Stork

B&T version

Shouldn't the information on the Brügger & Thomet MP5 be added to this page? Unfortunantly it seems that some people want a separate page for every firearm varient under the sun even when it's not needed. Paulwharton (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to include it into the page. It's just a licensed variant. Koalorka (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, While I do aprove of articles on significant derivatives of firearms. I can't justify a page that is on a cosmetically modifed design. Paulwharton (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Variants

MP5SD-N - Is this a real variant, because I cannot find it in the printed references I have. Veritas Panther 11:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not know about this variant until it was added here, so I did a Google search and apparently it does exist, although I could not find any official reference. Perhaps the MP5SD-N is an aftermarket variant, with modifications carried by the Navy — after all it consists in an MP5SD3 with minor modifications: the KAC stainless steel suppressor (found a picture here: A. KAC MP5-N 9 mm/10 mm; B. KAC MP5SD-N stainless steel; C. HK/Wolf MP5SD aluminum), and the Navy trigger group. This is only speculation, however, since I could not find any official reference. —Squalla 14:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The MP5SD-N is referenced in the book "Project 64: The MP5 Submachine Gun Story." It was a factory project. There were two versions. One used a stainless steel suppressor by Mickey Finn, the same fellow who designed the suppressors for the other MP5N variants and the P9S in SEAL inventories. However, Finn's suppressor was larger in diameter than the factory MP5SD suppressor and required modifications to the design of the SMG. The second version used a KAC stainless steel suppressor. This was the same diameter as the factory aluminum suppressor, and thus could be swapped out without any modifications. HK made the switch around September 1993. --D.E. Watters 19:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

US Machinegun Ownership

The article cites the HK 94 and SP89 variants as having been "legally converted to submachinegun form" (assumably meaning enabled to fire automatically) via alteration. I was under the impression that civilian possession of automatic-firing weaponry, including alteration to allow that capability, has been illegal in the US for decades, well before the Brady Bill. Was I mistaken about this? 70.33.167.121 06:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a common misconception. Ownership is strictly controlled, requiring the payment of a $200 tax stamp per transfer and a detailed federal background check. D.E. Watters 13:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to those restrictions, in order to manufacture such a device, you need to pay an even steeper annual fee to the ATF for a special manufacturer's license (something like $1000/year, but I don't remember). Also, unless it's for personal use, you need a dealer's license to sell it, and you can only sell to other dealers, as per FOPA. --UNHchabo 03:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Image needs caption

The image really needs a caption. I've no idea which kind of MP5, but I figure it should say something along the lines of "Heckler und Koch MP5-SD with tactical lunchbox attachment" or something. -- Finlay McWalter 02:26, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done. It was a "MP5A3 9mm shown with optional 0-1-2 trigger group and tactical forearm light." -- Andrew Morritt 00:03, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the current picture an MP5A5? The caption states it's an A3 69.231.43.74 (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The MP5A5 has a collapsing stock and burst fire control group, which this one lacks.Koalorka (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Safety?

During my Bundeswehr time I recieved some superficial training on the MP5 ([dis]assembled it a couple of times, never fired). The instructors told us that the safety tends to wear out within a few years, resulting in several guns having discharged despite the safety switch being set to "S". As a result there was a standing order that the MP5 must not be carried with a round in the chamber unless immediately before firing. - Is this a general problem of the MP5 or is it limited to the Bundeswehr models? --Qualle (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a problem with special operations forces as well, or so I've been told. The stuff just wears out. The US Army doesn't field submachine guns for standard use (there are exceptions, but not the norm). Considering the extent the Bundeswehr use them, I imagine there have been a number of accidental discharges. Gibson Cowboy 03:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

College Police

The campus police at California State University, Los Angeles have begun carrying these in patrol cars as a secondary weapon (instead of a shotgun). 21:54, 15 December 2005

thats comforting, considering its a higher quality weapon :> less collateral, too :) -- Cannibalicious!

Too bad that it takes the police so long to take action in those kinds of emergencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.64.119 (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Grenade Launcher?

I play a lot of video games and most of them show the MP5 with a underbarrel M203 Grenade Launcher, but isn't the M203 bigger then the MP5 in Real life?

Could someone clear this up for me, thanks.

MP5 does not have a grenade launcher, I would be interested to know which game has this configuration. You may be thinking of an M4--—  KaiserB 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• The M203 according to the manufacturer: The M203 grenade launcher is a single-shot weapon designed for use with the M16 series rifle and fires a 40mm grenade. The M203A1 grenade launcher is a single-shot weapon designed for use with the M4 series carbine and also fires a 40mm grenade. Both have a leaf sight and quadrant site. The M203 is also being used as the delivery system for a growing array of less-than-lethal munitions.

• Actually, RM Equipment offers their M203PI with an optional attachment system for the MP5. This is the basis for the End of Days movie prop. Check out the following PDF on the second page: RM Equipment M203PI. There is also a more recent version of the attachment that differs slightly in appearance. --D.E. Watters 01:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Half-Life series is known to usually have underbarrel Grenade Launchers on their SMG's (MP5, MP7).

On an MP7? That seems hard. Although the M203PI seems like it could fit.Sk8tuhpunk 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Half-Life 1 features US.Marines armed with MP5's with M203 under the barrels like with M16/4 rifles. The Mp5's look like they've had their barrels extended like with the M203 PI system (although the player view models look like MP5Sd's (despite not being suppressed), while when yu look at marines carrying them the weapon has the M203 PI barrel extension.

