Talk:Action (firearms)

Actions that made history

Here is an idea for a topic, The actions that made firearms history.

There are a lot of very talented people out there that know a LOT about firearms history and the actions that made them. I think we should strive to spreed that wisdom as far and wide as we can while the people are still with us. If not, that wisdom will be lost forever.

I am trying to make that happen. I want to learn all I can about the best of the old actions and pass that along to my kids and there kids and so on.

To that end, I am in the Gun smithing school at TSJC here in Colorado. I am doing a term paper on falling block actions in my gun smithing class. I need to assess the needs and select two different steels for the building of a modern falling block action.

What heat treatment? include specific techniques for tempered hardness 25c, 35c and 45c.

Techniques for hardening and tempering.

list two different types of steel.

Sumerise the qualities you need in the action and how you are going to get them. What will be the criteria for selection.

These are common questions asked by every gun maker for every gun that is made. I hope it will not be hard to find this info.

After I am out of school, it is my desire to reproduce the old actions and keep them a vital part of firearm in the world. There are a lot of the old masters still around. we need to compile there wealth of wisdom and keep it a part of firearms for ever.

As Henry did in that 19th century, we can look at ALL actions out there and put the best parts of them into one and there by keep looking for that perfect action. Keep it simple, make it smooth, and make it LAST forever. There is not one action that can now be improved on. What do you think, is this worth looking into?

Ron Julian fidel@webcoast2coast.net

This is a worthy idea and it is commendable that you took the initiative in this matter. I make suggestions with unvarnished honesty but I lack the technical expertise to contribute much of interest to this article. Maybe I will work up some courage later. For now however,I will, make some editorial suggestions.

First, the title of the article itself might need to be changed since the emphasis is on types of firearm actions of special historical importance rather than all firearm actions generally. But, on that point, are you speaking of actions that "made history" through their widespread or otherwise signficant usage or are you also concerned with obscure designs which are essential to firearms development?

Second, some useful diagrams or pictures would be in order. You could make at least some of these pictures yourself by taking a trip to the gun range. If you explain why you would like an image of someone else's gun and make sure their identity and the serial number of the gun do not appear in the picture then you should get plenty of cooperation. For the older actions, you might need to find some war reenactors would probably be very glad to have their name in the picture caption as the gun's owner and would be very glad to provide you all sorts of information (just be sure to check it against other sources).

    You could always find good pictures on-line and write the copyright holder so that you have permission to use them.  Again, in many cases that is all you will need to do.

Third, I would round out the descriptions of the different actions a bit more especially in terms of describing their historical significance. You do not want this article to remain a laundry list of entries since this is an encyclopedia not a dictionary.

Just make sure that you get your information honestly and that if you borrow someone's words you quote them and cite them and that if you borrow someone's idea that you cite them. If you do that, not only will your article have a higher degree of credibility commensurate with the attention it has already recieved(since already it shows up pretty high on a Google search) but what is more, your readers will know where to get more detailed information should they be curious about some aspect of your topic.

Again, however, you deserve full credit for taking on such a broad topic. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that without someone getting a topic started there would be little for anyone to criticize (and thereby improve).

rollar delayed blowback

the CZ52 was not a rollor delayed blowback gun. It was a recoil operated gun. also, the mg42 was recoil operated, the barrel moves, The HK guns barrels remain stationary

Break actions

To the guy who keeps removing that break actions are single shot, how do you figure otherwise? Break actions don't have magazines, they are non-repeating firearms. --Philip Laurence 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that multi-barreled, break-action firearms are multi-shot as well. I apologize if it seems confusing to you. --Asams10 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean multi-barreled break actions aren't considered single shot because they can fire once for each barrel? What about single barrel break actions?--Philip Laurence 21:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Some break-actions are single-barrel, single-shot. Others are multiple-barrle, multiple-shot. So to define break-action as single-shot would be incorrect. Arthur 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrh (talk • contribs)

Revolver?

Isn't a revolver an action? Since one of the definitions of action is "the mechanism that manipulates cartridges", I would think that the revolver's cylinder would count as an action ("revolving action," maybe?).

I'm not certain—is revolver considered an action? It's not exactly manual—the advancement of the bullets isn't directly caused by the shooter, but rather is a part of the mechanism—and yet it's not automatic either. Or actually, it's almost more automatic than automatics proper, since pulling the trigger and "chambering" the next round are more directly linked, the mechanism being simpler.

