I learned exactly the same way. If you want to start right away on making new pages, take a look at some of the featured movies for an example of what is considered good/proper formatting, such as http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Saving_Private_Ryan. Of course, you should also read http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Rules...and_Principles to see what standards are expected at this site in particular.

I would create a page for Restrepo myself, but the problem is that I can't really identify most of the weapons used in it. And yes, even though it is a documentary, I'd like to be able to identify the firearms I saw in the film. This is what I use IMFDB for: to bolster my knowledge of firearms and to be able to identify them.

I didn't mean to be unreasonable and "demand" someone make a page; I just thought I'd get a little help from others more knowledgeable about firearms than me. With time, maybe I'll be able to contribute to IMFDB on my own.

Since it is a documentary and the site doesn't allow those, would it be fair to post screencaps of the guns in the movie on this forum so you can still expand your knowledge without breaking the rules? Still looking for it btw.

I can tell you from reading the book that most of the weapons are standard U.S. Army issue stuff that you can identify by going to Wikipedia: M4 carbines, M249 SAWs, the M240, and the Browning M2HB .50-caliber.

Thanks MT2008. I think the M240 was where I got hung up. I saw it and thought to myself, "Wait, that's not an M60..."

Also, I was surprised at the beat-up look of some of the firearms in Restrepo. I know these guys were deployed in that valley for 15 months and all, but damn. I wonder if there is any info or a book or something on the longevity of equipment used by Coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah, O'Byrne's squad carried the platoon's M240.

Haven't seen the documentary yet, but I remember there was a comment about that in the book somewhere. A lot of the grit on the weapons came from dust thrown up by RPGs and mortars narrowly missing them. In long firefights, it's easy for the weapons to get lots of grit all over their exteriors that doesn't come off easily.

Then shouldn't the Mail Call and Future Weapons articles be deleted?

Technically, yes. But they were also made before we decided that documentaries were not permissible and cracked down on them. We were in the awkward position of deciding whether pages that had taken lots of work to finish (i.e. both of those) should be deleted given the hard work that went into them. So those two have endured only due to our indecisiveness on the matter.

But any others, we shoot 'em down at takeoff.

I can't speak for Iraq but the talcum dust in Afghanistan will definately fuck them up. I carried my Browning in an open holster while I was over there and it was definately not in the same condition when I turned it in as it was when I got it! I know our LAV feet has taken quite a beating over the last 8 years.

What are "LAV feet"? :confused: