Talk:RK 95 TP

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims the Rk95 can mount a grenade launcher (HK69A1 presumably). Proof of this? Otherwise shouldn't it be taken out of the article. Rynky (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My published source claims it can mount the M203.

Koalorka (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood sliver (talk • contribs) [reply

]

What source is this? I'm not leaning either way, just want to know where the info is coming from. Rynky (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish state firearms research institute publication.

Koalorka (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well it's odd then that there are no pictures, and no movements have been made in Finland (as far as I know) to acquire M203s. Rynky (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Recall reading a SAKO technical specifications document back in 1996 concerning the 95. I don't remember the document mentioning a mountable grenade launcher, but it did note that due to redesign of the muzzle, the 95 is capable of firing rifle grenades, which previous Rk versions could not. 89.27.47.222 (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do any exist? What is their status? Faceless Enemy (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Manelolo: Though I already moved the other page, what can you say of this: (The designation of the rifle means "Rynnäkkökivääri 95 Taittoperä" rather than "RynnäkköKivääri 95 TaittoPerä", so it should be "Rk 95 Tp" rather than "RK 95 TP".) Culled from the page move log. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: Hey, thx for the quick reaction. Pointers: 1) According to proper Finnish grammar, the full name is 'rynnäkkökivääri 95 taittoperä' without any capitalizations (its not a proper noun, just a rifle model designation literally meaning "assault rifle 95 folding stock" where 95 is the year of approval). So in that ultra-grammatic form the abbreviation would be 'rk 95 tp' which makes even less sense. 2) Having served a few years in the Army, I've never seen the style 'Rk 95 Tp'. The Defence Forces manual of style for abbreviations doesn't follow official Finnish language guidelines per se since it says something like "words can be contracted in the start, middle or ending however the editor sees fit". And the Defence Forces have clearly chosen 'RK 95 TP' as the correct abbreviation per the website. 3) I am fully guessing the quote you found from the page move log is some odd form of grammar-nerdiness without looking at common use or sourcing. Manelolo (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manelolo:. Hi, thank you for this clarification. I will implement the move. Please know that I only ask this clarification because I believe it will be valuable in case of any future discussion. For example see this and this section on my talkpage where move like this used to turn controversial and earlier title had to be restored because of lack of explanation like this. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: Np, very understandable. For bookkeeping, I'll just copypaste exactly how the Finnish Army titles the weapon on its webpage today: "Rynnäkkökivääri 7.62 RK 95 TP" [1]; and ditto for the older model too: "Rynnäkkökivääri 7.62 RK 62" [2] Manelolo (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]