Then again there's that whole distinction between single- and double-"action" revolvers, that might indicate "action" can also be defined as "the means by which the hammer or firing apparatus is put in position to shoot". In which case...hell.

Anyway, though, oughtn't this article to mention revolvers at least once? Nagakura shin8 (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How are Blowback and Recoil different?

--24.6.228.145 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blowback uses the gas pressure inside the cartridge to operate the mechanism (meaning the bolt must be unlocked), recoil action uses the recoiling of the entire firearm to operate the mechanism. What happens is this: The weapon fires; the weapon recoils; the bolt is unlocked from the barrel; the bolt continues to travel back under inertia; the bolt recocks the firing mechanism; the rearward travel of the bolt stops; the bolt moves forward, stripping a new cartridge from the feeding system and chambering it; the bolt contacts the barrel and pushes it forward into firing position; the bolt is locked to the barrel; the weapon is ready to fire again.

The key thing to watch for in a recoil action weapon is movement of the barrel during firing. This is most easily recognised in the M2 Browning fifty calibre machine gun. CMarshall (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Externally powered action

This article only mentions actions powered by hand, or powered by the firing of the cartridge. I think the article should also mention externally-powered weapons such as revolver cannons, chain guns, and Gatling guns. CMarshall (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Need some further clarification and/or a new glossary item

I feel pretty stupid about this, because I've got plenty of experience shooting all sorts of sizes of firearms from .22 plinkers up to a 3.5 inch Parrot rifle and from a wide range of eras, the earliest being a vintage 1861 Springfield (unless a long Colt peacemaker predates a '61 Springfield), and most of the actions you can think of that have been developed from 1861 on. That being said, can someone please tell me what a receiver is, or better yet, define it in the glossary. It's referred to once on this page, and two entries in the Glossary of firearm terms also reference it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.34.161 (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Boxlock action

How would we consider boxlock action or sidelock? It looks like a variety of break action. Komitsuki (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Move reasoning

All other firearms terms follow the format Term (firearms). See Muzzle (firearms), Safety (firearms), Trigger (firearms), Choke (firearms), Fluting (firearms), and Extractor (firearms). Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. Thank you for doing these moves. I had noticed the same thing and had thought that I should move them sometime. I have seen some WP users fail to grasp why the plural is sometimes the right form in parenthetical context descriptors in pagenames. For anyone who may have needed an explanation, hope this helps. It's because the title "X (Ys)" means "X (in the context of Ys)" when Y is a count noun. Which is different from the singular "X (Y)", which can mean either (1) "X as a synonym of Y" when Y is a count noun or (2) "X in the context of Y" where Y tends to be a mass noun (although it could be a count noun logically restricted to a count of one for whatever reason, e.g., proper name). The "feel" of this difference is intuitively obvious to many people without having to analyze it in words, but some have difficulty feeling it. "A trigger, in the context of firearms, is a thing that ..."—not "A trigger, in the context of firearm, is a thing that ..." — ¾-10 17:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. It's a sensible move which makes the title more consistent with other articles. Rezin (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge all firearm mechanism articles into Action (firearms)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A number of other articles (bolt action, pump action, Rotating bolt, repeating rifle and yet more(!) have been tagged for merging into this article, yet no tag or discussion has been noted here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose all Seriously? So wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Semi-automatic pistol? Shotgun ?!?! @Digitallymade: Are you serious, or is this just trolling? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

What is your question?Digitallymade (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that either or both of Semi-automatic pistol and/or Shotgun should be merged into Action (firearms) ? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• strong oppose and suggest we close this early via WP:SNOW. This proposal is so ridiculous, I'm almost leaning to argue WP:DENY ResultingConstant (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I was going to screenshot the page with all the merge tags in place, but I can't fit them all on my screen at once. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting the merging of redundant articles that are part of this topic

The following pages are requested to be merged into this page. In some cases there are double duplications: Locked-breech Automatic firearm Break action Lever action Bolt action Bolt (firearms) Semi-automatic firearm Semi-automatic pistol Semi-automatic shotgun semi-automatic rifle Pump action Single-shot Boxlock action Repeating rifle Recoil operation Falling-block action Blowback (firearms) Rotating bolt Gas-operated reloading Burst mode (weapon) Rolling block Hammerless Peabody action Roller locked Direct impingement Blow forward

