Talk:Firearm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Consolidation, disambiguation, etc.

This articles clearly needs to be broken into separate small arms and artillery pages. Also, there is a lot of necessary info in the articles "trigger", "ammunition", and "action" etc that are repeated here. I think a new overall topology along these lines is in order:

• Guns (or whatever; on this page you would choose between artillery and small arms, so discussion of artillery and howitzers etc doesn't take up so much room in the firearms article)
  • • Firearms (mainly to focus on the histroy and different major forms of firearms; this would be a summary version of the current "firearm" page, a lot like the current one minus the following, which it will clearly link to)
      • • Firearms: loading mechanism (currently called "firearms action", this deserves its own page since it's a sizable and esoteric topic; this article would absorb pages like "gas operation" and "recoil operation")
        • Firearms: firing mechanism (currently called "trigger", which isn't really an appropriate name and again, a sizable and esoteric topic; to absorb a myriad of articles like "percussion cap", "wheellock", "cap lock", sear, etc)
        • Firearms: ammunition

...and so forth. That will clean up the firearms article, which can then become a little more scholarly. Any objections? I'm going to start if there are no protests.Erdesky 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Firearms is a more general category than guns, which constitute a subclass of firearms. It would be useful to use separate articles for detail on such topics as ammunition, etc., but it is important that the high-level article give a top-level description of such components; the reader should be able to comprehend what is being said from the text on the main page alone, without having to look things up in other windows/tabs. — DAGwyn 07:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Need a Reference?

I've only got one with me on hand, but its pretty broad and extensive. If you care for me to insert it in here, let me know. Otherwise, I'll stay out. Colonel Marksman 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it isn't a forum board or a retail seller site, it'd probably be ok. Go ahead. If it's unacceptable it'll get reverted, so no worries. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy diagrams?

This article uses a lot of terminology which is tough for a non-expert to put together with physical reality. It seems like a few annotated illustrations would go a long way toward more thoroughly explaining what the pieces of various firearms are. Maybe there needs to be a separate article for Firearm terminology (which is *not* the same as the Firearms:Terminology category)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.129.224.36 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Disambiguation

We already have Firearms the computer game and Firearm the comic book. Time for a disambiguation page??

Lots42 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Top photo

Why was the photo of a collection of different kinds of rifles replaced by a photo of a Glock 22? — DAGwyn 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal Issues

Even the page on spud huns has a section that discusses the legality of such weapons. So why does a much more earnest article such as this lack the afore-mentioned section? Liamoliver 17:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The laws vary so widely, and change so often, that not much can be said about the matter within the article. Why do we need to say anything more than the small amount already present? Are you worried about liability, or what? — DAGwyn 18:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

DISAGREE - Someone has proposed to merge Accurizing into Firearm, but I don't think that's a good idea. Arthurrh 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DISAGREE - That would just be clutter! It wouldn't hurt to have a link to the Accurizing article, however. — DAGwyn 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NaviBlock Firearm

To whom it may concern: If you compare to other top rated articles you will find, that NaviBlock's are part of them. To generally increase article quality in the firearms section this would help - like the infoboxes also do. Tom --Dan Wesson (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to explain it better - here (Category:Weapon navigational boxes [1]) i miss the template: 'Firearm' or 'Handgun'. I do not dare to introduce that. --Dan Wesson (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Arquebus?

Hello, I just added an illustration of a French gunner from the 15th century to the Background section that I got from a public domain history encyclopedia. Based upon the location and time period I'd assume it's an arquebus that he has shouldered and is lighting, but I'm not confident enough of that to make the ID myself. If anyone wants to update the image caption feel free. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 08:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkish cannon is NOT muzzle loading

That is why it is TWO parts. The breach is loaded and then screwed on to the barrel. Heat from the explosion limited the ability to unscrew the gun and reload.91.111.83.187 (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

False breeching

Hi. False breeching is (about to be) a disambiguation page. False breeching (firearm) now is a redlink. Perhaps it should be a redirect to Firearm? --Una Smith (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, this isn't a term used in firearms. A 'false breech', IIRC, is a plate used as a proofing tool to ensure firearm barrels were safe... maybe before further finishing. Better to identify a problem with the barrel halfway into the process than at the end. I don't know why it's even on the disambig page unless my 50-odd years of firearms experience was inadequate... shouldn't I have heard the term before now? Okay, maybe I have heard the term 'false breech' in regards to double-barreled shotguns... it's a bridge on the receiver that aids in sight alignment... gives the shooter the impression that there is a round breech at the rear of the barrels where one would be on a single shot. Still, that's false breech not breeching. Even then, it would only apply narrowly to an obscure design feature on Side-by-Side shotguns. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Searching for images of "false breeching", meaning the strap between shafts of a cart, I found some links to pages about weapons, including a book on Google Books that has a chapter on "false breeching and jointing locks".[2] In some other books, false breeching is a synonym for "break-off".[3][4] See also this; on Google Books, most hits are to 19th Century books on small arms. It appears the equestrian sense is fairly recent, because this term is largely absent from the many equestrian books on Google Books. --Una Smith (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The term is not 'false breeching' it is, 'false breech'. It is a design feature, not an action. If there's mention needed in an article on side-by-side firearms {Firearm action), then it needs to be no more than a sentence. I don't see the need for a disambig statement nor a separate article. I read the google books references, nearly all of them used the term 'false breech'. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what usage is more common or preferred, the term "false breeching" does occur in the books I cited. That is why I made False breeching a disambiguation page. It is not necessary that all entries on a disambiguation page link to separate articles, but it is helpful to explain each entry somewhere. The explanation can be as simple as a link to Wiktionary, or a section in a larger article. --Una Smith (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, but there are two different terms. While 'false breeching' does occur, it appears to be a mere form of the term 'false breech' and should reflect that in the disambig page. My position is that the term 'false breech' is archaic, perhaps, and not used to any degree I know of these days. Therefore, it does not merit a separate article or even anything but passing mention in any regular article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

One or the other term will be used in history sections of some articles, correct? Or for an article on 19th C firearms. Back to my original question: what article or article section should the entry on False breeching link to now? --Una Smith (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough. A false breech is a thing, not an action. False breeching should not link to any firearm related article. If you want to disambig the term false breech, redirect it to Firearm action. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots, do you mean "false breeching" in the context of firearms should be suppressed, as somehow incorrect? --Una Smith (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like he is trying to censor you, only that you might be putting undue weight on a term that isn't regularly used by, well, by anybody. I did a google search for the term and came up with four hits in relation to firearms, all appeared to be OCR scans of, well, the SAME BOOK. That is quite obscure any way you look at it. It's odd that you cry "suppression" so soon in the discussion. He is just wanting you to justify an article or section in an article for something that shows up once on the internet. One hit does not an article make. I will make the counter argument that, uh, why are you trying to put undue weight on this term? It does not seem to warrant inclusion just from the point of not being noteworthy. --Winged Brick (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to fix incoming links to False breeching; to do that, I need somewhere to send the links that do not concern false breeching on animal carts. I found "false breeching" in multiple Wikipedia articles about firearms and other weapons. My question was about content, not user behavior: does Nukes4Tots think "false breeching" is a misstatement of "false breech"? On Google Books, "false breeching" returns 36 hits, mostly 19th Century books. Here are some of them in context:

• (technique) ON FALSE BREECHING AND JOINTING LOCKS. As this is but a mechanical operation, requiring little except good workmanship, but few observations are necessary
• (technique) The operations of false breeching, jointing locks, stocking, &c., are merely mechanical ; requiring, certainly, great skill and ability, but yet involving
• (thing) The screw which, passing through the trigger-plate and stock, secures the break-off, or false breeching.
• (thing) BREAK-OFF, OR FALSE BREECHING. — The piece of metal made fast to the stock by the cross-pin, into which the hooks of the breeches must be inserted before
• (thing) The mechanical names for the remaining principal parts of a gun are : " False-breeching ," where the ends of the breechings hook in, before the barrels
• (thing) False Breeching — The part where the nose of the breechings hook in, before the barrels can be laid in the stock.

Those books are on Google Books because they are out of copyright protection; Google is extremely search biased. What are reliable sources for gunsmithing and weapons in general? Aren't there any relevant encyclopedias or dictionaries? --Una Smith (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A term that hasn't been used in literature in over 100 years... Only one book that I can see used it in terms of firearms. Hmm. Well, whatever dude. --Winged Brick (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Change in the lede to state that a firearm is a "tool," not a weapon.

I am reverting back to the version that states a firearm is a weapon due to fact that various dictionaries don't support such an assertion. e.g.

• http://www.answers.com/topic/firearm: "n. A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant."

• http://www.dictionary.net/firearm: Firearm \Fire"arm`\, n. A gun, pistol, or any weapon from a shot is discharged by the force of an explosive substance, as gunpowder.

• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firearm: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms

Theserialcomma (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, if you're going to hound me and follow me to every article I edit, please pick your battles well. This is one you're going to lose. First, you LIE by assigning something to me that I did not say. I didn't say a firearm was not a weapon, I said it was a tool that may be used as a weapon. Heck, a piece of paper can be used as a weapon. Don't quote the dictionary, either. Please, Drop the stick. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

in reference to this: perhaps you wish to rephrase your comment so that it has anything to do with the changes that i've proposed? also, 'status quo' is not a valid argument. if something is wrong, it gets changed, regardless of the status quo. if the dictionary definition of firearm is universally 'a weapon,' then you cannot insert your own POV and make it into a 'tool.' of course it's a tool - everything can be considered a tool by the vaguest definitions. but a firearm is a specific type of tool called a weapon. if you don't believe me, check the dictionary. i've given three links to definitions above. 'status quo' is no excuse for edit warring. find some reliable sources or dictionary definitions that support your assertion, but don't argue 'status quo,' don't make personal attacks, and don't use uncivil language. you know i'll report you, and it won't be worth the effort for either of us, so don't bother pushing it. just find some sources that support your claims or back off. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

From third opinion page: It seems obvious that it should be "weapon" and not "tool." The three dictionary definitions there, and Theserialcomma's explanation, kind of seal the deal. It would sound quite unusual to call it a "tool" when firearms are clearly weapons. This is my opinion on it. Alternatively, just don't define it as either of those things at the start, and figure out another way of doing it. It is right that nearly any article about a 3D, manmade object could be called a "tool" (an atomic bomb, a table, a can, you name it), but it's not a very useful characterisation. On the other hand, another way of rewriting it so it makes sense not using the "A firearm is a weapon that..." does not spring to mind. BTW, it looks a bit silly to have a reference above "weapon" there in the first line, as though it needed some justification. --Asdfg12345 12:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't heard nuke's explanation about why he thinks it should be "tool" and not "weapon." I'd be willing to change my opinion pending what he says and what sources he can muster. But three dictionary definitions makes it pretty definitive, I think. I don't know what would top that.--Asdfg12345 12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "weapon" implies a use that is not implicit in the tool. In reality, very few weapons are exclusively weapons. The vast majority of firearms are not used as weapons. They are used as tools for punching holes in paper targets, knocking over steel plates, or just making noise. The term weapon limits the definition of a firearm to only one of its many uses, that of a weapon. Beyond that, the term "weapon" has negative connotations and may be considered POV and pejorative. Firearms are tools. Their use as a weapon involves the choice of the owner, not the nature of the firearm. I've made these points before and the consensus was to keep it as a tool. However, the particular user who is warring with me over this one also thought that five references were not enough to validate that a compensator reduced percieved recoil. Could I get some input on the article Firearm from the WP:Firearms community? Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Firearms were invented to be weapons. Firearms are designed to be weapons. Firearms are built to be weapons. Use in recreation is very much secondary. This is like saying swords and spears are not solely weapons because they can be used for fun. Swords and spears are weapons.--Patton^t/c 18:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your original ruminations on the matter, Nukes4Tots. your philosophy of the semantics of 'weapon' is very important to this encyclopedia... not. either provide a reliable source, or save your energy and stop arguing. and as for your little scope shift about me requiring 5 sources for 'compensation reducing 'perceived' recoil': i only required 1, but you kept adding blog after blog after message board after blog. those are not reliable sources. not even 20 of those sources will be good enough. sorry. next time try adding 100 unreliable sources and i'll argue over those too. but let's keep this talk page about this article, and you can keep your petty, irrelevant bickering about an edit war from 2 months ago from a completely different article to yourself. this isn't a message board - it's meant only for relevant discussion to improving the article. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that was uncalled for. The discussion has ended favourably for you, so you start insulting him? That's dispicable behaviour, like kicking someone when they're down.--Patton^t/c 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. it's not a contest to see who wins, it's about making sure the article is good. thank you for your input on the matter, regardless. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"it's about making sure the article is good" and insulting those who disagreed with you improves the quality of the encyclopedia how? Incivility is something I will not tolerate.--Patton^t/c 19:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

clearly you haven't read the actual insults he made first, or dont care. either way, i don't care, and i have zero interest in continuing this conversation with you on any article's talk page. if you really want to discuss incivility (which i don't tolerate either) or who called the other person a liar or a stalker, etc. you can bring it to my talk page. this article talk space should be directly related to making the article better. have a good day, and thanks for overcoming your distaste for my so-called incivility to still agree with me. that is noble. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comma, please stop beating up on people who agree with you. You call me unbalanced and don't expect me to take it as an insult? You read Paton's mind and surmise that he doesn't know I'm a bad person... presupposing that I'm a bad person... after he comes here to defend you? I fail to see how this is constructive to the article. For whatever percieved (yeah, I said it) wrongs you continue to accuse me of, I've not seen you contribute anything constructive to any firearm article. Though I disagree with Paton here and have elsewhere, we've done the Wikipedia thing and worked together to iron out a consensus. So now you've lambasted myself, Koalorka, DanMP5, Sus Scufa (sp?) and Paton. All firearms article editors and all unqualified to edit firearms articles. I'll quote Theserialcomma: "My opinion is that some people who edit this article -- meaning Glock pistol -- are too emotionally involved in gun culture and advocacy, so much to the point where even questioning a blog as a source becomes an edit war, because it's somehow perceived as an attack on guns." Comma, you questioned the Blog source when it agreed with three other provided sources. You're trying to do the same thing and politicize this article. Please drop the stick already. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

are you still arguing over whether a firearm is a tool or a weapon, or are you just arguing for the sake of argument? wait, i don't care. i am still waiting to hear how arbcom sanctions you for abusive sockpuppetry. any updates there? Theserialcomma (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) How about everyone quit arguing and get over it... this space is for discussion of the article, and that discussion was completed about 4 posts ago... Comma, it seems most people agree with you, and you claim you don't want to discuss this any further, yet you continue to argue, and your posts here seem to be very close to breaking WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL... If the two of you want to carry on like children, take it to one of your user talk pages, don't clog up article talk space with this silliness... we don't care who "started it", one or the other of you should be mature enough to ignore it and move on... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

it isn't like he called me a "liar"[[5]], or used uncivil words like "motherf***er"[[6]] before i ever responded. but i'm the bad guy. don't worry, i won't be returning to continue this pointless argument. i'll only be working on improving the article. you guys can decide amongst yourselves whether calling someone a liar is acceptable, but hopefully not on this talk page. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Firearm, weapon, tool? Anybody? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the consensus was to call it a weapon... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Firearms are most definately purpose-built weapons, defensive or offensive. Koalorka (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There are citeable points of view subscribing to both descriptions, weapons and tools. Have added a cite for the "tool" description, too. This should address the issue. (This shouldn't be an "either" issue, but, rather, an "or" issue, in an "either/or" debate.) Yaf (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

seems WP:pointy and disruptive to have added a source for calling it a tool at this point. of course it's a tool, but a specific type of tool: a weapon. since a weapon is already defined as a tool, we don't need to call it a tool and a weapon. that is what the consensus has said, i believe. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems rather disruptive to disregard alternative major points of view that are now cited. We should try to be inclusive here, not dismissive. Have restored another point of view with cite. Yaf (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

the first sentence calls a gun a weapon. if you click the weapon article, it calls a weapon a tool. so if a weapon is already a tool, why would we call it a weapon and/or a tool, when weapon is a subset of tool. consensus is that a gun is a weapon and a weapon is a tool. stop disrupting wikipedia to make a point. we know it's a tool; that's what a weapon is. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As you should well know, a consensus isn't, "I say it's this way and that's the end of it." There are two dissenting opinions on this and the discussion continues. Please stop your edit warring and continue to discuss. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Would anyone be in favor of the word "device" instead of tool? It seems to be a pretty popular way of defining "a firearm" in state laws. [7] For example, "'firearm' means any device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel a projectile by the force of ..." Of course, we wouldn't want the lead to sound like the reading of a state law, though. --Hamitr (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding proposed compromise language

User Yaf has proposed compromise language that lists a firearm as both a tool and a weapon. I agree with this concept, though I would word it slightly different. In the interest of trying to solidify a consensus and avoid edit warring, I'll start a poll for those interested parties. The choices presented are, "Tool" only, "Weapon" only, or some form of "Both". --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tool first, though I'll compromise with Both --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon only, it is disambiguous to say tool only, since a weapon is a specialized type of tool, and it is redundant to use both words, for the same reason... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon first, followed by tool. Hence, both; both with cites, of course. Both are significant points of view with their adherents. (And both are easily cited.) We don't have to choose just one of the significant points of view and exclude the other point of view. -- Yaf (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon only. as has been stated repeatedly, it's redundant to use both words, as a weapon is a tool. it's already called a weapon in the first sentence, and the weapon article defines itself as a tool. no need to be redundant, and it's POVish to call it a tool anyway. should we call a bazooka and a machine gun a tool also? what about a lightbulb or a drinking straw? everything is a tool, really. let's be specific, non redundant, and NPOV. hey, a nuclear bomb is a tool too, because back in the 50s they used them to move large amounts of dirt. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon. They're not called firetools. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting that SheffieldSteel as an admin has also blocked Nukes4tots for 48 hours and not Theserialcomma, for their mutal edit warring on this article, while also taking sides in this point of contention here. Problem with WP:COI? Yaf (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cute admin trick. Ban those who disagree with you and don't ban the ones that do. Then you vote against the person you banned and don't give them the ability do defend themselves. Really cute. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest here. My actions were explained at WP:ANI. Nukes4Tots, you don't need to "defend yourself" because you are not being attacked. I am simply stating an opinion which differs from your own. You might want to consider that people often do that sort of thing, and perhaps adopt a less defensive response next time it happens to you. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that it is suggested that "Disinterested" admins take actions against editors. Clearly, you disagreed with me and that "interest" tainted your judgement. It is a clearcut case of conflict of interest. Is it possible for an person involved in a conflict to make an objective decision? Nope. Your actions were unethical. Any ethical admin would have recused themselves from either the debate or the admin actions. Shame on you. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken this to the user's Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain. I think we need to look at the usage throughout reliable sources. For those who think it should be only "weapon", do you base this upon the fact that "weapon" is the only term that is used in reliable sourcing? Believe me, I would rather an encyclopedia article be succinct as opposed to verbose, but in this case, the issue seems to be pretty contested. --Hamitr (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon only. But maybe a page called firearm (tool) can be created. And then the disambiguation page can be used to make clear what is what. Also if you take a look for the pictures on this page there are lots of guns there. I think it's not desirable to imply that they are merely tools which then naturally and innocently are used to do violent things like killing or maintaining terror. My point here is that the emotional charge of the word tool and weapon is quite different. But emotion (which is hardly rational) is hard to explain, or sometime it is even hard to detect, this is why I think that there is a dispute here in the first place. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A new article, firearm (tool) has been created to address these issues. Yaf (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

the new article you made is just a direct copy and paste of this whole article. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read it. Are you always so confrontational? Do you never assume good faith? Read the article first, please. There is a whole class of firearms that are not weapons, with no top-level coverage in Wikipedia such as exists in the Firearm article. Firearm (tool) addresses these shortcomings. Yaf (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the article Firearm (tool) state it clear that it will deal only with firearms that are not weapons? And that for firearms that are used as weapons the firearm (weapon) article should be consulted? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Look at Firearm (tool), at the disambiguation line at top. Also, click on it, and the difference is noted on the firearm disambiguation page, too. Yaf (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I looked at the Firearm (disambiguation) page, and you are right, it's very clear there. I also made this change on the Firearm (tool) page, to clear things up further. Hope it's ok. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. And, a whole class of firearms that are not weapons are now covered in their own article. Hopefully, hoplophobia won't be a problem with these firearms used as tools :-) Yaf (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at that article, and I think it is absolutely pointless, all of the content on that page is just copied from some other aticle... I left a note on the article's talk page, so I won't copy the whole thing here... but that article should be merged and deleted... was this new article created just to spite the consensus that a firearm is a weapon? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

From WP:Content fork: "POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. The question is, is the new article in line with WP policies? so far, it's partially/mostly plagiarized from this and other articles, and the new content is mostly unsourced. For how long should this be considered acceptable? Theserialcomma (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weapon, really. Put another sentence at the end of the lead or after the first sentence saying that they can also be used as tools for shooting paper, making noise, knocking over tin cans, or some other more general statement. The purpose is to qualify that it has both functions, but by defining it as a weapon initially is most appropriate, in my view, and clearly backed up by the sources (the most important thing!)----Asdfg12345 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon only. Not tool, or device, or instrument, or object. Can we just be real here. It's a weapon. When the dictionary disagrees with you, you know you screwed up. Todavia no se (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is only a weapon if you use it that way. The ludicroulsy vast number of firearms uses in today's world are not weapon useages. I can call a pencil a weapon also. It is a very cheap and effective stabbing tool. I can call a Meat Cleaver a weapon also. A machette is a weapon. So, why is it the articles do not list them as weapons? The word weapon implies a use that is not required by the design. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck on editing the Pencil article to call it a weapon. See you there, to revert you. Consensus is against you. Give it up. Todavia no se (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF, did I ever say I was going to do something as stupid as edit the pencil page to say that a pencil is a weapon? No. I was making that point to demonstrate that it is the USE of an item that makes it a weapon, not any aspect of the item itself. That is why saying a firearm is a tool or instrument is correct as that tool has no free will, no mind of its own. A firearm, like a pencil, cannot jump up and shoot a person without another person behind it pulling the trigger. A pencil cannot either. There is a trend among the politically correct (or incorrect) to personify things that, by nature, have no free will. Firearms and ammunition are items, objects, and quite inanimate. They are no more weapons than paperweights until they are used. Words can be used as weapons. Paper can be used as a weapon. Virtually anything of physical mass can be used as a weapon. To say it is a weapon short-circuits a step in the logic chain. What consensus are you talking about, kind sir/ma'am? I see three dissenting opinions. This is not a majority rule, but the dissenting opinion is not a unique or fringe opinion. Consensus is a way of compromising... not "Do what I say or I'll report you for the 20th time". I see no reason why "tool" or "instrument" must be striken from the record and never spoken again! Please demonstrate why it cannot coexist. One does not say a Human is a Murderer because we have the capacity to kill. A man is not a Rapist because we are designed larger and stronger than women. A firearm is not a weapon because it is efficient at firing projectiles. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that even when (now three times over) consensus has decided it should be called a weapon, peope are still arguing... The consensus is that firearms were designed as weapons, and the weapon page already says that a weapon is a specific type of tool, hence it would be most logical to simply call a firearm a weapon... I don't see what there is to be confused about... yes, anything could be used as a weapon, but none of those items were designed specifically as weapons (knifes/blades were "caveman tools" long before they were used as weapons, not specifically designed to be weapons)... we've already explained why tool should not be added to the lead sentence (if you read anything above), because it would be both disambiguous, as well as redundant... using your own example, I could push my POV that the lead for pencil should say "A pencil is a sharp pointed tool, sometimes used as a weapon, that is made of wood...", but would quickly be laughed off the article... no one laughed you off this article, we were all quite calm, and came to the consensus that it should say weapon... if I pushed as hard for my POV on pencil as you have here, I think I would be closing in on an arbcom case... please, just let it go, there is a very clear consensus about what it should say, and you should move on and continue to better Wikipedia, instead of fighting tooth and nail to get you POV published... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to classify a flare gun as a weapon. Ditto for a powder-actuated tool, categorized in Australia as a firearm. Likewise for a Manby Mortar used to throw a line for a breeches buoy. Likewise for a Lyle gun, that performs a similar function. Yet, these are all are, or are considered, or are legislatively defined as --- firearms. There are a host of firearms that clearly are not weapons. It is silly to call them weapons. It would be the same as stating every woman must be a prostitute, since they have the proper body parts. Would anyone here argue that the article on Woman should state a Woman is a prostitute? I think not. It is the same here. We should either include mention and content of both weapons and tools on this page, or, per the current consensus, state a firearm is only a weapon (along the lines that a woman is only a prostitute?) and include information on the tools that are firearms in a separate firearm (tool) article. It looks rather silly to focus on only weapons when discussing firearms to me. (Incidentally, the firearm (tool) article is up for deletion in an AfD.) The intensity of only recognizing the firearms that are weapons appears to border on hoplophobia. Yaf (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I'd really like somebody to prove that a firearm is not a tool. If you can do that, I'll change my vote. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am jumping in on this late sorry. Per the Oxford English Dictionary, Weapon n. " 1. a. An instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy." There is not doubt that whether a firearm is a tool or a weapon depends on how it is being used at the time of use. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weapon as the more specific classification (a firearm is a weapon, which in turn is a tool or instrument), but try to discuss this nomenclature issue in the article as it pervades firearms publications. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm new at contributing, but I just wanted to say that this debate is really indicative of a major problem with wikipedia in that people with interest in subjects are going to be the ones creating the articles which is inherently biased. Only gun nuts refer to firearms as "tools" in attempt to make the term inoffensive. You won't find a single definition outside of gun culture that refers to firearms as tools and if you keep capitulating to people like this no one will ever take wikipedia seriously. Calling it a tool is a biased definition used exclusively by people with an interest in referring to guns as something other than weapons and if you really care about NPOV you won't give in just because these people keep bringing it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flexnuts (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I was just curious if you had read through the parts of the debate that mentioned things like Manby Mortars, Lyle guns, powder-actuated tools, and flare guns? These are all considered firearms, and, while they could be used as weapons, they designed and mostly used as tools. I hold that firearms are devices, most of which are designed and used as weapons, but others are intended for use as tools. I certainly don't think that makes me deserving of the "gun nut" moniker, but I'm generally not very concerned with the opinions of those who throw around such terms. Also, I think you'll find that some editors on Wikipedia have trouble setting aside their bias while others do a pretty reasonable job. There also may be some editors who are completely unbiased, but I haven't encountered many of them. Cheers. --Hamitr (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Most firearms are designed to be used as weapons; Some are intended to be used as tools. They project a projectile.... If we end up merging firearm (tool) into this page, change the link to the section where tools are described. If we keep Firearm (tool), we need to rename this Firearm (weapon) and replace with a disambig. Treedel (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Firearm (tool)

For relavant discussion, see above discussions as well as the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firearm (tool). There are also side-discussions that may have gone unnoticed like this appeal to AFD closing admin and the replies to appeal. There was also a healthy discussion on the "tool" article here: Talk:Firearm_(tool).

• Merge - For reasons I've already stated. AFD reached no consensus to delete, the question here is whether to keep the content separate or actually mention in the article that a firearm does not HAVE to be a weapon. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - the copy and pasted/plagiarism article Firearm (tool) might have some new info that is amendable to the main article, even though most of it is borrowed/stolen from elsewhere. let's take the good stuff and discard the bad stuff and put it all into this article. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - I think it's clear that firearms can be used both as weapon and tools, perhaps it's quite enough if in the Firearm article those that can be used as a tool will be specified accordingly that yes, this can be also used as a tool in such and such situations. my 2 cents. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, put in a section on firearms that are weapons, and a section on firearms that are tools. (Despite the dictionary, there is a difference: Proper use of a well-designed tool is not dangerous. Proper use of a well-designed weapon is. Treedel (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, with the stipulation that the information in Firearm (tool) not just be discarded. Additionally, the lead should mention that a firearm need not be a weapon. LK (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Range

I'm having a disagreement with another regarding the range of firearms. The references cited list effective ranges for most rifles from 300-600 m. US Army manuals give the effective range as less than that, at about 100-200 m. I've made several attempts to reach a compromise that is both factual and consensual, and I've had my edits removed by the same editor three times in less than 24 hours. None of the edit summaries of reversion were helpful to me.

My proposal for that paragraph:

Small arms are aimed visually at their targets by hand using either iron sights or optical sights . The range of pistols is generally limited to about 50 meters, while most rifles accurate to about 150 meters using iron sights, or up to 600 meters using optical sights. Some purpose-built sniper rifles are accurate to ranges of over 2000 m. The current record for a successful sniper attack is slightly more than 1.5 miles (2.4 km).

