Talk:RSh-12

Is there any evidence that this revolver is in serial production and not just proto-type

Very interesting revolver, much like Chiappa. There doesn't seem to be any YouTube videos demo-ing it (there are video game videos on it as an imaginary gun in Crossfire and Fallout. If anyone has a comparison with S&W .500 that would be interesting material. I don't find it for sale anywhere on internet. And I have not been able to see a comparison of the cartridges (would S&W 500 fit in the RSh-12 or the Russian cartridge fit in an S&W?) Also, I have not seen a detailed ballistics report on the Russian cartridge. (PeacePeace (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC))

@PeacePeace More than 8 years later and no new information has come out that I can find. A real shame because it really is such an interesting bit of kit. kj-ursa (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism to "Users" section – support for semi-protection request

There has been a recent influx of vandalism (starting around late February/early March 2026) where unregistered and temporary accounts repeatedly add unsourced or fictional entries to the "Users" section. These additions appear to be inspired by the appearance of a heavily-modified RSh-12 (named "Requiem") in the newly released Resident Evil Requiem (2026).

Examples of problematic additions include fictional characters from the game or related media being listed as "users" alongside the real-world Russian Federation operator. Such content violates Wikipedia policies on verifiability (WP:V), reliable sourcing (especially for factual operator lists in military/firearms articles), and not treating Wikipedia as a game guide (WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE). Firearms articles per WikiProject Firearms norms restrict "Users" to cited real-world military/law enforcement adoption.

I have been reverting these as obvious vandalism (exempt from 3RR per WP:VANDALISM), but the pattern is persistent. A protection request was filed today at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#RSh-12 citing this exact issue.

Semi-protection (allowing only autoconfirmed users to edit) would prevent drive-by additions from IPs/temps whilst still permitting constructive edits. If anyone has reliable sources for additional real operators, or suggestions for handling media appearances (e.g., a brief "In popular culture" mention if sourced and notable), please discuss here.

Thanks for any input. kj-ursa (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Let me help since you seem really out of the loop in the world right now and chronically angry. The Requiem is a weapon from RE9 that heavily resembles the RSh-12, down to the caliber of bullet that it uses. An "In popular culture" category would be a boon to the weapon, as a large number of people are interested in guns that resemble their real life counterparts. Unfortunately, there aren't a ton of what you might call "reliable sources" since it is a video game weapon and it is very new, however, https://residentevil.fandom.com/wiki/Requiem_(Magnum) is as close as I could get to a source that you might be somewhat happy about. Cyron3D (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

In the spirit of having a good-faith discussion about this (which is what the Talk page is for) I will address each of your points individially. I will include links to the relevant guidelines to support my response:

1. Personal attacks have no place in Talk page discussions, and you might find more constructive discussion is fostered when such remarks are left out.

2. By all means, add the appearance of the weapon in RE9 to a dedicated "in popular culture" section, rather than adding fictional appearances to the real-world users section, which I have been having to revert constantly prior to this page being semi-protected. Please see my edits on this article for further context. Additionally, original research is dissallowed on Wikipedia; you MUST cite a source other than "well, it's obvious." Which leads me to...

3. Fandom is user-generated content, and should not be cited on Wikipedia. If you feel this information belongs on Wikipedia, please find a secondary source (such as an article from a game journal) to cite regarding its appearance. I would suggest in your specific case to find the source that Fandom article is citing, and reference that. If a source cannot be found, it is perfectly OK to hold off from adding this information until one can be found. kj-ursa (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced "in popular culture" additions

There have been several recent good-faith edits adding videogame appearances without reliable secondary sources. Please note that even if an appearance is unquestionably present in the game, Wikipedia requires that it be verifiable beyond an editor's own observation. Additionally, user-generated sources such as blogs and fandom/wikis are not acceptable sources.

A pop culture section is perfectly appropriate when it goes beyond a simple list of appearances and discusses the weapon's cultural impact. But like anything on Wikipedia, it must be supported by reliable sources. Suitable sources might include coverage from established videogame publications or interviews with the developers. As noted in my previous talk page post, if no suitable source can be found to verify a particular appearance, the information should not be included.

Winter.Lance (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Dates

Can someone find out and add dates for when the revolver was designed and when it entered service? The only date on this page seems to be about the carbine variant. IRMacGuyver (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The only dates I am reasonably confident about in the absence of any contradictory information are a design date c. 2000 and the weapon entering service in 2014. These dates were previously in the infobox, but as of this edit I removed them as I could find no reliable source to support them. Adding these dates back with a tag seems attractive, but unsourced material should definitely not be reintroduced on that basis. Another concern is that non-reliable sources, such as other wikis or enthusiast blogs, may have obtained these uncited – and potentially incorrect – dates from this very article, creating a circular sourcing problem. Winter.Lance (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)