BOLT

   The locking and cartridge head supporting mechanism of a firearm that operates in line with the axis of the bore.

BOLT

   1. See Breech Bolt.

http://www.saami.org/Glossary/display.cfm?letter=B

From the sporting arms and manufacturers institute.

In practice, Bolt, Breech Bolt and Breech Block are often used interchangeably, however only breech bolt and bolt are indeed interchangeable.

The breech is just the rear end of the barrel and is completely different. Sort of like the opposite of the muzzle.

220.239.88.91 09:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Refer to the owner's manual....

Call it whatever you want, I'm just using the nomenclature verbatim from the FN owner's manual.

(Metroplex 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

Are we sure this gun is delayed blowback?

Almost all the websites I have read, including the official FN website, say the P90 uses a straight blowback system. The only website that says it uses delayed blowback is the Wikipedia entry on the P90, and the MP7 article. Is this all a big mistake? X360 09:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose if the makers say it is straight blowback, then it is. I'll change it to say this. LWF 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Stargate trivia

The trivia in the article about stargate is against WP:AVTRIV and WP:MILHIST#POP. Stargate has not had a direct impact on the P90, for instance, the average person doesn't think, 'hey that's the gun they use in stargate' when they see the P90. So I will be removing it. -- DanMP5 Semper Fi, Carry on 14:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? In actuality, many people are surprised when they discover that the P90 is a real gun and not just a fictional prop for Stargate. Adding a trivia section may be inappropriate, but mentioning in the body of the article that the gun is prominently featured in the longest-running science fiction show in American history would be. 71.203.209.0 21:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a quote from Wikipedia:Handling Trivia,

"Note that certain kinds of information can be more or less important, depending on the context. For instance, in the South Park episode "Pink Eye," the space station Mir lands on Kenny McCormick, killing him. The overall importance of this piece of information may be hard to define, but it is certainly important to Pink Eye (South Park episode), somewhat important to Kenny McCormick, and not very important to Mir."

The same applies here, the P90 is important to stargate, and stargate is not important to the P90. — DanMP5 Semper Fi, Carry on 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I got this from the Firearm Wikiproject link at the top of the page.

"Pop culture

Avoid pop culture and trivia sections. In general they clutter articles, and contribute very little. Acceptable pop culture information should be highly notable, for example: The F-14 Tomcat became much beloved because of its appearance in Top Gun, or the Walther PPK became well known because of its use by James Bond. See WP:MILHIST#POP for a more detailed set of guidelines on pop culture. Citations would be very helpful if the notability of an appearance is disputed."

It seems as though a small mention would be acceptable. --DisturbedPuppy 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I only have heard about the P90 because of Stargate and the same applies to many people. It is THE iconic gun of a franchise of a movie and 14 cumulative seasons of TV T-1 20:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This gun needs to be mentioned on the page it is ICONIC to stargate fans PLEASE stop changing our edits just let there be a small section that just mentions the fact it is used in the stargate franchise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehgow (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Not at all. Goes like this...

• Somebody sees Stargate and says, "Wow. I wonder what gun that is." They then come to Wikipedia and look up Stargate. In the Stargate article they discover that the the gun is in fact a P90.

It does NOT go like this...

• Somebody sees a P90 and says, "I wonder what TV shows and movies that gun is in." They then go to Wikipedia and look up the P90 in search of a random list of "appearances"

See the difference? Don't add this junk to this article. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. Well put, by the way. It's not 'iconic' to the P90. How many P90 ads can you cite where it shows the gun being used in 'Stargate'? How many police departments are on record as saying they bought the P90 because they saw it on Stargate? Give me a break, kids. Keep watching TV and eating your Wheaties, but stay out of the adult's business.--Asams10 06:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Asams10, that statement about certain users is very narrowminded and "immature" of you^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.174.18 (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Trolling is immature. These aren't users they are pretenders who play with toys that look like real guns. I'm neither ashamed nor appologetic of my position on this subject. I'd really take people like you more serious if you'd actually join the community and make quality edits to articles rather than sniping at those of us who choose to.--Asams10 15:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Asams10, the point is that your generalizations about "pretenders" and "kiddies eating Wheaties" is neither called for nor relevant, and frankly insulting. While I agree that the Stargate reference should be left out, I also feel that you are presenting a hostile environment to people who may wish to contribute. I wish to remind you that wikipedia strives for neutral and accurate viewpoints through consensus, not through bullying and intimidation through credentials (which can be easily falsified on the internet anyways). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.61.13 (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with Asams and danMP5 on this one. Unless there is a major change in the weapons projects policies there wont be a mention of it here ForeverDEAD 14:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What utter rot. There used to be a section on use of the weapon in fiction. This was appropriate and encyclopedic. The article is much poorer without it. The Kenny example sited above was frankly irrelevant as you were addressing 1 instance in 1 episode rather than constant appearances in the 2nd longest running Sci-Fi show plus other appearances across the board in other films & TV series. If the gun's appearance in these media are irrelevant then so too is the section on who uses the gun. BTW Asam I'm 32 and I don't eat (nor have I heard of) Wheaties. You need to grow up mate, having turned 18 doesn't make you an adult but your behaviour does.84.92.120.61 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

don't know whether SG need mentioning. I do know I feel a bit let down by wikipedia. there is usually less personal attacks here than on the rest of the interweb. shame on you asams.... --Dylan2106 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No trivia is ever encyclopedic... Fan of StarGate? Mention the P90 on the SG page and link it here instead of polluting encyclopedic articles with popular culture excrement. Koalorka (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Try the shift key every once in a while, kiddo. Just some harmless constructive criticism. --Asams10 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Russia

The users list shows the "Moscow military police" as a user. Could somebody verify this? QZXA2 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything about this on Google. - Tronno ( t | c ) 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I attempted search in Russian, without results. I've heard, that the most widespread weapons among police is AKSU and modernized Makarov PM. ellol 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything about this use either. Also just as a note, the IP who added this was from Wisconsin (IP, edit). — DanMP5 Semper Fi, Carry on 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that in general it would be quite hard to source information about special forces or paramilitary use of weapons. For obvious reasons, wouldn't these groups keep shtum? Surely some leeway is needed for such sources. Editus Reloaded 15:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, for content to be included it must be verifiable. Your argument is that since they're secretive, we'll never be able to find out yes or no. On the contrary, that's why they should be left out.--Asams10 16:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge PS90 into the P90 page?

SUPPORT - My position on minor variants is well known. Apart from some changes to the trigger group and barrel, the gun remains largely the same. The PS90 page itself contains a lot of "empty content" and repetitive statements. The merge would involve unique information only. Koalorka (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Support, provided no unique and/or important information is lost.--LWF (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)