Digitallymade (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You are suggesting making a 200-page article describing every layout and method of operation for every firearm in existence? Good luck getting support for that one! There might be support for merging a few into a few others, however that has been tried before without consensus. Blow-Forward is not an action, it is a method of operation. Why not do something less controversial by merging the articles for every person into the article Person. There. Done. I'm not going to argue for each individually and I suspect I am being more kind than others will be. --Winged Brick (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

First of all, if it takes 200 pages, then that's fine. Second, it won't because most of the information on the pages to be merged is inaccurate, and incomplete. Almost everyone one of those pages is tagged for being poorly written. Third Blow Forward most certainly IS an action just as much as Blowback is. The allowing of fractional pages on the SAME subject is irresponsible. The pages should be merged because of redundancy, inconsistent naming, difficulty in finding the subject matter, inaccuracy (variability) and COMMON SENSE. Digitallymade (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There should NEVER be a situation where, due to simply using a different part of a subject's name, you get different pages with different information, sources etc. In some cases there are DOUBLE not just single redundancies.Digitallymade (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per WP:SPLIT in particular WP:SIZESPLIT. If there are mistakes or discrepancies : WP:FIXIT. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The way to correct the duplicates is two fold, merge or deletion. I, for one, am not going to edit two version of the same topics because someone things they should be kept in two different places with two different sets of incomplete content. That's foolish, or perhaps worse. Digitallymade (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Then don't. Nobody is forcing you. But WP:SUMMARY duplication is a core principle of wikipedia. There is an exceptionally wide and solid consensus that this type of arrangement is correct. Yes the differences should be cleaned up, but that is part of the work of making an encyclopedia. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me. I have seldom found a wiki page that wasn't full of errors. So you've confirmed for me that part of the purpose of Wikipedia is to destroy knowledge through inaccuracy, opinion, and monetarily motivated bias. I KNEW that already, but thanks for stating it directly. Wikipedia is less credible (on the pages I view) than Dailymail.co.uk.

You don't seem to understand. The pages are typically 50% and more duplication as well as being inaccurate. You CANNOT monitor two separate divergent pages simultaneously. You end up with individual cliques trying to maintain a biased point of view, instead of being accurate. Some of the inaccuracy is the usual failures in logic, grammatical errors, etc. but a lot of it is due to a repetition of MYTH. Wikipedia is a circular perpetrator of myth. Having multiple inaccurate pages for the exact same topic is one reason why NO ONE allows their children to cite Wikipedia pages as a valid reference. I am VERY familiar with home schooling. Seems to me you should strive for excellence but your statements make me think you prefer mediocrity.Digitallymade (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If you find errors, correct them. Just make sure you can back it up with a reliable source. You promised great things with the hydrostatic shock article, but then you gave up. Maybe find some niche piece like that and improve it. If you need help, just give me a shout. That's what we are here for: To work collaboratively on building this encyclopedia. If you slow down and listen to your fellow editors, you will probably find out that you have more in common with them than not, particularly with the end goal of getting errors corrected and writing well-sourced articles with engaging prose.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I found an error, so I corrected it and renamed a page to fix an obvious misspelling. You've just opposed deleting the redirect that left behind, Talk:IMR Lendary Powders. I'm finding it increasingly hard to make allowances for your attitude here, there and especially here. This is supposed to be a cooperative project. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Digitallymade, Andy & I agree on this one. Given our history together, you might reconsider your ability to reach a consensus on this. Please make corrections as you find them, but you are not going to get my support for merging any of these articles. WP:SNOW seems to apply here. Perhaps you can start by taking a few of the worst articles and attempting to improve those. Just the fact that you don't understand basic concepts like the difference between an 'action' and an 'operating system' is telling, though. Baby Steps. WP:GUN is an active community and probably won't stand for wholesale changes by somebody who lacks an understanding of basic concepts. --Winged Brick (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

harmonise with breechblock

Over a period of time, I have substantially rewritten the breechblock article. I have tried to confine that article to the breechblock design and how it is locked in position - as opposed to the action, which more fully refers to the mechanism by which the operator actuates the opening and closing of the breech but also, this generally refers to repeating firearms. While there will necessarily be a degree of redundancy (overlap) between these two articles, I would observe that the existing degree of redundancy is excessive and unnecessary. I would propose harmonising the two articles. This would mainly mean pruning down this article. I was wondering if there are any comments about what I propose? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)