EDIT: fixed typo. Treedel (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

All the information there is supported by the existing references. If there are no objections or suggestions to this change, I'm going to make it live after a while. Treedel (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree yet. I assume your "60 meters" was meant to be "600 meters" but I'll leave that to you to fix. Can you add the appropriate inline refs for your assertions in the paragraph? Plus this will save time later when you add it into the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. This isn't a how-to guide about the skill of various marksman, it is about small arms. That I can hit a man-sized target at 1,000 meters is irrelevant. That the rifle is capable of effective volly fire out to about 2500 meters is also irrelevant. That the rifle is capable of firing a lethal shot up to 2 miles or more depending on the load, is relevant. You can have hundreds of sources that quote different figures and EVERY ONE will be arbitrary based on myriad equally arbitrary factors. This paragraph screams for a generalization, not specifics based on your POV. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Giving typical ranges is just as informative/encyclopedic as max ranges. Someone who is not familiar with firearms would come here and not know that although it is possible to make a lethal shot at 2 miles, it's extremely atypical. I don't see this as "how-to" information at all. Yes, there are differing opinions of effective range - this is common in many areas of wikipedia, that's why we should use WP:RS when giving this kind of info, which is why I have asked for the sources to the above paragraph. Feel free to add the sources you're familiar with. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a consensus, that's a free-for-all. I can list about 50 sources for 50 different ranges for firearms and not a single one is relevant. It needs to be very general in a general article no matter how many sources you quote. In combat, there is a curve and 300 meters is about the 95th percentile in modern combat. Only 5% of LETHAL engagements occur outside that range with small arms. This ignores the fact that small arms fire is not always used to kill the enemy but to also keep their heads down. Volley fire at 1500 meters will cause an enemy to deploy early and the engaging troops to deploy or retreat as necessary. That's not only effective, it is often decisive. This whole discussion is silly if you don't understand the whole picture. Small arms are not as simple as "bang-bang, you're dead". --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So find the sources and explain it in the article - that's the whole point. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What POV do you think I am pushing? I saw a range for small arms that is patently false, even according to the "General references" you gave earlier. I'm trying to find a version of the Army manual that isn't FOUO so I can cite it, rather than a lesser source that would be open to WP:RS arguments. Range refers not to the distance at which a lethal shot is theoretically possible, but rather to the distance at which the weapon is a credible threat. To say that most small arms are accurate to ranges over the high end of assault rifles is wrong on several counts; Firstly, it fails to consider that there are several categories of firearm that will not put a projectile out that far in the best of cases: Handguns and shotguns being the most notable. Second, the specific phrasing "of accuracy", the last piece that you reverted without a relevant explanation, claims that small arms are generally accurate at ranges beyond the ability of people to see human-sized targets unaided. Finally, the numbers are wrong. With rare exceptions, only bolt-action rifles currently have effective ranges anywhere near a mile, even with optical sights and skilled shooters. Treedel (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked for possible meanings of "Volley fire". Everything I could find is either archaic, or exclusive to artillery. Where are you, if rifles are your best artillery, and the enemy is only 1500 m away, but not 'deployed' yet? Your scenario makes no sense, and your claims flatly contradict the text you were fighting to keep. Treedel (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on a lack of objection, I intend to go live with the changes later tonight. Treedel (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you help moderate?

We are in urgent need of a third party admin to help settle a dispute over the Heckler & Koch UMP article and we also need an authority figure to take care of certain Users with serious behaviour issues and continuous personal attack tendencies.Please help if you can at the following page and scroll to the users section to help moderate the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heckler_%26_Koch_UMP

When reading please click on the provided links within the text which demonstrate the point i'm trying to make.

Also as proof of how juvenille and innapropriate the users Koalorka and Nukes4Tots have been please read their comments on the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heckler_%26_Koch_UMP&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahlgd (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 June 2009‎

What is the difference between this article and Gun?

Both firearm and gun have the same definition of what the page is about. Should they be merged? Or should the difference be clarified? Is there a difference? LK (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There are differences, mostly historical in origin. Firearms tend to be handheld, while only a few guns are man-portable.

While they operate by the same principle, I don't think that combining them would be useful. However, I think that a link to gun from firearm would probably be appropriate. The reverse link is already up. Treedel (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of firearm?

The (unsourced) section on the origin of the term "firearm" in the first paragraph of "Background" strikes me as very dubious. The word "arm" was used to mean "weapon" well before the introduction of gunpowder. So it seems much more plausible that the term firearm is simply a combination of "fire" and "arm (weapon)"-- a "fire weapon." Connecting to the term to the anatomical arm used to operate a medieval weapon seems unnecessary and improbable.

If there's no reliable citation for the stuff about the term coming from the arm holding the match, I think that section should be dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloop2 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition To Firearm Request

Gentlemen, in our effort to play by the rules and to respect the ongoing work of all the contributors to this section we are formally requesting inclusion to this section "Firearm" under the "See Also" section. We are a non-commercial Press Release organization that works on behalf of most of the leading weapons and equipment manufacturers INCONUS. Essentially when there is new weapons, equipment or gear being released within the industry (MILSPEC and Other) we are contacted to release the information to the general public. It is our desire to be listed as:

Tactical Gear News: The latest tactical gear news covering weapons,training, clothing and tactical equipment.

The site is located at: www.TacticalGearNews.com

Milspecnews (talk)milspecnews —Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

I don't think that a press release link fits within the definitions of WP:EL. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hand cannon

This whole article is in desperate need of a rewrite, but this section in particular annoyed me.

Recoil, a principle new to human experience at the time, could only be absorbed by bracing the barrel against the ground using a wooden support, the forerunner of the stock.

First off, recoil was in no way "new to human experience", as anyone who's fired a crossbow can testify. Second, it is quite possible to fire smaller-caliber hand cannons without bracing them against anything. Kolbasz (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

All firearms are not weapons

(moved from Berean Hunter's talk page)

All firearms are not weapons as some are not designed to be used as weapons for example blank firing firearms and specific target firearms like those used in shooting details during biathlons or ISSF competitions. Flare guns are another good example of firearms that weren't intended to be used as weapons.

From dictionary.com

Weapon

[wep-uhn] Show IPA noun 1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon. 2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. 3. Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings. verb (used with object) 4. to supply or equip with a weapon or weapons: to weapon aircraft with heat-seeking missiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theskylinegtr (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Tool

[tool] Show IPA noun 1. an implement, especially one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations. 2. any instrument of manual operation. 3. the cutting or machining part of a lathe, planer, drill, or similar machine. 4. the machine itself; a machine tool. 5. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose: Education is a tool for success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theskylinegtr (talk • contribs) 12:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's explanation of a weapon.

A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool or instrument used with the aim of causing damage or harm (either physical or mental) to living beings or artificial structures or systems. In human society weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, fighting, self-defense, crime, law enforcement, and war.

This is why I think firearms should be described as tools.

Theskylinegtr (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

First, there is a consensus in a thread above on this page in which other editors correctly agreed that weapon is the correct term. Unless you convince a group of editors here otherwise, the consensus stands. Do not change the article, please.

Second, you are arguing with dictionaries. If the dictionaries all seem to use weapon then that is the correct answer. You conveniently left out what those dictionaries have for their definitions of firearm:

• From Webster's — "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder"

• Legal definition in US — "a shot gun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition."

• Free Dictionary — "A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant."

• Dictionary.com — "a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder." ...and they also happen to mention a 2nd def on the same page, "a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc"

What does the Oxford English Dictionary state in its definition for firearm?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider this: "A firearm is a device that launches one or more projectiles through confined burning of a propellant. They are typically used as weapons, but they can also be used for sport and signaling.". -- Frotz(talk) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have always been told to refer to them as weapons (but my Dad is ex-Navy and I did learn to shoot in the CCF so that would be a military term)

• Oxford English Dictionary for 'gun' says: "a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise."

(Fdsdh1 (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

Issues with penetration test re: shotgun vs rifle vs handgun

I take issue with the statement that shotguns are commonly used because they reduce the likelyhood of overpenetration. Studies are mixed at best on this topic, and depend on a wide variety of factors including size of shot, type of rifle bullet used, caliber size, etc. --RichardMills65 (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you are referring to this text:

Rifles and shotguns are commonly used for hunting and often to defend a home or place of business. Usually, large game are hunted with rifles (although shotguns can be used), while birds are hunted with shotguns. Shotguns are sometimes preferred for defending a home or business due to their wide impact area, multiple wound tracks (when using buckshot), shorter range, and reduced penetration of walls, which significantly reduces the likelihood of unintended harm, although the handgun is also common.

I believe the text is basically correct with the possible stipulation that a descriptor be added such as large bore to rifles in the second sentence. Shotguns are preferred for home defense due to less penetration of walls among other things.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Weapon vs. Instrument

Why is it an instrument? --J (t) 23:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is ridiculous. You are attacking me through an edit summary. I will be giving ANI a notice. --J (t) 00:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Air guns are not firearms.

As requested, I have found the following references for the fact that air guns are firearms.

Here's three for starters.

[http://www.ssaasa.org.au/faq-for-shooting-and-laws/obtaining-a-firearms-licence-south-australia.html ]

[http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Ourservices/PoliceLicensingServices/Firearms/Firearmslicences/tabid/1903/Default.aspx ]

[http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=CompId%3A6452e9c4-95f1-4a1f-a0d8-abe75f0c3c7b;rec=0;resUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fstatutes.agc.gov.sg%2Faol%2Fbrowse%2FtitleResults.w3p%3Bletter%3DA%3Btype%3DactsAll ]

The article, Air gun laws, give a lot more examples, but not all are cited, and some aren't cited in English. --Dmol (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Er, none of those sources say anything of the sort. The first two explicitly call them firearms ("A firearms licence is first broken up into classes (A, B, C, D & H). Each class represents different types of firearm. Class A: Air rifles, air guns..." in the first and "Pneumatic firearms are commonly referred to as air guns" in the second). The closes you get is in the third source, where firearms and air-guns are listed separately. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand the counter-intuitive nature of the claim, especially since my air rifle can crack the sound barrier and sounds like a .22, and that's why I wanted to make this point clear on the wikipedia page. Firs, the etamology of the word firearm is unarguably tied to fire. Slingshots, slings, bows, crossbows, and nerf guns are not firearms. Where then is the difference between a nerf gun and my air rifle? Some arbitrary muzzle velocity? Numerous governments, including the US federal government, consider a firearm any hand held device propelling a bullet powered by an explosive. I fully understand the idea that an air gun is substantially the same as a firearm, but they are not a firearm according to many government agencies including the US federal government and I believe it is important for the wikipedia definition of firearm to accurately reflect this distinction. How do we proceed from here? How about a qualifier in the definition. I quoted the US govt definition of "by the action of an explosive", perhaps we could reword that to say "often defined by the action of an explosive" while containing the reference I cited? Would this strike the proper balance between this counter intuitive notion vs federal and state definition and regulation? I think it leaves room for some to consider air guns one way and some to consider them another. Any opposed to this compromise? DavesPlanet (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of any further discussion I will go with the proposed phrase, while also changing the text of the reference I cited to a more neutral "US Federal Govt does not consider an air gun to be a firearm and does not regulate them as firearms" DavesPlanet (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup of firearm and gun articles

Hi folks, There seems to be some interest in cleaning up these two articles. "Gun" is the more generic and general of the two terms with the term "firearm" being a subset of guns and referring primarily to "small arms".

Anyone have a problem or issue with this course of action? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Firearm I would say yes, the set/subset needs to be fixed. The changes I see would be to firm up the def re "A firearm is a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun" since its basic definition comes up as a "portable gun" [8]. The "Background" section here at Firearm seems to be allot of unverified opinion, especially the claim "gun" is restricted to a "artillery piece with a relatively high muzzle velocity": that's a usage, not a general restriction. "History" at Gun would need to be the history of guns, not firearms, and the "History" section at Firearm should be the history of firearms, if its not that already. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Finally a voice of reason. What are your thoughts on the fight over calling a "gun" a weapon vs. a "tool" or "device" or anything? Quoting dictionaries doesn't make it right, its just blatant POV pushing as far as I'm concerned. Furthermore, dictionaries are historically notorious for copying each other to back each other up and give credence to their definitions. Its a print version of a systemic computer error. Ugh! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Did a cleanup and actually lost any "weapon vs. a "tool" because the definition of a firearm is that it is a portable gun. Could be re-added/re-visited if there is a referenced need to have it back. Encyclopedic description moved up, and part of the "Background" section seems to be a redundant history section and a series of unsupported statements. Moved or rm'ed (can be seen here). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done! I like the direction its going in. I'm going to pull out my gun books and see what tidbits I can find. I own a copy of every volume in the NRA Heritage Library. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

History

While cleaning up the articles I noticed the history sections are all over the place re:Gun#History, Firearm#History, History of the firearm, History of gunpowder, giving dates of invention from 10th century to 14th century. History of the firearm has "invented in the 14th century" in the lead and cites a "depiction of... 12th century.... figure carrying a vase-shaped bombard with flames and a cannonball coming out of it" in the body.Helaine Selin, Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, 1997, page 389 source I used gives 1259 for the "fire emitting lance" projectile firearm. The source I used at "Gun" gives pre-1000AD for a rudimentary gun (no description as to whether it was man portable). These should be firmed up and "un-forked". Claims probably need to better ref'ed, described and codified across these articles. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that too, its an inconsistent mess. My copy of the 1979 book "The Complete Handgun, 1300 to the Present" by Ian Hogg claims it was in 1325 A.D. with "black powder" having been invented 50 to 75 years prior. It also goes on to say that the oldest extant firearm was excavated from a well in Tannenberg Castle in Germany. Given that the castle was overthrown in 1399 and was undisturbed until the excavation, the author makes the claim that it had existed prior to that. I know prior to this there were "fire shooting" devices, but none that expelled an actual projectile. Any good references in the other articles? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And... there is a "gunpowder" article as well as History of gunpowder, what the...?? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Article structure

Just laying out the article structure (as I see it):

Gun - the main article for all these types of devices per WP:COMMONNAME[9].

Firearm- a sub type of Gun, references as a portable gun[10][11].

Small arms seems to be a dickdef so unless someone comes up with some references giving it an encyclopedic description it should probably be redirected/merged here. Personal weapon should probably be deleted, maybe redirected? Some two cents. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree about small arms, but its useful as a link in other articles so it would have to become a Redirect at minimum. With this in mind, I'm in favor of stripping down Firearm to its bare elemtents and then letting the main articles for its more distinct section responsible for the bulk of the detail. So...

Gun

Firearms

Small arms

Handguns, pistols, etc.

Single shot

Revolver

Semi-automatic

Long guns

Rifle

Shotgun

machine gun

Medium arms?

Cannon

Portable cannon

Fixed

Gun, tools

What else?

Almost seems like we need a spreadsheet. Guns by "size" and guns by "use/intention". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A Small arms redirect and merge of material to Firearm and adding the explanation that there is a military sub-definition (if there is one) in the lead sounds right. Being lazy and just looking at the broad structure of Gun and Firearm I did not see allot of stuff that needed to be stripped and moved, but I have not gone through the articles in detail. My approach would be to have Gun as an overall summary re:Wikipedia:Summary style.... sort of like Telescope. Gun would have the basic history and then would summarize, link, or list all things that have tubes and go bang. Firearm would contain everything about Firearms (portable guns). But as I said I have not gone through the articles in detail to see if more drastic things need doing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This entire article has a very USA-specific focus. More effort should be made to provide a global perspective. Davethehorrible (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Parts of a firearm is not explained

A number of firearm/gun articles mention the "receiver." I was not familiar with the term. There's an article at Receiver (firearms) though it's still not 100% clear as the pictures to me seem like a complete rifle, another complete rifle, the lower receiver, and a bunch of parts, some of which are meaningless to me.

I'm thinking this article, rather than the receiver one, would be a good place for a picture that shows an exploded view drawing of a gun that labels the parts with the parts I'm thinking of are:

• Stock
• Receiver (firearms) (if separate upper and lower receivers are common then explode this)
• Barrel
• Magazine

Those are all common English words that have a specialized meaning when discussing firearms. If there are other important parts then by all means include them.

Related to this is it would help if there was an explanation of the term "field strip" which I assume means the disassembly of a firearm you can do without tools. It's used many times on Wikipedia.^[12] I found these pictures that can help.

• File:FNX-40 field strip.jpg
• File:AR-15 field strip.JPG
• File:SKS filed strip.JPG

The phrase is defined on List of United States Marine Corps acronyms and expressions and includes the "AR-15 field strip" image though captioned as "field stripped M16." I can't tell from the picture if it's an AR-15 or an M16. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The article at Receiver (firearms) does fairly well cover what a receiver is, but there is often confusion when it comes to guns that don't have a receiver. Black powder canons, for instance, don't typically have a part that is called a "receiver" because they are just tubes of metal with a plug in one end. There are really no operating parts to house, and thus no receiver in which to house them. I suppose the frame the canon sits on could be called a receiver, but it never really is.

Similarly, not all firearms have a stock (pistols, for instance), nor a magazine (single-shot firearms), nor even a trigger (mortars, for instance). Some Old West gamblers even took the barrel off their revolvers. In the centuries of development, so many formats have come out that there really is no single comprehensive parts list that can apply to all of them.

As for defining "field stripping," that too is highly dependent on the individual gun. Most modern guns have been designed to be field stripped without tools, but that wasn't always the case. And different manufacturers of substantially similar guns can publish instructions on field stripping that have significantly different levels of disassembly. It very broadly means simply opening it up enough to clean and lubricate the moving parts, but some guns don't need to be stripped at all to do this while others need a fairly intense bit of mechanical labor. It's not really technical terminology that is uniform enough to apply to the article as a whole. A quick image search for field stripped M16/AR15/M4s on Wikipedia shows multiple levels of disassembly, and they are all identical guns when it comes to disassembly. I'm not sure what the right answer is here. Anything other than a broad definition would be incorrect in at least a few cases, and I'm not sure such a broad definition is of much use to people who don't already know the term. Davethehorrible (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

earliest recorded firearm??

i googled this question and got this wiki link,however i noticed on the gunpowder page it states that the earliest gunpowder weapons were actually from the 11th century, andd that the first western guns were in the 13th but yours says the first guns were from china in the 13th century...... someone needs to do some fact checking from one of the pages. just thought id let you guys know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.194.89 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is a tough one to nail done because the answer is... "It depends..." The earliest devices to use gunpowder were referred to as "fire sticks" or "fire lances". Basically roman candles that "shot" out sparks, burning embers, or some other incendiary material. Then later (how much or little is debatable apparently) someone figure out how to use one of these devices to launch a projectile. So is what you're calling a "firearm" the first device to use gunpowder or the first device to launch a projectile via gunpowder? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 06:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Morality and ethics

Where is the section about the morality and ethics of firearms? This article is; description, history, legality. The sections are comprehensive, but the article is not. Yes, they're in other articles, but this is the summary article and should include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.129.118 (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Which articles? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 06:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Collapse legal advice

The idea that a firearm is a handgun or pistol or rifle or shotgun is wrong. Here is the actual legal description of a firearm and doesnt include any gun you can buy in a modern gun store. As such you do not need to register your non firearms and can lawfully and legally own and carry without a permit or license, regardless of what your state or police department says. 26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions For the purpose of this chapter— (a) Firearm The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; y (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon. (e) Any other weapon The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.108.224 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide so actual legal description ... Code would not define an article. No comment on how fast your would be thrown in jail if you followed this "advice" above. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Furthermore, Wikipedia does not give legal advice. See WP:NOLEGAL. Meters (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Main image

While I'll be the first to admit that I do not believe that there is any single perfect image, does anyone have any input and/or opinion as to what would make sense? There have been a myriad of changes and developments to the firearm over the centuries, but what image or set of images would do it justice?

And for the moment, lets forget about what is in already in Commons (unless there's an undiscovered gem) and try to come up with an appropriate solution in principle or concept. Images can be sourced or created. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hard to find. I see a good image is either going to be historical, a public domain military image, or specifically show a firearm that already has an article (a redundant image of an Assault weapon, a Pistol, etc), so all have drawbacks. I think the best we can do it depict the concept, someone holding a weapon (the definition of this topic)... like that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Legality

There should be one article which is a comprehensive overview of the topic of firearms. That would include summaries of history, technology, legality/politics, and various other topics covered in other articles. I don't know if there's a better article than this one. The "legality" section that was in this article wasn't a great summary, but I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to rework this article to broaden its scope. Rezin (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that sounds like a good idea for a List article. Then again, I was reviewing the Category list on the GUNS main page and its pretty comprehensive. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

List articles aren't real articles. I was thinking more of an article comprising short summary sections of the major articles related to firearms. The current article is halfway there, it'd just be a matter of rebalancing it to broaden the scope. Rezin (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm not against this idea, but where does it stop and how do we setup guidelines so that it does not get out of control and the article becomes a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:COATRACK? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it'd mostly be summaries of other articles, so it'd be based on previously vetted material. The main difficulty would be deciding which topics to include. One guide could be tertiary sources, like other encyclopedias. I'll put this on my to-do list and see if I can find any neutral overviews. Rezin (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Public health impact

I am contesting the addition of this section for several reasons.

1. The title of the section is POV. The single source for the entire section is a study about diseases that might contain firearm death data. Its a large document and no specific link to the material in question was given.
2. It's a junk statistic. There's no context or explanation of what it relates to; which countries, what kind (developed, 3rd world, etc.). It's no more useful of a statement than, "Every year, people die".
3. This article is predominantly technical except for the Legality section at the end which could easily be replaced by a See also link to the main article (Overview of gun laws by nation).

So please explain or justify why this information is germane? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm not married to putting the section in this article as opposed to the gun safety article. I'll move it there, which will meet your desire that it not be here. Which is fine, as I think more about it, because you're right that Wikipedia maintains a separation between the firearms article (on one hand) and the gun safety and gun laws and gun control and gun politics articles (on the other). However, go easy on the rationalizations for deletion as opposed to moving. The Global burden of disease study group's work is not junk statistics, and Doc James is one of our best contributors, adding the most useful content, on the entire Wikipedia project. It's better to figure out where to move referenced content citing peer-reviewed medical journals that someone took the time to assemble and contribute than to rationalize deleting it by claiming it's meaningless/nonsense garbage. As far as heading off having anyone challenge the removal from this article, that's a more effective path anyway than challenging them to counter the garbage assertion, which is quite challengeable. But I will get off my soap box now, as I still owe you for your good work at Talk:Cartridge (firearms)#Why is this article limited to small-arms?. Cheers, — ¾-10 04:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I meant no disrespect to you or Doc James and I agree that Doc is an excellent Editor. There has been an effort to "politicize" firearm articles in an unnecessary manner which has me a bit sensitive to this issue. My apologies for coming across as Deletionist.

That said, I should have phrased my comments differently. The "junk statistic" comment was meant with regard to the overall context of the data. I was not questioning the source, it looks like a good one, but that statistic is not easy to find with the given link. I'm still looking. And I agree wholeheartedly that the data is better off in the gun safety or similar articles. Thank you for your appreciation of my input on the Cartridge article... :) Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The data is from a 2013 Lancet review. Hardly political. Just boring facts.

Content
Assault by firearm resulted in 180,000 deaths in 2013 up from 128,000 deaths in 1990. There were 47,000 unintentional firearm deaths in 2013.

We could state what percentage of total deaths this represent. The fact that this article contains all economic activities related to firearms is a political statement. So it appears an economic perspective is allowed. But not a statement from the World Health Organization? Was removed from gun safety aswell.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Doc, you're right and that data does not belong in the Lead either especially since its not represented in the body of the article. My point is, its a technical and historical article about devices and there are ample articles for non-technical content (political, business, or otherwise) for information like this to be incorporated in a context that will likely be far more relevant. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi all. I move to restore the public health impact section to the gun safety article, because it is relevant to that topic. In fact, the very previous section (below which I moved it) is talking about how to keep children from accidentally shooting themselves and others with their parents' guns that they found. That's a segue into the WHO data on unintended shooting deaths. I realize why @Dmol: deleted the section there, too, as it had also been deleted here—it's the same underlying reason why Scalhotrod deleted it here—it feels like a wedge or crowbar whereby gun control politics gets into the wrong article. But it needs to go somewhere; deleting it without finding the right home for it is basically censoring it on the altar of gun politics (the altar that was supposed to be avoided). It needs to go either in gun safety or gun control, and I feel it's most germane to gun safety, because as epidemiology data it's about injuries. — ¾-10 00:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As member of the Firearm Project and a frequent contributor to firearm topic articles, I agree that gun safety would be a "good home" for it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Or what about Gun violence? Rezin (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, that's a good idea. I was thinking last night maybe gunshot wound, which I see redirects to ballistic trauma, but now that I look at gun violence, it seems to really fit there. There's already a section of that article that is functionally an "economic impact" section (by another name). The public health impact can go in that section or as an adjacent section. Thanks for the good idea. I will move it there. — ¾-10 00:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes gun violence is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Unintentional ambiguity

As of this writing, the summary includes the following sentence, "The first primitive firearms were invented in 13th century China when the man portable fire lance was combined with projectiles." The sentence is factually correct but it has two possible sources of ambiguity or confusion. The first is the use of the word "man" instead of a synonym such as "human." Ignoring the gender issue involved in using a gender-specific term, the word "man" is also the name of large ethnic group in China and when I read the sentence, I was initially confused if the article was referring to man Chinese. (The Wikipedia article about the man people does not mention that man is a common term in modern China, especially in Beijing. When I lived there, I had many discussions about law and ethnicity with local people and no one ever used the term Manchu, but I am not attempting to change that other article.) Therefore, using the word "man" is potentially ambiguous to very small portion of the English-speaking readers of Wikipedia.

The second problem is the lack of a hyphen or hyphens in the sentence. The following would be clearer, "...man-portable fire lance..."

I am not making the edit myself because it is highly likely that if I make an edit without a full explanation that my edit would be reverted and I don't monitor my edits, so it would be a waste of my time. If someone believes my above observations are useful, then feel free to make the edit. If my observation is not useful, then please archive my talk section. Thanks! hunterhogan 01:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

These points sound quite astute to me. I am moving forward with this and changing "man-portable fire lance" to "one-person-portable fire lance". — ¾-10 00:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Logical ambiguities and errors first section.

The first sentence is vague and inaccurate. Although it quote's the Merriam Webster dictionary (which I approve of) the first description there says "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms" which is vague. But clicking on the definition for people learning to speak English comes up with a more precise definition which is ": a small gun revolvers, rifles, and other firearms."

The line - "driven by the action of an exploding force is vague and unhelpful." There is a precise and helpful way to describe the power source for projectiles but this page doesn't give a valid explanation. As stated it's about as helpful as saying the "sun rises."

If we examine portable firearms then, they include crew served weapons, artillery pieces, and the guns mounted on self propelled chassis, from which the overall context on this page indicates should NOT be the purpose of this page. A better title for this page would be Sporting Firearms' Heavy crews served weapons, such as Gatling Guns are "Military Weapons." The vast majority of this page is devoted to Sporting Firearms.

The statement "Most modern firearms (with the notable exception of smoothbore shotguns) have rifled barrels to impart spin to the projectile for improved flight stability"is technically incorrect. Most, but not all, modern single projectile weapons (and some multiple projectile weapons) are rifled. You have implied that Shotguns made today are not modern, but they are. This line is incorrect. A modern shotgun is the Franchi Spas-12. A Radically new design of shotgun is being produced by Keltec which is a bullpup styled shotgun. Some rifles (prototypes) have been manufactured in smoothbore, but none are in the sporting market at the moment. The last one on the market that I recall was the Gyrojet, a rocket propelled firearm. The Gyrojet was never refined and does NOT use a pressurized barrel but it did use a burning chemical propellant to create thrust.

There are also MODERN production muzzle loading rifles which are smoothbore. CVA and Thompson/Center both manufacture modern blackpowder rifles. Early blackpowder designs of handguns are still made such as a Remington Model 1858 New Army pattern handgun (made by Pietta). These can be considered specialty firearms as they appeal mostly to firearms enthusiasts although a bullet fired from a .44 Walker Bulldog black powder pistol is just as powerful as one fired from a Colt Government model 1911A1.

More inaccuracy in the line: " type of action employed (muzzle, breech, lever, bolt, pump, revolver, semi-automatic, automatic etc.)" The word muzzle, is not a type of action, neither is breech while several types of actions have been neglected.

This line appears to have been copied from somewhere else and makes no sense here: "together with the usual means of deportment (hand-held or mechanical mounting)." It is illegal in most of the USA to use any kind of vehicle from which to fire at animals. The use of the hood of an automobile, or the door frame (etc. etc.) is criminal. So are some types of hunting from aircraft. The only types of mechanical mounts I can recall are those used for crew served weapons, military weapons, such as heavy tripods for machine guns. Sporting firearms can be used with bipods, monopods and target rests. Bipods may be permanently affixed to a firearms, a common application in fact.

Another logical error is found in the line that says, "Further classification may make reference to the type of barrel used (rifled)." No this is NOT used as a method of description.

The use of the term Gatling gun has no place in a discussion of small arms. This article starts by defining a firearms as a small weapon and then inserts a crew served wheeled carriage military weapon as an example, very inappropriate! The very next line contradicts the use of the term Gatling Gun which is a crew served wheeled military weapon which is seldom, if ever used for sport (they are, but they are rare).

