This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

FirearmsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offirearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join thediscussion and see a list ofopen tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

This strikes me as advertising.--OldCommentator 17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Paras are not known for being "well engineered" - the steel that they use in all their parts is very soft around 16Rc which means that the parts are constantly breaking.--DavidW 16:07, 5 September 2006 (EST)

Para-Ordnance are world respected handguns. Read the reviews from third party magazines:Magazine reviewsPianoKeys19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah and the DB-9 got great reviews from 3rd party magazines, they just don't mention that it explodes with +p.Dreg102 16:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byDreg102 (talk •contribs)

This "article" is unsourced and appears to have been written by Para-Ordnance, or at least at its behest. Someone who knows a good bit about different firearms manufacturers need to write a more informative and objective article.

Parker22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which tag should be used for suspected advertising, but a POV tag should do for the time being.ThisIsRealPuma11:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not written by Para-Ordnance.PianoKeys19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Para-Ordnance still exist or has it been replaced or merged with Para-USA? Our infobox includes weblinks for each, but both go to the same Para-USA website.[1] I can't find much info on their website. The 2015 catalog mentions a 2013 "relaunch" but there's not a trace of Para-Ordnance or anything Canadian.[2]Rezin (talk)02:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It took some digging but I found a 2012 article which says that "It was just a couple of years ago that Para Ordnance packed its bags in Canada and moved to North Carolina to become a totally U.S. company, Para USA."[3] So it appears that the company has changed names. Given that fact, the article should be moved as well. And some rewriting, as the article currently implies there are two companies.Rezin (talk)02:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the URL, Para-USA.com, everything on the website and the 2014 and 2015 catolgs refers to "PARA", all caps, no "-USA". Based on what was done with "Glock", there's probably a rule against all-caps company names.Para is a disambiguation page, so I suppose this page should probably bePara (firearms), unless the common use of "Para-USA" is so strong it overrides the company's preference. Also, while this company is owned by the Freedom Group through at least a couple of layers of corporations and LLCs, it has the same CEO, George Kollitides. That'd mean co-founder Thanos Polyzos is out.Rezin (talk)02:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A 2014 press release refers to "Para USA, LLC"[4] All of the recent press reports about the Liam Neeson thing seem to use "Para USA". I'll go with that. It's official and common.Rezin (talk)02:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the lead just based on your posts, but I didn't change anything else. I don't know the first thing about guns, so I don't want to risk any misunderstandings about what guns Para-Ordnance made vs. what Para US is currently making.–Robin Hood ^(talk)03:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much - I ran out of time last night. You did a fine job.Rezin (talk)17:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class Firearms articles
• Low-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles