Talk:Franchi SPAS-12

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Reliability

Is it worth adding a reliability section? I only ask because I find this gun extremely bad to use for any purpose. Its prone to jamming, misfiring and barrles exploding and reciever housing cracking and being destroyed. There are plenty of references to back this up if people think it is relavent.

82.19.175.206 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are, it's prone to jamming because the user lacks experience operating it, it misfires because the user is using cheap ammo made from cheap materials, barrels explode because someone is using rounds it's not chambered for, poorly measured handloads, or cheap ammo with quality control issues. As far as the receiver cracking, someone's slacking on proper maintenance. If the recoil buffer breaks, there will be issues, but as long as the owner is a competent gun owner, rather than a popularity fairy, maintenance will be done regularly and parts breaking won't be a problem. I'm pretty sure the firearm isn't to blame. SlackerGlobal (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlackerGlobal (talk • contribs) 09:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, SlackerGlobal, but a "combat shotgun" that needs to be babied to function correctly is not a good "combat shotgun". In fact, such a weapon is not a good weapon at all. Proxy User (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see any reliable source for the claims of any of the above faults. In the years I had mine I must've put the best part of 10,000 rounds through it with no problems other than a habit of stovepiping with one particular manufacturer's bird-shot cartridges which, not being an idiot, I stopped buying. "jamming, misfiring and barrles exploding and reciever housing cracking and being destroyed" makes me immediately think 'OK, which moron hasn't read the stamping on the barrel and has been firing 3" cartridges'.

The SPAS doesn't need babying to be a fine weapon it just needs to be used correctly the same as any gun. If you put smokeless cartridges in to a black-powder gun and blew up in your face would you blame the gun or blame the idiot who loaded it in the first place? 92.40.144.123 (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Variants

We should probably make note of the LAW-12 and the SAS-12 as they are variants on the SPAS-12 rather than completely different systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.149.121 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.207.171 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed pop culture section

I've deleted most of the pop culture section. The reason is that people were starting to use it as a dump to throw in all their favorite and obscure movies/games/books/anime/manga where the SPAS is visible for like, one frame. The same thing can be seen happening to FN P90, and I regret to admit that I'm partially responsible. Tronno 18:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The firearms pop culture impact is a important aspect of the firearm's existence. Its not our job to restrict people access to this information. Ve3 15:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of censorship. It's just that long lists of games and movies are unencyclopedic - merely saying that they exist is sufficient. I discussed this issue with with the admin A Man in Black and he agrees. See Talk:FN P90 in popular culture for an explanation. Tronno 20:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting content and links to other pages does indeed restrict access to the information. Removing a whole aspect of a firearms existence- censoring, is not our job, nor is it a service to the people who are interested in it. Ve3 21:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a compromise. Link from instances of pop culture to the gun article, but not vice versa. That way, the information is targeted at interested parties, clutter is still removed, and there will be no "censoring". Agreed? Tronno 22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not very clear that trivia sections are not desirable in Wikipedia articles? I am all for recognition of the power of popular culture, but frankly such a section does constitute mere trivia, and lends credence to "sources" that, in my view, typically represent these objects (i.e. SPAS-12) in a similarly trivial manner, that is to say, not reflective of their qualities, and rarely intended as commentary. That's why too much time devoted to such trivia, to me, is unencyclopedic, even though I generally side with those attempting to qualify pop culture impact within certain articles. Twca (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should only have it for popular culture with wikipedia articles. This gun appeared in the first Jurassic park movie so we should include it because that was significant. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, because I accidentally added it back 18 years later… FishyGuy77 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US gunlaws vs. other countries

Is it relevant to write in nearly every gunarticle what US gunlaws say about that particular weapon. I can get licence nearly everykind of weapon if I want to (if I had money to buy them) so US gunlaw isn't really the issue in most of the world. --81.197.218.62 17:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US gun laws are relevant in two ways: 1. the US civilian gun market dwarfs that of most other countries, and when it is mentioned in an article it should not come as a surprise. More importantly, 2. the official meaning of the SPAS acronym was formulated solely with the US market in mind (shotguns are illegal in the US, except those that are found to be "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" - that's why the S stands for "sporting"). In this case, US gun laws are a big issue indeed. If you can write content about foreign laws and their unique relevance to the SPAS-12, go ahead. Otherwise, I feel your edits are unnecessarily splitting the article. Tronno (talk | contribs) 16:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "sporting purpose" law relates only to importing weapons. That applies to the SPAS-12 since it's made in Italy, but an identical shotgun that's made in America would be 100% legal. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

points of contention for this article:

