Talk:Winchester Model 1887/1901

Australian Copies

ADI manufactured a few M1887 copies in 1996/1997, but they were mechanically unreliable and there were distribution issues, especially as there was concern the shotguns might get reclassified into a restricted category.

As for June 2006, there are M1887 copies made by "CAI" of China available for sale in Australia, with a retail price of AUD$795.

Rewrite

The copy I read originally lacked somewhat. I went through and rewrote it. For some reason, somebody had a picture of an 1886? or 1873? rifle instead of an 1887 shotgun, so I posted the correct picture. My new article isn't perfect, but I think it does much more justice to the subject.

Why purge the trivia list?

The Winchester 1887 isn't exactly common, and it made pretty notable appearances in Terminator and Ghost Rider. There's no reason to delete it. By the way, why'd you leave the Terminator 2 appearance but delete everything else? 75.17.118.62 21:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about originally, but I removed it because none of the appearances mentioned have any affect whatsoever on the notability of the firearm per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Pop_culture. For example, even though Arnold carried one in T2, most people didn't know what the gun was, the movie certainly didn't say. Arthurrh 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree- the Lever Action shotgun used by Schwarzenegger in the film is notable because it's so unusual. The appearances in Ghost Rider and The Mummy Returns aren't notable- it's just a shotgun that someone happened to have in the armoury- but in T2 it's a focal piece of equipment- Schwarzenegger was posing with it for the Movie Poster and all the Promotional Material, for smeg's sake- and notable for that and it's unusualness. Before T2 came out, I didn't even know they made Lever-Action shotguns. Therefore, the M1887/1901 shotgun's notability is extraordinarily enhanced by it's appearance in T2, IMHO- in fact, this should be as plain as James Bond and the Walther PPK or Dirty Harry and the .44 Magnum. If the M1887/1901 hadn't been in T2, it would probably be one of the most obscure shotguns ever designed or manufactured. As it is, people recognise "That lever-action shotgun that Arnie had in T2", even if they don't know that it's Winchester Model 1901- they're going to be confused if they come across this article, think "That looks like the shotgun from T2, but it doesn't mention it in the article". As I've said before, the Pop Culture guidelines were introduced to stop Anime fans from including every. single. piece of obscure anime in which someone had a Mauser Broomhandle, or people adding lists with things like "A character in Randomfilm can be seen holding a Tokarev TT-33 in the scene when Something Interesting happens". It wasn't intended to create a situation in which we all pretend that firearms don't appear in movies or in popular culture, which is what we're veering dangerously close to at the moment, IMHO. --Commander Zulu 12:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that firearms don't appear in movies. They're just saying that the appearance of a gun in a movie generally has no effect whatsover on the gun. For example in this case, it could just have well have been a Marlin lever-shotgun, and it wouldn't have made any difference. It's coincidental. If someone wants to know what shotgun Arnie used in a film, they'd do well to look at an article about the film, not randomly sift through shotgun articles hoping to find the correct one. It's very apropo to the film article, but only trivia to the firearm article. Per WP:TRIVIA "Trivia sections should be avoided, but if they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined." And also take a look at Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Connective trivia which suggests the info belongs in the film article, but not the firearm article. Arthurrh 03:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this discussion before over and over again and the end result is always the same. The bar is set really high for inclusion of a fictional reference in a REAL FIREARM article. This is all the more true when stupid details such as how big Arnold's hands are seem to get included. Who, reading this article, cares how big the Terminator's hands are? What does that have to do with the gun? To butcher a line from a movie, "This ain't no Sharps rifle and you ain't no Quigley." The concensus still stands, leave it out.--Asams10 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Does not belong. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be notable from the movie's perspective, but it has nothing notable to add to a discussion about the gun other than trivia. If someone was asking me technical info about the firearm, it's definitely not something I mentioned. It didn't increase sales or even interest in lever-action shotguns. I fail to see how it belongs at all. Again, per the policy, it can't simply be notable, it has to have increased the notability of the firearm. Arthurrh 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it may not be suitable for inclusion in the article but that does not mean that people don't want to be informed about this cool and obviously modded gun. If you folks have good info on Arnie's shotgun put it here in the discussion page so all the interested will have access to it without having to read about it in the actual Wiki article. Just my 2 cents. 68.153.29.23 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Re-write