Half-Life 2 features the MP7 with a GL. However the game is set like 20 years in the future when the world is ruled by an oppresive race of aliens (known as "combine" who emply human like armed forces which among other weapons carry these. HL2 isn't exactly meant to be realistic in that respect. --80.229.147.110 12:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The mp5 simply does not have a grenade launcher ! we must remember the game is indeed fiction. however a grenade launcher could be made for it but is highley unlikely. the m203 is just to big.

Did you even bother to click on the link I provided to RM Equipment? They have offered their M203PI for the MP5 for some time now. D.E. Watters 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think you must be getting confused with another gun (say...The M4? Not really sure though). I've been playing shooting games since they were worth playing (sorry Doom fans) and I never remember playing a game with a grenade launcher on any varient of an H&K MP. I haven't played every game out there, but I've played many, and most of the popular ones.

Operation

Keep the finger off of the trigger until target has been selected and you are ready to fire. Always point the weapon in a safe direction. Always treat the weapon as if it were loaded.

Loading

1. On models with "SEF" trigger group, place selector (found on the left side of weapon, above pistol grip) to "S" position. On models with "Pictogram" trigger group rotate rear of selector all the way up, so that front of selector points to depiction of bullet with X through it (will be only depiction outlined in white). Weapon is now safe.
2. Holding the weapon by the pistol grip with the strong hand, grasp charging handle located on front left side of weapon with the weak hand and pull all the way to rear, locking it into place by maneuvering handle clockwise, into slot found near top of weapon.
3. Insert loaded magazine into magazine well located directly behind rear of handguard. When seated correctly you will hear a click. Wipe hand along length of magazine to ensure it is seated.
4. Slap cocking handle down allowing the working parts to go forward using the energy in the recoil spring to strip a round from the top of the magazine and seat it firmly in the breech (Do not be tempted to hold on to the cocking handle, as this may induce misfeeds).

The weapon is now loaded.

Firing

1. While holding the weapon by the pistol grip with the right hand, and having the left hand supporting front of weapon by grasping the foregrip (reverse hand positions if left-handed), place buttstock of weapon firmly against shoulder.
2. Depending on model*, rotate selector down one position to "E" or to image of single red bullet. Weapon will now fire one bullet each time trigger is pulled. If fully-automatic fire is desired, rotate selector to "F", or depiction of 7 red bullets in a row.
3. Select target and place top of post sticking up from front site over target. Center top of post inside aperture of rear sight (see [1] for more in depth sighting procedures), gently squeeze trigger.

*Some models will have burst options (2 or 3 red bullets in a row), or will be labeled numerically (0 for safe, 1 for semi-automatic, 20 or 25 for fully-automatic)

Unloading

1. Holding weapon by the pistol grip with the right hand, use right thumb to rotate selector to safe position.
2. With left hand, grasp magazine. Place left thumb between magazine release (~4mm-thick piece of metal sticking down from bottom of gun) and front of trigger guard. While grasping the magazine with the left hand, use the left thumb to push the magazine release towards the magazine, and while holding the release in this position, pull the magazine out of the magazine well.
3. Pull back charging handle and lock to rear via slot mentioned in step two of loading procedure, if weapon is "condition 1" (meaning cocked with round chambered) prepare for round to be ejected from right side of weapon when charging handle is brought to rear. Collect round and temporarily store in a place where it will not be lost.
4. After charging handle has been locked in the rearward position, visually inspect weapon to be sure no round remains in the chamber. This is done by rotating the weapon so that the right side faces up, and looking forwards into the ejection port. Chambered round should be fairly easy to spot by its golden-brass color. If any doubt remains as to status of weapon, inspect chamber physically by inserting finger through ejection port and feeling around chamber.

WARNING: Be sure charging handle is securely positioned to the rear; the handle going forwards when a finger is inside the weapon will cause injury to the user.

After the weapon has been visually/physically inspected it can be declared as "Condition 3" (unloaded). When the weapon is unloaded, the charging handle should remain in the rearward position, with no magazine inserted in order to signify its condition to any others who may be around, or handling the weapon.

---

I've removed the above in accordance with WP:NOT, but I want to keep it around until I can write a wikibooks gun guide. Night Gyr 20:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture split

Okay, someone put up the sign, but never bothered to start a discussion on this. So lets start.

Weak Spilt My only caveat is that it might get out of control. However, it beats having the article balloon into an unmangeable mess. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove content, no split. It's already out of control, and splitting it will cause the new article to become a list of indiscriminate trivia (which Wikipedia is not). This has already happened to the M16 rifle article, and the pop culture split was voted for deletion shortly afterwards. Personally I think the best thing to do is removing the whole section and adding a short sentence somewhere in the article only stating that the weapon is frequently used in popular media, preferably avoiding any instances. —Squalla 18:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Content By the way, I think we need a specific comment about this sort of cruft in the style manual.--D.E. Watters 19:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think their needs to be a rule requiring people to explain their reasoning to the tags. --293.xx.xxx.xx 01:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There's already two articles which cover this. One is the List of firearms in video games and the other is List of firearms in films. That article can become a mess, not this one. I agree, deletin the content and then allowing those who want to add to put it in that article if they feel the need. If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and delete this section and direct them to the other article.--Asams10 03:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. —Squalla 05:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

MP5K and arms dealers

The MP5K (the "K" stands for kurz, meaning short), which is only 325 mm long, was introduced in 1976 at the request of a South American arms dealer who saw the potential for its sale to bodyguards as a concealable, but fully-automatic weapon.
Source for this? I checked HKPRO, which simply says the MP5K was designed by a "HK South American sales rep who saw a market for dignitary protection and increased firepower in a small package.". Ah, I get it. Calling a HK sales rep an arms dealer...that's a bit much. Editing it. - KingRaptor 10:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Top photo

Next chance somebody gets (since I know you all own MP5s ;)), can someone take a photo of an MP5? The current photo at the top of the article is rather washed-out, and it's kinda blurry. No offense to the photographer. --UNHchabo 04:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

MP5 as "maintenance-intensive"

I have removed the following paragraph.