First, the discussion about "sporting purpose" for shotguns seems to presuppose that "sporting purpose" in and of itself is a well defined legal definition for some specific type of weapon when in actually this term is very much an ambiguous one - much like the oft used "assualt weapon".

Second, The article's description about its marketing in the US suggests that Franchi tried to side step US regulations by renaming it for "sporting purposes" to my knowledge this is not the case since the "destructive device" reclassifications only occurred in 1994. In fact aside from the unique heat shield the SPAS-12's function is identical to other shotguns. It is also misleading to say that its ban is due to classification as a "military shotgun" since this is a term which again has no agreed upon definition. this is the reason the SPAS-12 has been referred to specifically by name in so-called "assault weapon" legislation rather than fall into a specific classification.

(Response) 1. Under the (Gun Control Act of 1968 or the GCA 68) the adopted term "Sporting Purpose" is a legal definition which was adopted into U.S. Law by Senator Dodd, CT copying it directly from the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 or the NWA 38). The complete term in itself (Sporting Purpose) is legally adopted from the Nazi law 1938 and it has been proven Senator Dodd was a sitting member on the prosecution team of the Nuremburg Trials and received NWA 38 during the war trial investigation. (User:HellsXGunsmith)04 APR 2016.

2. SPAS 12 and LAW 12 shotguns were never Destructive Devices. Agreed, Franchi never side stepped regulations. Importer American Arms Installed on the imported shotguns inside the U.S. the Fixed Stocks and Magazine Restrictions before Distributing to Dealers in the U.S. This was also in agreement with the BATF in 1990 with the importation ban that killed F.I.E. further more in 1994 no LAW 12 or SPAS 12 shotgun was legally imported into the U.S. after the shotgun failed to meet legal definition of the 1994 Crime Bill and was classified as a Assault Weapon. American Arms could not further modify the weapon to conform to the 1994 Crime Bill and killed the importation outright from Franchi. (User:HellsXGunsmith)04 APR 2016

The SPAS-12 can be said to have been banned for cosmetic purposes only as a "scary-looking" weapon rather than due to any destructive advantage it might be thought to possess. --Zenophite1 18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

SIGH. Does anybody have a picture of the SPAS-12 that won't be deleted by the tight-arse policy lovers? Articles without pictures are somehow incomplete. Gamer Junkie 04:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

This page sure could use a Photograph of Spas-12. Arctic-Editor 15:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Preferrably one that won't be instantly deleted. Gamer Junkie 08:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a photo but I have no idea if it is copyrighted, it's at this address [1]. --DanMP5 15:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can use that. Usually I'd say that all you'd need to do is obtain permission from the site's operator, but image usage has become such a complicated, jumbled up, mass of shit now that I'm not sure that'll even cut it anymore. The best pictures to use are those photographed by an editor and scanned into Wikipedia by the editor, him/herself. Problem is (and try explaining this to the administrators) that not all that many people have a combat shotgun just sitting on the coffee table. Gamer Junkie 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire settings

Why would the pump action be preferred to the semi-automatic action at times? 70.231.229.31 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained in the article - "to reliably fire low-pressure ammunition". Some ammo loads do not produce high enough pressure to cycle the gas system, so the gun has to be cycled manually intead (by pump action). - Tronno ( t | c ) 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture.