All firearms PRIME item of description starts with one of these descriptors:

Types
Specialty guns, such as Pen, Cane, Zip etc.
Handgun
Rifle
Shotgun

Additional terms are necessary to describe a specific firearms, but may be given in any order:

Type (As above)	Action	Caliber	Barrel Length	Sighting	Magazine type	Magazine Capacity
Rifle	Bolt Action	.30-06	24"	Iron Sights	internal magazine	4 rounds

Some of the types of actions that apply to firearms and may be combined for a complete description are:

Action types
Bolt Action
Single Shot
Falling Block
Double Barreled
Drillings
Box Magazine Fed
Tube Magazine Fed
Internal Magazine Fed
Revolver
Combination Revolver and Shotgun
Self Loading (semi-automatic)
Self Loading (continuous fire, full automatic)
Belt Fed
Locked Breech short and long recoil
Locked Breech gas, impingement
Locked Breech gas, piston
Blowback
Delayed Blowback
Recoil
Roller locking
Roller Delayed (a type of delayed blowback)
others

Muzzle loaders have had the following types of lock mechanisms:

Lock type
touch hole
Match Lock
Wheel Lock
Cap Lock

Modern muzzle loaders are typically Cap Lock.

To properly describe an action may require multiple terms from this list. The description of sight types alone would require a huge amount of space. Firearms may have a HUGE number of accessories, such as lights, lasers, night scopes, telescopes, etc.

If you want to test the logic here, ask a person what kind of gun they own. Most will start with the type of gun, typically today an AR (for example) and then list the caliber, and then the method of sighting, although there are many accessories that can be described as well. Example: My 2nd AR has a .223 Wylde barrel of 24" stainless steel, magazine fed with an A2 buttstock, bipod equipped with an M1907 target sling. Example: My wife's rifle is a lever action Henry in .30-30 with iron sights, tube fed.

The female soldier on this page is firing an M4 type Carbine chambered in either .223 Remington or 5.56 x 45mm Nato caliber with a reflex sight and collapsible buttstock. It appears to be a civilian model, not one used by the USA DOD because it lacks the sights used on a real M4. So this gun is simply an AR Carbine.

The phrase: "Shooters aim firearms at their targets with hand-eye co-ordination, using either iron sights or optical sights." does not need to be here. This is a discussion of firearms not the sport of shooting. Besides, that it is an overly simplified and inaccurate description of shooting. Shooters DO NOT necessarily use sights. Off hand shooting is a major sport and leads to developing accurate target shooting without the use of sights. A term for this type of shooting is Plinking.

This phrase: "The word firearms usually is used in a sense restricted to small arms (weapons that can be carried by a single person)" is true but would be improved by being more specific by using the term Sporting Firearms which eliminates discussion of crew served and military weapons (including Gatling guns) and other propellant types, such as liquid explosives which have been used in artillery.

This concludes my criticism of the lead section Digitallymade (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

lead section

What other propellants are used in Firearms other than black and smokeless powders?Digitallymade (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordite, Liquid propellant. Cordite is a form of stabilized Nitro Glycerine. The US DOD has been experimenting with liquid propellants in artillery.Digitallymade (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Page Organization:

It is typical to list History before discussing other details. A major test for the quality of a page is, after reading this, will I understand more, or become more confused. This page will mostly confuse people. It is illogical to start discussing types and configurations prior to the discussion of history. Facts without context have little to NO value.

Look at this index structure, It's a mass of confusion, redundancy and illogical ordering:

• 1.2 Function
• 1.2.1 Manual
• 1.2.2 Semi-automatic
• 1.2.3 Automatic
• 1.2.3.1 Machine guns
• 1.2.3.2 Submachine guns
• 1.2.3.3 Personal defense weapons
• 1.2.3.4 Automatic rifles
• 1.2.3.5 Assault rifles
• 2 History
• 2.1 Evolution
• 2.1.1 Early models
• 2.1.1.1 Fire lances
• 2.1.1.2 Hand cannons
• 2.1.1.3 Muskets
• 2.1.2 Loading techniques
• 2.1.3 Internal magazines
• 2.1.4 Detachable magazines
• 2.1.5 Belt-fed weapons
• 2.1.6 Firing mechanisms
• 2.1.6.1 Matchlock
• 2.1.6.2 Wheellock
• 2.1.6.3 Flintlock
• 2.1.6.4 Percussion cap
• 2.1.7 Cartridges
• 2.1.8 Repeating, semi-automatic, and automatic firearms

It's also written using an English/US context of some terms. As far at it's discussion of military weapons, I think that should be elsewhere. By combining too much varied information the page does a major disservice to a potential student.

There is also NO legitimate logic to discussing laws here. The people who write these pages cannot claim to be either licensed Attorneys or Legal Constitutional Scholars. Laws should be discussed ONLY in the context of preserving LAW & ORDER. If there was one law in the entire USA I might say that it's OK to talk about it here. There is not. Not only do all the US states and territories have varying laws there are people outside the USA who have different laws to deal with.

Neither is there any legitimate context by which the morality of the use of firearms is discussed beyond the concerns of hunters and conservators who desire as painless and quick death for animals that are killed with firearms as can be achieved.

Any discussion beyond this falls into the areas of religion, opinion, and often radical opinion. The discussion of Firearms is a discussion of the evolution of technology and relates to the Industrial Revolution and the advancement of Science and the understanding of the world, which is called Physics, which is apolitical.

Digitallymade (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure that the article can be improved. But I don't agree with your logic of deleting all consideration of the legal and moral issues connected to firearms, since they are a big part of the history of firearms. Technology doesn't exist in a vacuum. See Nuclear weapon, where the legal and moral issues are discussed prominently and appropriately. Felsic2 (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of section on Handguns

The first line is false. Handguns are NOT the smallest type of firearms. That falls to specialty guns although there is a Kolibri 2.7mm that is extremely small. In general the smallest gun using standard readily available ammunition is the Pen Gun. Some Book guns are smaller than typical handguns as well. The smallest typical Handgun that can be found in a Sporting Goods store, is a handgun which fires Tear Gas. It may not look like a classical handgun.

This line gives an incorrect impression: " single-shot pistols (more common historically)."

Single Shot pistols are quite common in well equipped Sporting Goods stores. Makers include Thompson/Cengter, CVA, Wichita while there are still some Smith & Wesson and Remington in existence for which ammunition is still being made. There are also Derringer type handguns, which have two cylinders. Early repeating handguns were multiple barreled "Pepper Box" designs. These gave way to revolvers which revolved a cylinder with multiple chambers rather than have multiple barrels (saving weight).

This line is slightly incorrect and misleading: "Semi-automatic pistols have a single fixed firing chamber machined into the rear of the barrel,." It is wrong because the entire barrel of self loading handguns moves in two different planes in most actions (HK Roller locking handguns move in a single plane only). Single shot pistols fit this description precisely.

The discussion of trigger types is confused and incomplete. There are at least three trigger action types and they are used on both revolvers and self loaders.

Trigger Type	How it functions	Revolver	Self Loader
Single	Spur Hammer is cocked by hand	Yes	Yes
Double	Hammer is cocked by trigger pull	Yes	Yes
Single Action/Double Action	as in first two examples	No	Yes

Trigger action is dependent on the type of firing pin activation also. Some handguns use a Striker instead of a firing pin. Striker fired guns are also single and double action (see Sig Sauer P320)

The earliest revolving handguns were made in 1530 in Italy. This makes the line "Prior to the 19th century, all handguns were single-shot muzzleloaders.[citation needed]" FALSE

The next line is also false: "With the invention of the revolver in 1818..."

The line "Certain designs of auto-loading pistol appeared beginning in the 1870s ." is also false and the words Certain Designs are without meaning. The FIRST self loading handgun to be marketed was offered in 1892 and was the SCHÖNBERGER-LAUMANN M1892

This statement is untrue: "Revolvers, especially in .22 LR and 38 Special/357 Magnum, are also common concealed weapons in jurisdictions allowing this practice because their simple mechanics make them smaller than many autoloaders while remaining reliable..." The revolver is handicapped for concealed carry use due to it's excessive width (thickness). Even full sized self loaders (such as the Colt M1911A1 are thinner and easier to conceal than MOST revolvers. Smaller caliber revolvers, such as the Harrington & Richard .22 LR, have larger capacity, and thus larger cylinders than if they held fewer rounds (it holds 10). Revolvers are also notoriously unreliable. They suffer from rapid wear, and are very sensitive to dirt. Wear of the timing mechanisms in the Smith & Wesson Model 10 in .38 Smith and Wesson Special caliber was the FIRST to fail in the competition for the M9 US DOD handgun with a mean time between failures of around 410 rounds while the Beretta and Sig Sauer exceeded 5000 rounds with no failures.

Further, in close combat an antagonist can easily disable a revolver simply by grasping the cylinder. It can also have the hammer blocked. A Smith & Wesson M&P model has a shrouded hammer to make it more reliable.