The MP5 is a maintenance-intensive weapon—its roller-delayed blowback mechanism needs to be readjusted between different brands and types of 9 × 19 mm ammunition to guarantee reliability. Therefore, the MP5 is not suitable for regular army issue, but in the hands of well-trained police or military special forces, its design will lend superior accuracy and better "full auto" handling compared to other submachine guns.

It is not verified or otherwise sourced, and I highly suspect is original research or opinion. The MP5 is literally world renowned for its reliability, and I have never heard this claim before, and nor has any authority or expert I have asked. The MP5 is not suitable for standard issue in any army that I know of, but this is because of the superiority of rifle's for these rolls over a submachine gun of any model.

The paragraph has been made invisible, should sources for the claims be found, but I ask that it not be readded until then. --220.239.88.91 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so why the two articles?

Heckler & Koch MP5 and Heckler & Koch MP5A4? Shouldn't these two be merged or is there a major difference that needs to be resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbunny (talk • contribs)

It was the exact same article with a different image. I've redirected it to here. - KingRaptor 06:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Do it, soon--Tom of north wales 15:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture

The article Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture was on DYK on May 10, 2006, but was deleted in a mass deletion. It looks bad to have DYK articles red linked. Please consider including a Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture section in this article and provide a redirect from Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture to this article. Thanks. -- Jreferee 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. MP5s in popular culture would be a massive invitation to trivia a mile long. Epthorn 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, no way we're returning to that garbage. Koalorka 20:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

few questions

1. MP5K briefcase: external safety for the case?
2. MP5: chambered for .45 acp?
3. sd: what does it stand for?

-- Cannibalicious!

I Dont Think There is a External Safety on the Briefcase
There is no .45 ACP Variant
SD Stands for Schalldampfer (Sound Dampened)
--DanMP5 ^Talk * ^Contribs 04:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a .40 S&W variant which this article seems to ignore. This was introduced after the 10mm auto version. --Tom of north wales 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is the .40SW version (I believe the FBI's HRT uses it). There is the UMP .45 cal by HK but it is a different design (probably to handle the different characteristics of the more powerful .45 cartridge). Epthorn 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

new pic?

im not a fan of the pic currently used. just doesnt seem to have "it"... -- Cannibalicious!

• Agreed. The current one is flat-out inadequate. Thrawn300 04:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I found a better one and replaced the old one with it. --Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you guys realised that the picture further down the page can be found at World Guns[2], yet the licensing says self made. Also the picture has been reversed and it is the wrong way around (note cocking handle and unseen ejection port, which can usually be seen). X360 08:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

MP5SD sound level

Almost inaudible beyond 15m? I've been well over 15m from a MP5SD being fired, and had no problems hearing it. All sources I can find give the sound level of the MP5SD in the >120dB range, which is low for a suppressed firearm but not as low as most people whose experience with suppressed weapons comes mainly from Hollywood products might expect. PubliusFL 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you were to add the MP5K to the MP5 article, you would need to add all versions of all guns to the main article. Something to think about.

I recall hearing somewhere that the MP5SD was nearly inaudiable, apart from the hammer. Or at least that the sound of the hammer (or possibly the mechanism that pushes the hammer back after firing) is louder than the noise the bullet makes on discharge. --Gunrun 01:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I recall hearing the actual MP5SD, and it was not "almost inaudible," which is how the article used to describe it. But the offending language is gone now, so no more problem. PubliusFL 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of a sound suppressor is not silencing the weapon completely, but transforming the weapon's report so that it is not easily identifiable as a gunshot. Koalorka (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Shooting the SD-Version will reduce the speed of the bullet, so you have no supersonic crack. Also it will reduce the sound level by ~ 30dB. And there is noch muzzle-flash. A german weapon-magazine says that the SD can be used in buildings without ear-protection.--87.123.230.192 (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone saw the final paragraph of the History section...

...but it read (rather inaproriately) as below:

'The Red Army Faction, a German left-wing millitant group, depicted a Heckler & Koch MP5 in their insignia. This is not true, any of it. Do not ever listen to Wikipedia !! I got virus once from Wikipedia. They have usefull information. But a virus is not that much worth. Isn't it?'

I have altered it to remove the portion begining at the second sentence.

Jeez, sometimes the wombats crawl straight out of the woodwork, don't they? Bwob 09:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It was just vandalism from an IP, when you see something like that, just remove it or revert to the last version of the page. — DanMP5 Semper Fi, Carry on 13:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Detailing on MP5 discontinuation?