I uploaded that picture, however it does not have any copywrights, and I do not know how to do that stuff. I found it off google, could someone help me with this? --RobertLeBlais (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pick mine up in a week, as soon as I do, I'll take a few pics. Any recommendations/photogenic tips? SlackerGlobal (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a few pictures of mine, but Wikipedia isn't letting me upload. Anyone care to offer a hand? SlackerGlobal (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they acceptable file types? Wikipedia only accepts png, gif, jpg and jpeg. — DanMP5 04:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym

Does anyone have a credible source for what "SPAS" stands for, if anything? I've heard a dozen different variations on the acronym. 67.252.181.175 (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It stands for Sporting Purpose Automatic Shotgun 12 gauge.71.97.190.192 (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced that is not a case of changing the meaning to suit the circumstances. In the UK where the SPAS was and still is perfectly legal the general opinion is that the initial 'S' stands for 'Special' rather than 'Sporting'. The idea that the SPAS is predominately anything other than a military / police shotgun is frankly ridiculous. The only credible sporting use for the SPAS is Practical Shotgun competition which is a niche market and certainly not a large enough market to justify the development and mass production of such a complex and expensive weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.50.214 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal usage?

The gun is no longer being imported into America, but the ones that are already in America are still legal to use for police forces, firing ranges and (as far as I'm concerned) to keep in your household. However, the gun sports a heavy duty design that would be prohibited to own in Canada. That being said, does anyone have confirmation that the gun, although illegal to own in a household, is still legal to be used at firing ranges in Canada? Because I live in Alberta and am anxious to fire one of these, but don't know if the local gun stores have any in stock or if they're even allowed to have them.--199.126.196.159 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place to ask that sort of advice; ask the local gun stores, the RCMP, a Canadian gun-expert attorney, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

category "automatic shotgun"

This article is in the "automatic shotgun" category yet the text says it is either pump action or semi-automatic. AadaamS (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To all intents and purposes it is an automatic shotgun (or 'self-loading' / 'semi-automatic' if we are being pedantic) with the option to use as a pump action. Anybody who has used one will tell you that as a pump action it's cumbersome and a bit too much like hard work. As an auto it's a great gun, as a pump action is a pretty awful one and in the real world it's just as quick and a lot easier to cycle the gun using the cocking 'lever' should the need arise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.232.216 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Franchi SPAS-12

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Franchi SPAS-12's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Jones":

From Pakistan: Adam Jones (2004). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge. p. 420. ISBN 978-0-415-35384-7.
From Franchi SPAS-15: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009-2010. Jane's Information Group. p. 308. ISBN 0-7106-2869-2.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Bad Link. Jones reference needs to be removed from references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.207.171 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

This may be one of the most under-sourced firearms articles I've seen on Wikipedia. My instinct is to cut it back to a stub so that it has the chance to regrow based on actual references. So this is fair warning - if there's any material that you like make sure it's cited. Rezin (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An additional 20 reference sites added for fact data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.207.171 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Unfortunately, several sources in this article do not meet Wikipedia standards. spas12.com, spas-12.com, and imfdb.org are either self-published or otherwise unreliable. Rezin (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Franchi SPAS-12. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.oag.state.md.us/opinions/2010/95oag101.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822145526/http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1612007/ind.asp to http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1612007/ind.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Franchi SPAS-12. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150222233915/http://www.spas-12.com/cibles-164-november-1983.html to http://www.spas-12.com/cibles-164-november-1983.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150223003900/http://www.spas-12.com/when-was-my-spas-12-made.html to http://www.spas-12.com/when-was-my-spas-12-made.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Forearm"

The article repeatedly referred to the folding stock hook being braced against the user's "forearm" to allow it to be fired one-handed; while I was reading the article I was pretty baffled as to how it would even be possible to brace a shoulder stock against the user's "forearm" unless they were holding the shotgun backwards. But then I saw the illustration and understood, realizing that all the references to "forearm" were actually supposed to be UPPER arm. I have edited the article to correct this. Farewell, Randolph Carter, and beware - FOR I AM NYARLATHOTEP, THE CRAWLING CHAOS!! 22:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Illinois Assault Rifle Ban

This weapon is now banned in Illinois as of Tuesday and needs added to the list. There are probably about 170 firearm articles that need updated to reflect this. 73.210.63.152 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better infobox photo?

Just as the title says, perhaps a more professional and technical photo could be provided? Aliy Dawut (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]