I've re-written the article and added an image, as it seemed long overdue for a clean-up. There's surprisingly little information on these shotguns in any of my reference books or on the net though, so thorough cites and references might have to wait a bit until someone can come up with something. --Commander Zulu 13:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Stembridge Gun Rentals or anyone else has ever made the enlarged handles for re-enactor enthusists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.48.146 (talk) 06:16, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives

I've been kicking this around trying to find a good way to include this in the article. The guidelines say that it should be part of the normal flow of the article, so maybe someone out there can help me. I was thinking of something like "Many people aren't aware that shotguns are available in lever-action, and were surprised on seeing one used by Arnold Schwarzenegger in T2" but of course that's OR, so if someone has a historical source from old news articles, it could fly. Similarly, if there was a report somewhere that somehow interest in this cool old shotgun was sparked/revitalized by T2, it would fit. Sources anyone? I'm afraid my library is much more centered on cartridges than old firearms. Arthurrh 23:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A likely reason you're not able to find a way is that there is no good way to do it because it doesn't belong. Even if it were thorougly referenced (good luck) that there is a causal relationship between a SIGNIFICANT change to the firearm, it would still be marginal trivia. The revitilization of the shotgun was due to the increase of cowboy action shooting as you can verify by noting the 1897 also went back into production.--Asams10 06:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly can't find any such reference, but it's not clear from Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Connective_trivia that if you "DID" find such a reliable source that the use would be categorically disallowed. But in absence of a source, it's a moot point. Funny that you should strongly be in favor of the Walter P22 - Vtech inclusion, but against this one, even with a connection. ;-) Arthurrh 06:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not funny at all. I'd say my crusade against FICTION should, at least in my conscience, give me more credibility in my arguments for the VT inclusion. The difference for me is FACT vs. FICTION. One happens, the other is contrived. The line is crystal clear to me. I don't like things being made up for the purpose of being made up.--Asams10 06:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for clarifying. Like I said, if it was clear that somehow T2 had revitalized interest in this firearm, or maybe even lever-action shotguns, I'd be inclined to include it. In some sense it was what someone was suggesting. But I certainly can't find any supporting references for it. I'm inclined to think that a lot of people didn't give the firearm a second thought upon watching the movie. Arthurrh 06:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note Clyde Barrow used a M1901 lever action as well; it was noted as being unusual even at the time. Not really suitable for mentioning in the article, as it had no real affect on the gun's notability, but the M1887 does seem to pop up in some odd places. As for the Fact vs Fiction thing- the way I see it, it is a FACT that this particular gun was used in this particular work (film), which happened to be FICTION. The line isn't quite as clear-cut, IMHO, as we've discussed before. --Commander Zulu 08:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this over on the P90 talk page. Maybe it applies here as well?

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"

To me, the gun should be mentioned in the T2 article, but not here. The flow is one direction. I've been saying that for awhile. There is no trivia that belongs in any firearms article unless the reader would be likely to come to the firearms article in question FIRST. That requires that the reader already know the gun, and would likely be looking for something about why the gun was in the movie. Not just a blub to the effect that it was. He'd already know that much. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, makes a lot of sense. And yet those that have tried to put the info here have apparently not tried to add it to the T2 article, which confuses me. Arthurrh 18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ONLY legal repeating shotgun under Aussie law?