Should we add it... Ominae 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard about it being discontinuation, but yes, If Sources can be found that and when the MP5 will be discontinued, add 'em. I'll do some research. Corporal Punishment 02:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This was announced on the HK Defense Inc. site 2 years ago in 2005. I found the words like this from another site:

"Effective immediately the following HK weapons are no longer in series production and available from HK. G3 Rifle (all variants), HK33 Rifle (all variants), HK53 Compact Carbine (limited availability to those in stock at present), MP5PT Submachine Gun (Plastic Training ammunition variant), HK23E and HK13E Machine Guns, HK79 and HK79A1 add-on Grenade Launchers.

While HK will continue to support already fielded weapons of the types listed here, current users should consider augmenting organizational parts inventories to support these weapons and/or begin replacing these legacy HK weapons with new, more modern HK weapons on a one-for-one basis. This notice does not affect other HK weapons not listed in this announcement." Ominae 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It says that they are discontinuing the "Plastic Training ammunition varient" not the full family of MP5 weapons...24.15.64.119 21:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Jake

Merger

Should we merge the MP5K article? I don't know how we could retain the info from the article to this one. should it just be deleted? J-stan ^Talk 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dnt care if you do it fine if you dnt its cool.(ForeverDEAD 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

the MP5K article should be merged with this article. The MP5K is a variant of the MP5, so its common sense to merge them 82.47.137.100 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I believe we should keep them separate. The MP5K may be a variant, but it is seen as a different weapon. Just like the M4 is a variant of the M16, but is considered a weapon of it's own. It doesn't help they share almost the same name, but regardless, the MP5K is smaller than the MP5. The M4 shares 80% parts commonality with the M16A2. I'd imagine it's about the same with these two. So please, I see these two weapons as different guns. Let's keep it that way.

Muldoon X9 06:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree No reason to have 2 separate entries. If it were up to me the M4 would be integrated with the M16 too. The MP5K is just one of many models available also listed with the main MP5 article, some have way more technical differences thank the MP5K and are still included with the this main entry. Koalorka 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• FOR Yeah go ahead, makes no sense whatsoever to have them separate. Koalorka 05:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

SWA5

Any one have more information between MP5 and SWA5[3]?--ZH Evers 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the MP5 is the machinegun chosen from the SWA5 program. SWA5 is a program, not a weapon, just like SCAR is the Special Forces program to replace the m4 with the mk 16 and mk 17, not that the guns are actually called the SCAR.24.15.64.119 11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Jake

According to some chinese website [4] , ROC had buy it and said that SWA5 is copy of MP5 but bad quality , i am not sure. --ZH Evers 15:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the SW5 and SWA5 are just clones of the MP5 made by an outfit here in the US. Look up "Todd Bailey" and "Special Weapons" for the gory details. D.E. Watters 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for information.--ZH Evers 20:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Assassination Attempt

Does anyone know if the Secret Service Agent pictured in the wikipedia image [5] (last frame) of the Reagan Assassination attempt is brandishing an MP5? I had heard that the Secret Service used actual MP5's in the 80's and not knock offs.

T.D. - Blue Springs, MO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.161.217 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

He's clearly holding an Uzi. Parsecboy 19:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, take a look at the picture on top of the MP5 page and compare it to the Reagan photo... That's a Mini UZI too be exact. Koalorka 19:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's a full-sized UZI. The mini and micro versions have a side-folding stock, not the collapsible one shown.--LWF 21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Koalorka 22:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Design

Has anyone noticed that design looks similar in shape to a combination of the designs of the MP40 and Stg44/MP44?--69.249.11.88 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No? Koalorka (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Army Faction / WP:3

The relevant diffs are [6], [7], [8].

The sentence in question is:

The Red Army Faction, a German terrorist group, depicted a Heckler & Koch MP5 in their insignia.

The cited source is:

• Landler, Mark (February 7, 2007). "Germany Relives 1970s Terror as 2 Seek Release From Jail". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-12-08.

In my opinion, the information is interesting, it is relevant for the article subject and it is duly weighted by mentioning it in one single sentence, as above. User:Dorftrottel 00:34, February 11, 2008

And here are this particular user's words regarding the subject:

The information is relevant to readers of the article. Weapon-crazy rednecks may not like it, but I couldn't care less.

Good luck with your request. Koalorka (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I freely (and proudly) admit I am upset about any attempts to censor Wikipedia because of a set agenda. Are there other, maybe more encyclopedia-oriented arguments to keep that information out of the article? User:Dorftrottel 00:54, February 11, 2008

What agenda are you talking about here? BonesBrigade 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Because trying to keep a gun article free of trivia is some kind of evil NRA-sponsored redneck pro-gun agenda. You are confused. I have nothing further to contribute here. Koalorka (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

BonesBrigade: This kind of agenda. User:Dorftrottel 01:12, February 11, 2008

If you're looking for an encyclopedic argument for keeping it out, try WP:GUNS#Criminal use. Unless it can be proven verifiably that their use of the MP5 in their insignia has had some notable effect on the MP5, then it doesn't belong.--LWF (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Only the use itself has to be notable, and it was, and considerably so. I'm afraid WP:GUNS#Criminal use does not apply since the depiction in the insignia is not in itself criminal. User:Dorftrottel 01:47, February 11, 2008

Please take a look at the standards laid down, did it have any notable effect on the MP5? If it has, and can be verified, then it could be included.--LWF (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The threshold created by the WP:GUNS "guideline" is arbitrary and defies policy. Whether or not it had an effect on the MP5 is irrelevant: It is a notable bit and it touches the topic of this article. User:Dorftrottel 02:02, February 11, 2008

