Talk:Firearm/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Scope of topic 2 History Channel Add 3 Vfd 4 Moved to "firearm" 5 Rewrote article 6 apalling. 7 Handguns 8 Inconsistency 9 Etymology 10 Definition of "Automatic" 11 Changed caption 12 Question 13 Video Game Listings 14 Removal of statements 15 Removed 2nd Amendment Reference 16 My God 17 Accuracy 18 Firearms WikiProject

Scope of topic

1. Should Gun/Politics be moved to Gun Politics? I think so, because then we can have a talk:Gun Politics page instead of this talk:Gun page. Also, Gun Politics is a sufficiently standalone topic to deserve a page.

2. What would an ideal Gun Politics page be like? I think that it is fairly clear that it should present the debate without appearing to take sides in the debate. This will be hard. If someone posts things like "Any additional gun in a tense situation adds to the odds of a fatality" I will have to delete it, because that's just simplistic misconception. But will my deletion be viewed as mere partisanship? I can see why it would be.

3. A comprehensive treatment of the topic, so that people from whatever perspective will leave our section more informed, will cover a wide range of areas. Gun Politics/United States Court Cases, Gun Politics/Accident Statistics, Gun Politics/Assault Weapons are a few of the topics I can think of, each of which might need full treatment in due course. I fear that only pro-gun people (like me) care enough about this stuff to write the pages: but can we write them fairly and objectively? Obviously, I think it is possible, but I readily acknowledge the challenge before us.

How about getting the best of both worlds? Instead of using Gun/Talk or Gun Politics/Talk for gun politics, how about Gun/Poltics/Talk?

The factual stuff (court cases, statistics, etc.) can be moved to Gun/Politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 127.0.0.1 (talk • contribs).

Well for some very good reasons, hierarchy is limited to two levels. I don't think that's going to change.

Should mention potato gun. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:38 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to write an article on potato guns... although I'm not sure where in this page the link should be put. Artillery? --Costyn 11:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

History Channel Add

Added this part because I just recently saw it on the history channel - "Where did it come from? China"

"During the time of the Song dynasty 11th-13th century CE, portable firearms were introduced in the form of bronze tubes (based on the firelance designs) that fired rounds iron balls."

-intranetusa

Vfd

The following is from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. The first message was written by User:67.31.200.119. -- Oliver P. 01:29, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Begin moved text

• redirection of firearm to gun is problematic. Although "gun" has a technical meaning, the page treats it colloquially, subsuming "firearm". These are by no means synonyms. A "gun" article properly would contain the technical artillery-related description, as well as a note regarding its popular colloquial usage, and containing links to the appropriate articles (including firearm, and indirectly, the latter's subcategories (pistol, rifle, etc.) which unfortunately are currently present as links under the gun article. Since the existing gun article is little more than a list of subtopics, the redirection should be removed, so as to ease the opportunity to edit both appropriately. I note that "gun",properly, is a proper subset of "firearm", whereas "firearm" is only a proper subset of "gun" when "gun" is used colloquially. This is a mess from a technical point of view, and the redirection should absolutely be removed. I will be more than happy to assist in the clean-up (which is fairly simple considering the lack of substance in the existing ```gun``` article), once this redirection is removed.
  • It would easier if you got a login so you had a talk page for this, but what exactly are you saying? Do you want the gun article moved to firearm? You can do that using the move this page link. If you want to write a different article at firearm, you can, just go to the page and write over the redirect. Use this link to edit the firearm page. Or was it neither of those things? Angela 00:36, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

End moved text

A message almost identical to the first message above was later added to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion by User:Nptr, who is therefore likely to be the same person. -- Oliver P. 01:29, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Moved to "firearm"

Moved article to "firearm" because, while all guns are firearms, not all firearms are guns. Rifles are not guns because they have a rifled barrel. Naval artillery are guns even though they have rifled barrels because they are naval artillery. The traditional (although probably outdated) US Marine Corps boot camp discipline for a recruit erroneously referring to a rifle as a "gun" was for the errant recruit to march around, holding his rifle in one hand and his penis in the other, saying "This is my rifle, and this is my gun. This is for fighting and this is for fun." I mention this because it's moderately entertaining, yet surprisingly true, and it almost always comes up when this distinction is discussed. Philwelch 06:31, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is utterly wrong. According to every dictionary, a "gun" is an artillery piece with a high muzzle velocity and a flat trajectory. In other words, a gun is (1) large, not hand-held, and (2) has a flat trajectory, unlike the higher arc of a howitzer or the nearly vertical trajectory of a mortar. Rifling has absolutely nothing to do with it, and I have no idea where this notion came from. I have so changed the article.--ArminTamzarian 06:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I've read your changes - but query the flat trajectory business - since that is influenced by firing angle. Does a battleship large calibre gun firing at maximum elevation have a flat trajectory? GraemeLeggett 09:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Could change it to "relatively flat." I've seen arbitrary definitions placing guns below 45 degrees and howitzers above 45 degrees, with mortars pretty close to vertical. Maximum elevation on something like a battleship main gun is probably about 25 degrees, so it's not really a close call. Keep in mind that a projectile fired from any firearm will have a ballistic trajectory and will never be truly flat. There are, of course, "gun howitzers," but that's probably more than is needed in a "firearms" article.--ArminTamzarian 22:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

For this page to stay here(firearms) it will need a lot of sorting out. It might be easier to leave this page as gun, and create a new page for firearms. This gun page has developed more towards common usage, not a technical one. The existence of both rifled and un-rifled weapons in some of these categories complicates the matter as well, as does things like air-gun, squirt gun, etc. links. Greyengine5 07:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Generally, all guns are firearms, but not all firearms are guns. A squirt gun is arguably not a firearm, but it's also arguably not really a gun, just a toy gun. The more inclusive term should be the title. I'm not opposed to a separate "gun" article. I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do edit-wise. Philwelch 08:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rewrote article

The article will have to be reworked significantly, you say!?!?!? Done!!!!!! Philwelch 10:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yea nice job! Thats a big 'freakin' improvement- now it has some real content rather then mostly links. Im going to create a cut-down gun page of the old version of this, with a big link to firearms at the top for the gun page. Gun related stuff is pretty weak in the wiki right now- small arms just has a blurb, and only a tiny percentage of guns are done - see List of firearms (yea yea there's a lot non-firarms there) in case you want to do some 'rifles'. Greyengine5 20:11, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding/changing something about the concealed carry of handguns; the article seems to imply that it's no problem, whereas, often it is. User:Talldean 02:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just added something remarking that it was a political issue and linking to Gun politics. I'd prefer this article to remain purely factual and NPOV, without any politics bleeding into it. Philwelch 22:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re wright mi dick

apalling.

fuck ONE picture? of a rapid fire gun, at that? Have you no deceny, wikipeedjans?! damm

Seriously, though. I hardly think one uzi, or submachine gun (so im a gun nut-- not just a picture nut), or whatever it is is enough to show the vast differences between different guns.i mean damm and fuck you

Lockeownzj00 23:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)hell

Handguns

American-style police, armed with handguns, are contrasted with non-firearm-carrying police, but I've noticed that in the third world, assault rifles seem to be the most common weapon of law enforcement. If I could imagine a way to put that into the handgun section without disrupting things, I would...but I'm not feeling creative this late at night.--Polyparadigm 08:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Strictly speaking, not all small arms are weapons, but it is the most convenient category under which to group firearms other than artillery.

Could someone tell me what the author means but the above sentence? I postulate that all small arms ARE weapons. The small arms page appears to confirm this.

All small arms are weapons, but not all small arms are firearms. Hand grenades are considered small arms, for instance. I'll correct it, sometimes I confuse a word with another. Philwelch 02:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

gun is of French origin. The French word 'gonne' (pronounced by a French it sounds approximatively as gun does when pronounced by an English speaker) was (starting approx 1200) a small barrel used on merchant and military ships. likewise a 'baril' is, in French, a big barrel (moreover [Tun] is the French 'tonne', as stated in [Ton]). Explanation: many very first firearms where in fact realized, during the 12-13 century, using small barrels with metal rings and leather. I elaborate somewhat in Gun barrel Natmaka 19:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition of "Automatic"

I believe it's generally considered that "automatic" in a fire arms refers to a [i]self[/i] repeating weapon, that uses it's own forces produced by it's bullets (ie by recoil). I made this distinction to clarify that gatling guns are technically NOT automatic weapons, because they must be manually or externally reloaded/refired (ie hand crank or electric motor). I made the change to the small section about gatling guns but maybe this should be expanded on.

Changed caption

I changed the caption on the 1st image of this article; the previous caption, "some firearms", seemed rather pedestrian; like something I would read in The Onion. The new caption I added is more detailed, and hopefully enlightening.

Question

When specifying a firearm, what is the term most commonly used to denote accuracy in terms of degrees of projectile travel when fired from a static position?