I know there's this, there's the Mossberg bolt-actions, but what about the Mc-255 shotgun and MTs255 shotguns? They are repeating shotguns which are neither pump-actions nor semi-automatics (and therefore legal), much like the M1887 and the Mossberg bolt guns, so should they be mentioned? CeeWhy2 09:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revolving shotguns are illegal under NSW legislation, as I understand it. They're not available for sale here anyway- I'd never even heard of them until I read the linked articles. If you want a repeating 12ga shotgun here in Australia, and you aren't a farmer, your options are a Mossberg Bolt-Action or a Winchester 1887.--Commander Zulu 10:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Queensland, though? Do you know anything about their laws in relation to weapons such as this? I looked at the NSW legislation [1] and I noticed that it mentioned revolving longarms specifically, but the Queensland legislation [2] does not. I don't think revolving longarms are outlawed in Queensland like they are in New South Wales. CeeWhy2 11:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK revolving longarms aren't specifically banned in QLD, but as I said before you can't buy the revolving shotguns in Australia anyway, as I don't believe they're approved for import by Customs- which means you can't legally own one here. --Commander Zulu 13:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at my latest issue of Australian Shooter here, and there's this full-page advert for this Queensland gun shop called Cleaver Firearms - they're advertising their stock of Uberti revolving carbines. Maybe revolving longarms ARE approved for import... CeeWhy2 08:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said they weren't, but there are various safety tests that a revolving shotgun would have to pass before Customs would clear it for import. It's done on a firearm by firearm basis, so whilst a Uberti revolving carbine might have been OKd for import (and clearly they have been), that doesn't automatically mean a revolving shotgun would also be approved. FWIW, I have not yet seen revolving shotguns advertised for sale in Australia, and I can't see it happening anytime soon, as there's no market for them, IMHO. --Commander Zulu 12:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. CeeWhy2 12:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator

In the movie Terminator 2, Arnold Schwarzenegger's character, the T-800 uses a modified Winchester Model 1887 so that it can be "flip-cocked" in multiple scenes of the film. Because of the cultural significance of the character and the movie, i think this should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.219.84 (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the section of this talk page titled 'why purge the trivia list'. That addition doesn't conform to the project guidelines for Wikipedia firearm articles. ROG5728 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

@NotLessOrEqual: For the infobox at least, preference is given to images of the real thing, especially if the images are practically identical (save for the Mare's Leg in your (very good) render). However, I believe that your image definitely does have a place on the article; I would suggest putting it under the infobox, like on SIG Sauer P227. I think it would look nicer if the receivers where lined up, but I have no idea how much or how little work that would require.

I also slightly object to you straight-up reverting my edit, as I changed more than just the image; changing just the image to your version, or starting a discussion on here, would have been better (in my opinion). Thanks, RadiculousJ (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RadiculousJ:Thank you for your input. I think its beneficial to standardize image and info-box image quality. As far was Wiki page content (eg. Fire-arms) go, it lacks standardization of quality. e.g some Info-box image will depict the particular firearm along with other fire-arms or other objects in the background which causes emphasis to be drawn away from the main content itself, others may be poorly-edited and cut (see recently reverted FN P90 as an example, which I had replaced with a standardized image of improved quality but was reverted) and others may be to darkly lit, grainy and/or extremely old (existing) photographic image of the weapon and other graphical inconsistencies. Wiki policy states that anything should be improved upon if room for improvement is possible regardless whether its text, image, tables and suchlike. Otherwise, you are free to make any other minor corrections.

Other editors may accuse me of self promotion, but all of my content, including original images by me are licensed under CC0; Public Domain, and I take no credit for any of my works; they are dedicated solely for the use and interest for the general public, specifically for Wikipedia in the sake of improved and standardized quality and content.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. NotLessOrEqual

@RadiculousJ: Image of both guns now have the receivers lined up as suggested. I agree, it does look better this way. Thank you for your input.

NotLessOrEqual

Use in video games/movies

This page seems to get decent traffic from gamers who aren't aware of what the pop culture section is for. I know there is discussion in the above sections, but I'm making a new section here in hopes people will notice this before adding to the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Pop_culture. While the 1887 may be a popular weapon within certain gaming communities, not everyone is a gamer. For example, when someone thinks of the Terminator, chances are they'll imagine him riding a motorcycle with his cut down 1887. Games like Modern Warfare 2 or Fallout New Vegas aren't nearly as well known and for many, the weapon is just another shotgun to use. --Grimwol (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Why use a reproduction and not an action model? I think that there are much better, higher quality images of actual gun models than the current one Aliy Dawut (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]