I disagree, verifiability does not equate with notability. And I am not saying that there is no way the bit could be included. I'd just like to see some verification of notability.--LWF (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since you all are so determined to keep the article racially clean from this imho harmless and rather interesting information (and it is not a trivia section and doesn't "clutter up" the article or anything), I'm going to simply wait for an outside opinion from an uninvolved editor. User:Dorftrottel 10:34, February 11, 2008

It is not that I absolutely refuse to have it in the article, I just want to see some proof of notability, in terms of the effect on the MP5. By the way, one of these might not clutter the article, but imagine what would happen if everyone started adding everything that has ever shown an MP5 with no proof or verification of notability; that would clutter the article. And could you please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a "redneck" or some out to keep Wikipedia "racially pure"? It is in fact a personal attack.--LWF (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, let's wait for input from an uninvolved third party. The "racially pure" comment may be a bit snarky, but it is not too far-fetched imo. Also, I'd like to see possible ownership issues addressed. User:Dorftrottel 14:48, February 11, 2008

I personally couldn't care less if this were included in the article, but having now observed the sinister and malicious actions of Dorftrottel I have made it my goal to monitor and prevent far-left socialist propaganda from being injected into Wikipedia's articles. And what does a debate about Stormfront have to do with a firearm and some Marxist criminals? Again, Dorftrottel's insulting and crass remarks prove that he/she does not abide by policy nor does she/he have the best intentions at heart. Koalorka (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"sinister and malicious"? "far-right socialist propaganda"? Such comments make me put my head in my hands. Please relax and don't disrupt the discussion. User:Dorftrottel 17:21, February 11, 2008

People please be civil. Dorftrottel and koalorka i suggest you both stop with the comments. And Dofrttrottel did provide sources i belive so verifibitly is out but the notabilty factor is still yet achived. BonesBrigade 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. Here's my take: the Red Army text is unneeded on this page. It doesn't quite fall under WP:TRIVIA, but it doesn't need to be included on this page, especially in the introduction text. If it had some actual relevance to the topic, it could be included, but I agree with the notability arguments that have been made. One possible solution I can think of is a link to the Red Army logo in the See also section. Alternatively, you may want to seek the help of the folks over at WP:GUNS. Hope this helps. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I'm not going to argue the point any further then. I also had thought of a simple See also link, but I'm afraid even that would be vigorously contested. Oh well. User:Dorftrottel 13:56, February 13, 2008

Reversion

I was just reverted by Koloarka. Aside from all the schoolboy insults, what is the encyclopedic reason for omitting this info? --John (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no "schoolboy insults", but that is beside the point. The reason was that we could find no effect on the MP5. It certainly has had some effect on the Red Army Faction, but we have seen no assertion of any effect on the MP5, or anything else for that matter. Without some form of notability or effect ascribed to the use by the Red Army Faction in their insignia, it boils down to a mere piece of trivia that comes out of no where and leaves one wondering why it is there, especially when it is located in the intro. Would anyone like to consider a "see also" link in the article, rather than the mention in the intro?--LWF (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point and agree the lead is probably not the best place for it. I restored it because I thought that for those who are not gun fans, the Red Army Faction may be at least as notable as the MP5. The fact that references were provided influenced me as well. I speak as someone who spends a lot of time removing, integrating or tagging the excessive trivia sections that mar some of our articles. However in this case I think I would make a case for this not being trivia, but a cultural referent of some significance. The RAF logo is quite widely reproduced and quite widely known. It may be the single most famous instance of the weapon's distinctive shape. --John (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the aggressively pursued ownership (at least I perceived it as such) seemingly prevents any rational discussion. User:Dorftrottel 23:33, February 15, 2008

What ownership? I have looked and see no indication of anyone claiming this article as their own.--LWF (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Article ownership manifests itself in various forms, e.g. instant reverts without discussing first, obstructing discussion without providing valid arguments etcpp. Someone saying "this article belongs to me" is of course not widely seen. User:Dorftrottel 00:03, February 16, 2008

The MP5 article receives so many arbitrary and usually inaccurate or redundant edits that we simply cannot afford to debate every single addition. No ownership, we strive to maintain a credible firearm article. Koalorka (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So, bickering aside, any substantive response to the comments I made? --John (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple, we have no verifiable evidence that the Red Army Faction has had an effect on the MP5, we have the possibility that it is the most famous single instance, but we have no evidence suggesting it has actually affected the MP5.--LWF (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please show me the consensus, guideline or policy that says only things that have "had an effect" on the subject of the article should be included in the article. --John (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

First there is Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 3#On including mentions of firearm's usage in crime, appearance in works of fiction, trivia, and so forth, which led to the current versions of WP:GUNS#Pop culture, and WP:GUNS#Criminal use. There is also WP:MILMOS#POP. Now I am aware that what we are discussing is not, strictly speaking, popular culture or criminal use, I believe a similar standard applies.--LWF (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to those project guidelines. To branch into a slightly broader discussion for a moment, do you believe that projects can enact guidelines which contradict Wikipedia guidelines and policies? --John (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, hypothetically speaking, if a wikiproject had, the project in question would probably need to rework their guideline to keep the intent while still having it be compliant with Wikipedia policies, and to a lesser extent, guidelines. I assume we are speaking hypothetically, right? If not, could people be open and say which policies/guidelines were being violated, and how?--LWF (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

MP5 is a German weapon and the Red Army Faction were a German terror group using the MP5 as logo (many Germans only now the MP5 only for that) -> it should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.231.68 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of these SMG's anymore?

Besides VERY compact PDW's, weapons like the MP5 don't belong in combat anymore. The M4 (and more recently, even weapons like the FN SCAR CQB system) achieve the same desired effects as SMGs, only with more flexablility in improvising during combat situations. I mean, unless you are shooting on a plane, and don't want to punch a hole in it, what's the point of a 9mm round going up against modern Kevlar?24.15.64.119 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)jake

Wikipedia is not a forum.--LWF (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And to answer the question - it's a lot harder to suppress a 5.56 than a 9mm, especially a subsonic 9mm, having rounds that travel very far is often a disadvantage (limit the danger radius of missed or deflected shots), shooting a 9mm in an airplane will punch holes just fine (I've tested it on aluminum panel test sections... ), and sometimes, momentum is better than energy. As a general combat weapon, you're seeing carbines replace SMGs to a large extent, because they're flexible in other ways and use the standard rifle ammo, but there's still a place for SMGs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry LWF, its just that since it says "discussion" and I had an on-topic question I thought it was OK. Most of the other sections here seem very similar.24.15.64.119 (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)jake

The disscusion page is used to genrealy make the article in question better. I suggust using the WP:Reference Desk БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what happened. For future reference, go to the very top of the page. Once there, you will see a box, and in it it says that the discussion page is for discussing ways of improving the article, and is not for discussion of the general subject. Although I will admit, it is a common mistake.--LWF (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with your opinion. Submachine guns are for use with special forces, self defense of pilots, tank crew (p90 development aim anyone?), Unconventional warfare, CQB, the list goes on. submachine guns are light, compact, simple, and just as deadly as any rifle. Somtimes it is even better to have a submachine gun! (again p90's ss190 ball round for use against body armor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a discussion board, however...

How on earth is a 5.7 round which is slower and lighter than a 5.56mm rifle round better at penetrating body armor?

Also, in terms of compactness and so forth, look at the CQBR or other compact (10" or less barrel) rifle-derived rifle caliber submachineguns. The P-90 is only 6 inches shorter than the CQBR. There are shorter (7", 8" barrel) 5.56mm weapons as well.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do some reasearch on the ss190 and you will se exactley how well it penetrates body armor. It was desinged for that. There are some videos on youtube that explain this common assumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.7_x_28_mm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

picture caption is wrong

the gun pictured is an MP5F not an A3, the F model is the newest one, made for the French military, it is like the MP5A5 minus the burst setting, and with a new butt stock design with ambidextrous sling hooks.. Archangel17 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

question

is it avaluable for civil use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.131.77 (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

TAG MP5 Use

Please keep the TAG East MP5 image.

• The weapon is as visibly identifiable as in any of the other images
• Resolution was changed by third party.
• The usage policy is fine,

No other images on this article show the weapon being carried in a way which would be difficult to manage with other firearms. i.e. climbing a ladder

--Carbonrodney (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT displace the main image again with your poor quality, low-resolution poor angle photograph. I'm sure you are proud of your local law enforcement team, but you will NOT force an inferior image into the article by displacing other, "better" photographs. The fair use rationale is disputed, because it is a copyrighted non-free image and other similar types are readily available. I can guarantee it will be removed sooner or later by an admin. Saving you the frustration. Koalorka (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't displace the main image. I displaced your image... by one paragraph. Mine is a newer image, and seriously... is the order that important? Swap them if you want YOUR image first, it doesn't bother me. Frankly, you are just pissed off because someone touched what you think is your article. --Carbonrodney (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not MY image. It's a "better" image. It's not my article, it's on my watchlist so I revert unhelpful or destructive edits. YOUR image offers nothing. The MP5 in a counter-terrorist LE setting is already pictured in several other photos. The ladder climbing claim is simply stupid. So, apart from the magical ladder-climbing characteristics of the MP5, why do you wish to include this inferior image into the page? Are you from Australia? Koalorka (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please change your tone, it's unhelpful.

• The ladder climbing IS important, because one of the major features of the MP5 is that it is light and compact, allowing personnel carrying them more maneuverability than they would have carrying an M4 or an SR25. So that makes climbing ladders and rapelling easier. None of the other photographs indicate this.
• You referred to the image I uploaded as "my photo", so despite both now belonging to Wiki commons, I referred to the image YOU uploaded as your image, for clarity.
• You keep insisting this is an inferior image, and that yours is simply "better". What about it is inferior? the low-resolution was someone else, I have since compromised with them and now it is acceptable (you probably need to bypass cache) - not that that is even a criterion for removal. The weapon is as visible, if not more visible, than your image and the other images (including more of yours).
• I am Australian, but that doesn't imply COI. As I have completely ignored your insult toward our CT capability above, I would say I am remaining NPOV.

It appears that you are clutching at straws for reasons to remove the image from this site. Please stop discarding the contributions of others, they are not infringing on your territory - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

I propose a new idea: we have a gallery at the bottom of the page and all images go there. We can order them chronologically from date added to page (making my image last, because it is obvious what upset you was my image going in front of yours)

--Carbonrodney (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the photo of Australian commandos is nessessary. It is not a good photo of the subject of this article (the gun) as the gun is almost invisible against the soldier's uniform. Given that better examples of the gun being used are available it doesn't seem worth including, and the fair use claim for this article is probably not justified given that free photos of the gun being used by special forces troops are easily available from US military websites. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, by my count both of you are in danger of breeching the three revert rule, and may have actually breached it. Please note that this can lead to you being blocked from editing. It is good that you are now discussing the matter here though. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Not only is the image not helpful in illustrating the topic, but it is a non-free image, for which public domain alternatives are readily available, including an almost identical photograph of Chilean forces negotiating a flight of stairs and wielding the MP5 in one hand. Koalorka (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. My opinion is in the minority, I concede. I would remove the photo, but a fourth party already has. --Carbonrodney (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Red Army Faction

Dispute over the inclusion of a referenced statement that the MP5 has been used in the Red Army Faction's insignia. See here and here. Neutral, commonsense- and policy-based input from uninvolved editors welcome. Everyme 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This is a very weird topic to get into a fight over. The only reason I have ever heard of the manufacturer is precisely because of the RAF logo. Based on this personal experience I would consider it normal for this fact to be mentioned in some way. On the other hand, I am not sure how notable the RAF is (was) internationally, and I don't care at all. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The RAF, although it long since ceased to exist, remains quite notable. The point is that the RAF is arguably more notable than the MP5, and a direct connection like this one deserves to be duly mentioned in this article, if only for accuracy's and completeness' sake.

The WP:GUN#Guidelines that have been cited here in the past (see several sections above) arbitrarily demand that "In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage." This is in wild contradiction to the available sources, commonsense and our core content policies.

Also, I heartily agree that this is a weird thing to fight over, but there is surprisingly rigorous resistance against this relevant, verifiable piece of information. Consider that my edit preceding this RfC was reverted within less than two hours. I have occasionally tried to implement this bit before (2 times to be precise), but any attempt was roundly reverted and the last time, me and admin John kept talking to a wall of what in my personal opinion contained a wee bit ignorance and obstinate refusal to get the point in the face of overwhelming arguments. We eventually gave up, but it has bugged me ever since and I have now decided to escalate dispute resolution. Imho, it's a good little test of how strong Wikipedia's processes really work. Whether we indulge non-neutral editing like this or not. Everyme 07:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Based on the sources and the allaround obviousness of the situation here, I believe that the WP:GUN guidelines are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Nevertheless, since they have been cited in the past, please note that I opened a policy RfC on the "Criminal use" section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. Everyme 08:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The passage you cited from WP:GUN seems to make sense in general. I guess its purpose is to fend off little boys who come along with "this gun is cool because it was used in that high school massacre". But this case is clearly not what the rule was intended for, and WP:GUN does not take precedence over our general rules anyway. The purpose of WP:GUN is (or should be) to codify interpretations of our general rules as they frequently arise in conflicts in this particular part of Wikipedia.

It's a bad formulation, and it doesn't claim to be more than illustrative. If someone uses a particular type of gun for shooting 100 people in a discotheque in Luxembourg, then legislation might be passed in that state, saying that visitors of discotheques have to be checked for weapons. Nevertheless that's no reason to mention the shooting in an article on the gun. Similarly one could argue that the RAF did use the gun (I don't know whether they used it physically or just in the logo) as part of their criminal political activities, and that German laws were changed (rather drastically) as a result. But again, that's not a reasonable way to interpret this guideline. This is a very unusual case, and we need to go back to the general principles here.

Re your update: I think an RfC on the criminal use passage is probably overkill. It's not a problem with the guideline, it's a problem with its application to situations where it doesn't fit. We can't codify every single special case. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case a complementary word of caution might do the guidelines good and allay potential confusion in overeager editors who use it just because they are for some as-yet-unstated reason against adding this concise piece of info. I know that several people have this page watchlisted and hope they will eventually chime in with actually policy- and commonsense-based reasons, if there are any, as to what speaks against including the material. Everyme 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:GUNS#Criminal use was not the best guideline or policy to cite when debating against inclusion of the RAF in the article. A better policy to cite is WP:UNDUE, a part of WP:NPOV. My question is, how significant is the RAF's usage of the MP5 in their logo to the MP5? If not very significant to the MP5, then it should be given little to no weight in the article; and if it was very significant to the MP5, then it should be given appropriate weight in the article.

Oh, and by the way, thank you for bringing up WP:NPOV, for a while I've been meaning to make mention of WP:UNDUE in the policies, as that is one of the underlying policies behind the Criminal use and Pop culture guidelines, but I hadn't gotten around to it until you mentioned NPOV.--LWF (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the situation at hand. I am the one invoking WP:UNDUE, or rather WP:DUE. I do have reliable sources, the fact is relevant to a complete coverage and thus should be in the article. The problem with WP:GUNS#Criminal use as happened here before is in the clearly wrongful claiming of UNDUE treatment when it's really just a matter of IDONTLIKEIT. So, to make myself as clear as possible: NPOV and DUE are most obviously on "my side" of arguing for a concise but clearly due and verifiable statement that the MP5 was used in the RAF insignia. Anything else would be a simple perversion of policies against their underlying principles. FWIW, please understand that I am well aware that my effort to bring this article to a more complete and accurate coverage of verifiable facts fully conforms to all our content policies and to their spirit. Unless someone presents any real argument as to why that fact would UNDUE to mention here, for a lack of other options I have to assume that I am indeed correct.

One particular item of confusion that seems to reappear out of the earlier discussion, and which happens to be in the policy-defying portion of WP:GUN#Criminal use is the entirely erroneous assumption that a thing/fact X "must have had" any influence whatsoever on thing/fact Y for X to be mentioned in the article on Y. This is just not the case. Your question "how significant is the RAF's usage of the MP5 in their logo to the MP5?" is completely meaningless. It's like this: What is the sum of all verifiable facts about the MP5? Part of the answer: The MP5 has been used in the RAF insignia. It's most clearly in the best interest of a general encyclopedia to concisely mention that verifiable fact. One or two short sentences about an item of relatively major notability like this is necessary to even achieve DUE weight. Everyme 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My question is not "meaningless" as you claim. I am asking because in WP:UNDUE it states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." I am merely trying to figure out how significant it is to the MP5 because that is exactly what UNDUE gives as the criteria for how much weight we give it. So my question stands.--LWF (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyme, I think you should really look at our article Show, don't tell. This advice doesn't just make sense when writing a novel; it's also applicable to encyclopedia articles and talk page discussions. You are claiming all sorts of things, but you are not saying much (if anything) about why these claims are justified. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give others the chance to chime in. The point is that I've explained everything necessary. I won't respond to tactical games. Everyme 02:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not playing trying to play tactical games, I am trying to make your point in a convincing way. You may have given actual arguments about the matter itself (i.e. why should the RAF logo be mentioned in an article about the weapon), but I am not going to read old edit summaries or dig your arguments up in other sections (without concrete pointers). Other respondents to the RFC will likely have the same attitude. You must make a convincing case in this section. That means arguing the substance, not hiding the substance in a large paragraph consisting mostly of claims. I am talking about the difference between "I am right and you know it" and "I am right because ...". The latter is potentially convincing, the former not so much. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, here's the quick rundown once again: (1) The MP5 was used in the RAF insignia (verifiable through sources). (2) The RAF is quite notable (verifiable through sources). (3) The fact that the MP5 was used in the RAF insignia should be mentioned in the article about the MP5 to make this article more comprehensive. That's all. Now, what was the line of reasoning again to leave this verifiable piece of information about easily the most notable ever depiction of the MP5 out of the article? Everyme 08:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest adding the information at the end of the article in a section titled "Other uses". I see no reason for including any mention in the lead section of the article. Apteva (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I for one had no particular spot in the article in mind. A section "Other uses", or maybe "Other users" as a subsection of Users would be perfectly fine by me. The current dispute I believe is more about whether or not to include it at all. Everyme 05:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you've argued your position, but that alone will not give you the green light for including the information into the page, you are in the minority, this should come down to a show of hands, let me start:

Oppose: For the various reasons states above. Barely notable, had no influence on the MP5, did not affect the perception of the MP5, promotes criminal use of the MP5, promotes a criminal Marxist terror organization and their actions in an article free of politics. 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koalorka (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, you have it all wrong. (i) No actual reason to not include the statement has been stated anywhere on this talk page. (ii) "Barely notable"? Get real. (iii) "had no influence [etcpp.]": irrelevant, as pointed out above. (iv) "promotes a criminal Marxist terror organization and their actions in an article free of politics" — I like that part of your comment the best. Hilarious. Everyme 17:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Get real", the fact that it had no influence on the MP5 is according to you "irrelevant". You sir just won the internet, good luck. Koalorka (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"won the internet"? And no, the fact that it is irrelevant whether or not the RAF's usage of the MP5 in their insignia had any influence on the MP5 is not my opinion. Opinion (and heavily biased, and policy- and commonsense defying) is that arbitrary threshold in WP:GUNS#Criminal use which you desperately keep citing. Everyme 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I tend to support the WP:UNDUE argument against inclusion. That being said, I don't know what the fuss is all about. Had the original request for inclusion have been made under "Users" and "Germany", no one would have objected. But you agitators insist on including it in the main text body or creating a special header for this brief mention. Koalorka (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy it. You had every opportunity to amend the inclusion anyway you see fit, but you simply reverted instead. And you have done it before, which may indicate an ownership issue to some extent. Frankly, if and as long as you prefer to be dishonest like this and clearly edit motivated by your strong POV rather than an interest in proper enyclopedic coverage, I have no further interest in your comments. Everyme 18:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is one of the fundamental problems with your argument Everyme: you have not shown us how the RAF's logo is significant to the MP5. You've told us it is plenty of times, but you have given us little to nothing to back up your argument that it is significant to the MP5. Now, if it were shown that it were significant, then it would be different; but as of yet, you have not shown us how including it would not go against WP:UNDUE by giving excess weight to something that isn't significant to the MP5.

Now, I wouldn't mind a brief mention in the section on users, as that would be brief, concise, and accurate, without being given undue weight by being in its own section or inside the main text body.--LWF (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I daresay I have complied and cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring several times over by now. As I also said above already, I have no strong opinion on where this should be placed in the article. It could be in the main text body (note that the users section is in the main text body). Hell, I'd be happy with a link under See also. But I'm afraid even that wouldn't stick, that's why I included references. Everyme 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I don't suppose you would mind going over it again and showing us how it is significant to the MP5? Just a quick and concise review would be fine, and would be very helpful in establishing where everyone stands. Or you could just go ahead and place a concise statement about the RAF logo under Germany under the user's section, as everyone seems to be okay with that.--LWF (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)