References

Digitallymade (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd quibble with your first point. My impression is that the term "handgun" covers any gun small enough to be operated one-handed, so it would include pen guns, etc. But I agree with your other points. Do you propose to fix these problems? Felsic2 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I was going to include pen guns as well as the ultra small Kolibri 2mm as examples.Digitallymade (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

HK never made a roller locking handgun, that is straight up fiction. Roller locking rifles and subguns, yes. The only roller locking handgun is the CZ52. Blowback pistols like the PPK and Toggle action pistols like the Luger and Lahti use a fixed barrel.There are a lot of revolvers that work well for concealed carry: NAA Minis, S&W Models 1-2, New Departures, I frames, J frames; Colt Detective Special, Cobra, etc. Hell one of the guns I'm carrying today is a Ruger SP-101 in 357 Magnum. Anyone who is willing to take the Pepsi Challenge is welcome to try to disable one of my carry guns by attempting to grab the bbl. Now what was more common was for a badguy to grab the top strap on a top break and open it, and by that I mean it happened at least twice in recorded history so that S&W released the Perfected Model, but then swing out cylinders left the top breaks in the dust for other reasons.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources, history, & intro

A top-level overview article like this should be based on the best quality sources. I am concerned that the recent edits have introduced material of only local interest or based on poor quality sources. There are numerous books that describe the development and variety of firearms, including many by academic publishers. This article should use those instead of self-published webpages, wikis, and other sources of limited scope or reliability. Content like The new western territories in the West were sparsely populated. There was no law or justice. To survive a person was almost certain to own a firearm. or The advent of the Colt Revolver created a new era of democracy. No longer could a larger person bully a smaller one who was armed with a Colt. is probably inappropriate for NPOV article like this with a global scope. Felsic2 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Digitallymade: On further review, I question the value of the recent edits. Many of them focus on the history of firearms. However there is already an entire article on that topic: History of the firearm. This article should simply have a short summary of the material in that article. Further, the intro should be no more than four paragraphs. It now has 11. So I reluctantly propose revert most of the recent edits. If we want to improve this article, the improvements should be based on the highest quality sources available and should follow WP:SUMMARY with respect to subtopics where an article already exists. Felsic2 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted to the version of 01:05, 2 January 2017‎. While it may not be perfect, I believe it is better than what we had after the extensive revisions throughout January. Major revisions in a mature article that has been edited by many editors after much discussion should not be done without further discussion. Only the best quality sources should be used. All Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be followed. Felsic2 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree, WP:LEADSENTENCE should not have been changed and remainder should have been added to History of the firearm. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting a New Page Name Suggestion

This topic is poorly organized and lists several military types of firearms. A Better name would be:

Sporting Firearms

I am suggesting changing this page name to Sporting Firearms.

And in that context military firearms, if they don't already have a specific page should have one created.

The Sporting Firearms industry is responsible for huge advances in the technology since the end of WWII which was greatly accelerated in recent years. Digitallymade (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. "Civilian" might be a better juxtaposition to "military", but overall I don't see the benefit of splitting the two topics. In terms of handguns, there's no real difference. But since this is a big-topic article it should provide an overview of all firearms. Felsic2 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's run down to our Civilian store and buy a new handgun? Where is that in the phone book? The industry that Cabela's, Dick's, Gander Mountain, Field and Stream, and numerous Sporting Goods stores are part of is called Leisure Sports. The products in that industry in additions to firearms are Sporting Goods. So if a total novice were to look at this page and want to know where to buy a firearm, we would have to have that as a section if the page is called Civilian. That would also imply that non-civilian needs would not be addressed (which is fine since the needs of the Police and Military are NOT generally handled through Sporting goods stores). Some are in fact. I believe that Sporting Firearms is a far better page name and that Military Firearms (and all that implies) is best dealt with on a separate page. Many of the irrational attacks on gun owners are based on distinctions such as this which open the door for deliberate obfuscation and mendacity. There are already many redundant pages that overlap some of decent scholarship of some without. Since the 1950's when I started paying attention firearms have been Sporting Goods. Before the political nonsense, hardware stores carried firearms. This changed because of the abuses of a few people who object to the basic nature of weapons and self defense. Digitallymade (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

We're not here to expedite sales. We don't classify most things by where we buy them.

We're not service ANY useful purpose by using ambiguous terms that no one would recognize. By the way, the Military version of this would likely be TWENTY times the size. Guns of the former Soviet Union and the current Russia alone would fill volumes. Beretta, Sig Sauer, and others do not sell their military versions to the civilian market. The XM17 is a perfect example.. it's NOT in the civilian market (although it probably will be in future). Digitallymade (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I could imagine having sub-articles on military and civilian firearms, or even ones devoted to hunting or target firearms. But we should still have an article like this one that provides an overview of the entire topic. I just don't see a big benefit to splitting it, as military and civilian firearms are more alike than different, and there's considerable overlap. Untold millions of AK-47s are in private hands, for example, and various handguns first designed for civilian use have been sold to military units. Felsic2 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If we do then it should be no more than a stub. The purpose is to provide accurate and useful knowledge. The test is, would you understand more or less from this page.. currently the answer is less. This article is written as if it was a elementary school project for a non English speaker. Digitallymade (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going to clarify the section on how firearms are described.Digitallymade (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The proper name for a page on Military Firearms would be Military Small Arms. Most of the information for these weapons is available on an expensive cost only basis (which I no longer pay for). I do not subscribe to Jane's or AUSA, or NDPA neither do I see the need to discuss military systems which are in use as a need of the average person. One of my former "friends" who ripped off my statement for retiring to Montana to raise rabbits (the late Tom Clancy) was hauled in front of a Congressional Investigation Committee to state where he got all the information that he had published in the book, The Hunt for Red October (most of which he got right). Any discussion of military firearms carried a security risk. We were both doing the SAME research at the same military bases prior to his writing the book. Digitallymade (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There are already articles on all the subtopics you mention. Many arms, like muskets, have been used by a large variety of people.

There are many fine, academic sources about firearms. Before you spend a lot of time writing material based on low quality sources, please make sure you're using only the best available references.

Also, be aware that this article covers all firearms from their origin to the present day, so an American-centric or a 21st century focus would both be inappropriate. Felsic2 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You've convinced me of some things here, it's not worth the effort since the product is always going to be substandard. There are dozens are worthwhile resources.. this will never :::::::::be one.

Digitallymade (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article it's not hard. Just start with a high quality source and follow what it says on the topic. But going in the opposite direction - starting with what you already know and then later trying to find sources to support it - is always going to cause problems. Felsic2 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Health Effects

Hi there, I was thinking about the wording for this, I think that for "Health Effects", it might be better to call it "Health Hazards" or something like that. "Health Effects" sounds better for drugs or some physiological response, whereas "hazard" may be a more accurate word for injury potential. Hopefully, I don't sound nitpicky. It's a worthwhile topic for firearms, regardless of the section title. Thank you. Thorbachev (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Contested project

{{WPMED|class=|importance=Mid|emergency=yes|emergency-imp=High}}

This article includes a section Health hazard This article belongs to Wikipedia, not to WP:GUNS or WP:MILHIST. 173.165.99.233 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Changed header and removed the contested project while under discussion.

As with this IP's other project additions, I don't see this as a medical project article. Yes, firearms can cause injuries that require treatment. Taht's not enough. Asking for more input from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine. Meters (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Since there are four articles which are likely to have overlapping discussions, the discussions are being consolidated at Talk:Gun violence in the United States#Contested projects. Meters (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the WikiProject; sometimes a good-faith effort to help out means that things get mis-tagged.

However, as a matter of Wikipedia's rules, whether to tag this (or any) article as being supported by any group of editors is exclusively the decision of participants in that group. It doesn't matter if if seems "relevant" to the group's name (and, indeed, it's not required to be relevant). The only thing that matters is whether the editors in that particular group actually want to support a given article. See WP:PROJSCOPE if you want to read the official rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Some suggestions

For starters, this is a VERY broad topic. I mean I almost feel like I was just reading a list of a bunch of weapons; even weapons that were not actual guns were included into the article which caught me by surprise. May I suggest to break this entire article into multiple different articles and really focus on the following per each topic. For an example:

Shotgun - Its evolution - who uses it - a description of the shot gun - astounding statistics regarding shot guns and crime - history (who invented it, when did it first come into play)

if you do this with each weapon that you listed in your article I think it will be easier to read and also, I think that by narrowing down the topic to the specifics ensures learning from the reader as opposed to jumping from weapon to weapon; it can get a bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliciaachavezz (talk • contribs) 12:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I am wondering if we should add a section on the modern cultural aspects of firearms. For example, their uses in action movies, their references in music, arts, etc. A large variety of Wikipedia articles do this sort of thing with other topics. If we add it, let's keep politics out of the popular culture section. Thorbachev (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

60% isn't "Most"

In the Health hazards section (a weird title for a section, surely) a brand new IP editor has changed "More than 60%..." to "Most...., 60%...". 60% isn't "Most" in my culture. I reverted, saying "In my book, 60% isn't most" as an Edit summary. The IP has reverted again. Both times he used no Edit summary. Is someone pushing a POV here? I will revert again, asking him to discuss it here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the various named editors who have undone the IP. This is not an improvement. I will undo (I believe this is the 7th time for this IP's edit and give the IP an edit warring notice since I don't believe anyone has done so (other warnings, but not edit warring). Meters (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

after looking at IP's history I sent it to AIV. Meters (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2018 (UThe

And to AIV again since the IP restored again after block ended. Meters (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal Small Arms into Firearm

I propose that Small Arms be merged into Firearm. Article Small Arms is very short. The distinctions between the definition of Small Arms and Firearms if any are unclear from the article. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. I think that the content in the Small Arms article can easily be explained in the context of Firearm in a few sentences, and that the merging of Small Arms will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 132.148.150.70 (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The IP editor has said it all really. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• It would be better to redirect it to the Small Arms and Light Weapons page. As the same content already exists on that page. --RAF910 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

...and then merge that one into Firearm? There really is a lot of overlap. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Light Weapons such as man-portable anti-tank missiles and man-portable air-defense systems are not firearms.--RAF910 (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) is a term used" <--- thats the problem, Wikipedia does not define or have entries for "terms", hence the dicdef problem. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Small Arms is a duplicate of this article. Small Arms and Light Weapons is not an encyclopedic topic and should probably be merged into Arms control, it states it is a term related to that topic in the lead sentence. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per comments above. Turtlewong (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Needle fire

Removed this section as it does not pertain to firearm mechanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.160.208 (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

DO NOT CENSOR this

This absolutely belongs in the second paragraph of the Introduction,

The Mamluks used hand cannons in battle against the Mongols in 1260 at the Battle of Ain Jalut.

The Mamluks in 1260 is before the Chinese in 1288, and this fact must be included in the Introduction. 47.201.187.246 (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

See your Talk page. You may not use Wikipedia as a source for itself, and any edit in which you attempt to do so will be reverted. General Ization ^Talk 13:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Then use the same sources for both wikipedia articles. It belongs here too. Put it in. 47.201.187.246 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)