As an example, if a submachine gun is fired from the exact same position, the bullet will not hit the exact same place twice. Oberiko 19:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume you're not talking about automatic fire. If it were a rifle, you would fire several shots at a specified distance and measure the group size. A machine rest (specialized vice) should be used to eliminate shooter variation, but it isn't common when giving such data in magazine articles. Is this what you asked? -- Mike Wilson 21:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think I just found it. Would Minute of arc be applicable to describe a firearms inherent accuracy? Oberiko 01:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but what I usually hear is such-and-such a group size at such range. Minutes of arc could be used to descibe that, just as feet or meters could be used to describe passing yards in (American) football, but I don't believe it's the customary measurement (unless it's used among specialists but converted to group-diameter-at-range when intended for laymen, since I'm certainly not reading the Journal of Machine Rest Rifle-Shooting or anything). Zabieru 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Video Game Listings

Are these really of value to anyone? I propose that we do something about all the "references in fiction" sections on firearms pages which have individual bullte points for several games. I don't think anyone is really coming to these pages thinking "Man, I like the MP-7, I'd really like to find a video game that has one." Even if they are, a more efficient listing would be to have a single bullet point like "The NAME OF GUN appears in the following video games:" Any comments? Should we condense to one bullet point, or eliminate entirely? To my eye, this information isn't especially valuable, but condensing it is probably better than eliminating it on general principles, and also because if we just eliminate it we're going to have to keep doing cleanup every time someone comes to the page, sees that there's a References section, and thinks "OMG that gun was in tom clancys splinter cell: pandora day after tomorrow," and decides to remedy this obvious oversight. I am, however, of the opinion that the weapon's page is not the place for anything beyond the bare mention of the game. That is, we don't need an explanation of the gun's function in the game or gameplay value.

So, comments? Keep, Condense, or Delete these listings? Zabieru 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a seperate page List of firearms in video games? Though really, I think the firearms contained should be listed at the page for the specific game, not the other way around. Oberiko 01:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, I'm just worried that it's going to be a bit Sisyphean if we take out video game listings from the gun pages, that we're going to either be stuck editing out those listings forever any time a fanboy comes along and puts it back in, or we're going to have to accept that any work done cleaning those listings is wasted. A few of the Cultural Importance sections actually have valuable information (The AK-47 one, for instance) so I don't think we should ditch them altogether. One big list might alleviate some of that, while de-crusking the article pages.Zabieru 18:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any interest in including a history of firearms? Basically where they were first developed, how they spread, etc. I've looked on the various gun-related pages but there seems to be no real mention of the history of firearms. I'd be willing to begin to make an effort at it myself, but I am far, far from an expert and would prefer to leave it to someone more knowledgeable. JF Mephisto 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of statements

I'm going to remove the fullowing unless there's any objection: "Fully automatic, relatively easily concealed machine pistols, such as the MAC-10 and the Beretta 93R, were a late 20th-century development." Broomhandle Mausers were popular "relatively easily concealed" pistols and they were available in full-auto circa 1912. True machine pistols like the 93R and Glock 18 are more or less novelty items among LE and military; the MAC-10 is small but it's a bonafide subgun (it's got a stock afterall), so I don't think you're losing much by getting rid of the previous sentence. --70.160.160.175 20:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Under manufacture's there's info on 'sharps rifles', but with reference to modern company that makes replicas at the end. The info on rifles is good but the company should probably be on a gun- replicas manufacturers page, or have external links to gun manufactueres sites. I'm not sure if mixing the two is a good precedent for the page.

Removed 2nd Amendment Reference

The following paragraph was at the end of the introduction:

"Generally speaking, a firearm is a weapon that an individual can use to arm him or herself. A useful description of this concept might be found in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment states, in its entirety, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In this document, reference is made to the right of the people to 'keep and bear arms'. This text refers firearms, or weapons that can be borne by a single individual, and to guns, borne by more than one member of the population."

No statement in this paragraph appears to apply to the current article; the first line is direct disagreement with the definition of 'firearm' presented here. This article does not (otherwise) refer to the rights of any people, and the 2nd Admendment is not a useful description of any concept other than it's own. In fact, I am reading this article to determine if Madison would indeed have had firearms in mind when he used the word 'arms' in said amendment; it's relevance to this topic is highly questionable to me.

Disagree? You know what to do. Eaglizard 18:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My God

After all the content listed on the page, you people are too lazy to make a complete history section? Like that pretty much is one of hte most important thing about the gun. AllStarZ 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"You people?" Go for it!. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

I've long been trying to figure out what elements affect the accuracy of a firearm, and how accurate firearms really are under real-world conditions. I know all the variables that affect final accuracy (intrinsic accuracy of the gun [barrel length, rifling, ammunition, etc], recoil of the weapon, weight and controllability of the weapon, the shooter's familiarity and experience with the weapon and with shooting in general, etc) but not how these all come together. Is it possible we could have a page detailing such things, or is accuracy too subjective? Some guy 00:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. There are entire books about shooting technique, and it isn't easy to distill into anything both brief and useful. DAGwyn 20:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Firearms WikiProject

Is there a Firearms WikiProject, and if not, would members support the creation of such? Chris 15:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to edit thus {{WPMILHIST|Weaponry task force=yes}} , nothing actually changes on the tag, what should I instead do? Chris 20:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)