Talk:Colt SSP
Colt SSP
[edit]This is a model handgun created for the US XM9 competition+
Notability
[edit]The evidence for notability of this weapon is very thin. Apparently only 30 prototypes were made. It failed to gain any acceptance. The little information in this page could be merged to either the Colt article, the M1911 article, or the Joint Service Small Arms Program article. There's no need or justification for a standalone article. Felsic2 (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Was an entrant in a contest to supply the US military with its next service pistol, you don't get much more notable than that. And it's not an M1911. Stop vandalising articles and editing things you don't understand. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see anything the the notability guideline, WP:N, about that.
- The M1971 is a non-notable variation of the M1911, at least according to the source you added.
- Are you sure that this site, http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/137778371814/colt-model-1971-in-1971-colt-unveiled-a-new-modern, qualifies as a reliable source? It looks like an anonymous blog. Felsic2 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- An "anonymous blog" with an about page that states it's written by a professional historian with published work on firearms history? Give it a rest, kiddo. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- My error, I missed that info. However it's still a self-published blog. Felsic2 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- By a firearms historian ("self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"), and not advancing anything particularly novel. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Right, but what we're talking about here is a prototype that failed preliminary tests and never went into production. There's not much to say about it. That's why I think it'd make more sense to merge it into the one of the related articles. Felsic2 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- The thing is it's not really an M1911, it's about as close to one as the M14 rifle is to the M1 Garand. We have articles for other failed weapons that were the subject of major bids (eg Northrop YF-23) and other projects that didn't go anywhere (Heckler & Koch HK CAWS) and I'd say the sheer scale of ambition behind a gun that was supposed to replace the M1911 makes it noteworthy. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe it's quite different from an M1911, but there's no way to tell that from the article as written. It looks very similar, and there's no description of the 1971 model or its action. This could be a couple of sentences in the Joint Service Small Arms Program article. Some of the material here is just repeating stuff that's there, so the core material could be something like,
- The Colt SSP (stainless steel pistol) was a 9mm x 19mm Parabellum variant of the Colt Model 1971, an earlier attempt to develop a new service pistol to replace the M1911, with some minor mechanical alterations made for the trials. Colt submitted 30 new SSPs out of a production run of around 50, but their pistol was not selected. One example is on display at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.
- That's really about all this article says. Felsic2 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Since there was no more input, and no improvements to the article, I went ahead and merge the text above into the Joint Service Small Arms Program article. Felsic2 (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe it's quite different from an M1911, but there's no way to tell that from the article as written. It looks very similar, and there's no description of the 1971 model or its action. This could be a couple of sentences in the Joint Service Small Arms Program article. Some of the material here is just repeating stuff that's there, so the core material could be something like,
- The thing is it's not really an M1911, it's about as close to one as the M14 rifle is to the M1 Garand. We have articles for other failed weapons that were the subject of major bids (eg Northrop YF-23) and other projects that didn't go anywhere (Heckler & Koch HK CAWS) and I'd say the sheer scale of ambition behind a gun that was supposed to replace the M1911 makes it noteworthy. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Right, but what we're talking about here is a prototype that failed preliminary tests and never went into production. There's not much to say about it. That's why I think it'd make more sense to merge it into the one of the related articles. Felsic2 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- By a firearms historian ("self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"), and not advancing anything particularly novel. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- My error, I missed that info. However it's still a self-published blog. Felsic2 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- An "anonymous blog" with an about page that states it's written by a professional historian with published work on firearms history? Give it a rest, kiddo. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)