Talk:Semi-automatic firearm

Cons of Semi-automatic fire

Any drawbacks to it?70.231.229.31 02:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well semiautomatic weapons arent perfect! Fullauto weapons arent either. Selective fire weapons combine the best of both worlds. Semiautomatics cannot really spray an area with bullets, as is the common misconception. The real benifit of semiautomatic fire is followup shots on a single target(those quick follup shots are what save your life when you need to protect yourself, because you cant count on being accurate when your scared). Spraying an area is more of a full auto thing. As far as drawbacks are concerned the most highend accurate rifles are almost always bolt action, the only acception to this being extremely high end products like the PSG1, MSG90 or SIG550 sniper variant, however these guns are extremely expensive(like the PSG1 is 10,000 dollars.) Some Special police units use slide(pump)action shotguns because you can use a variety of ammunition without having to wory about a light load failing to cycle the action.

• Using semi-auto as a sporting hunting rifle, the biggest Con point is that the triggers tend to be "mushy" since the mechanism requires an additional disconnector part; the biggest Pro point is that once loaded, you only concern yourself with two controls: safety and trigger, which to me is a safety plus as you are not distracted by manually operating the action. Generally speaking, my semi-automatics "jam" no more frequently than my lever, bolt or pump action long guns. Naaman Brown (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi auto have problem such as slamfires and they have less range, power and accuracy than rifles, and a lower rate of fire than full--Krasilschic (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity

The term "automatic pistol" almost exclusively refers to a semi-automatic (i.e. not fully automatic) pistol. With handguns, the term "automatic" is commonly used to distinguish semi-automatic pistols from revolvers.

Double action revolvers are semi-automatic. They chamber-then-fire as a result of a single pull. This can only be contrasted with "handgun" semi-automatic in that such weapons generally fire-then-chamber. It is no less automatic, though. --76.209.50.222 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you can say DA revolvers are semi-automatic. In DA revolvers, the cylinder is rotated by the trigger pull, not by recoil or gas operation, which is what semi-automatic or automatic refers to. This action does not chamber a round, as the cartridges are already loaded into the cylinder. A true automatic revolver, however, was the Webley-Fosbery_Automatic_Revolver from ca. 1901, and there is also the more recent Mateba_Autorevolver, but these are relative oddities. Twalls 21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be gas operated, as long as it requires one trigger pull to cock, chamber, and fire.--Krasilschic (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional image

Why is the user at 89.76.87.63 adding the copyrighted image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pistol_P64_CZAK.jpg from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pistol_P64_CZAK.jpg

When there is an existing, free use image already available and posted to illustrate the concept? --Sirimiri 18:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Firearms vs. Category:Firearm actions

Category:Firearm actions is itself a category within Category:Firearms. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

reference and sources

While this article currently (Mar 2009) lacks references or sources, I have attempted a cleanup based mainly on W.H.B. Smith Small Arms of the World (Stackpole 1966). It could use some expert editing, cleanup and sourcing. Naaman Brown (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Purpose

We're losing sight of this article's purpose. We shouldn't focus on telling users what isn't semi auto, but rather what is and the history of it. Who's with me?--Krasilschic (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree with you on that! The debate about the pros and cons of a semi-automatic action (rifle or pistol) for hunting etcetera doesn't logically belong in this article, surely? Kartano (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Slide

Why don't we merge this page with pistol slide? I mean, pistol slide is a stub and is directly related to this.--Krasilschic (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is going on with the headings?

Semi-automatic_firearm#Types_of_semi-automatic is about where the article ceases to make sense. You've got a heading for "types of semi-automatic" with only one entry (erm...semi-automatic) under it, the heading "auto loading" which seems to be thrown in entirely at random and also has one sub-heading of "semi automatic"...What is this all supposed to mean? Herr Gruber (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of this page.

This page, currently, is primarily about semi-automatic rifles (and the semi-automatic rifle article is lacking). Rather, I think this page should be about how a semi-automatic firearm works, how semi-automatic firing is integrated into various types of firearm, and the pros and cons of semi-automatic fire.

Thus, the following structure: Define semi-auto fire and then describe the pros/cons of semi-auto capability, how various firearms are made semi-automatic (pistols vs. rifles vs. shotguns), and the various semi-auto actions (blowback, recoil, gas-operated). I'd do it myself, but all I know about this I learned from other Wikipedia articles, so I have no direct knowledge of the source matter.

--Nutarama (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest removal of "incoherent" tag

I just got done reworking the "Notable Gas Operated Rifles" section, which left much to be desired in terms of readability. I think it's much better now, though, and I think the tag should be removed. Any objections? - Lord of laziness (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Mechanical difference between automatic and semiauto

I feel that this article doesn't explain well what exactly is the mechanic difference between an automatic weapon and a semiautomatic one. Actually this is something that I never understood very well, because every article that I read about it simply says that "both types use the recoil power of the fired cartridge to reload and recock the mechanism", but they never explain to me what exactly makes one type of weapon fire continuosly, while in the other type, the trigger must be pulled for every shot. Thanks for your attention.

189.15.178.108 (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There's very little mechanical difference in terms of operation. It's in the trigger group and the sear, not in the method of operation. You've got a good point though; it should be more clear in the article. I know it well enough for myself, but not well enough to articulately explain it.Faceless Enemy (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, semi is a halfway house between a manual action and a true fullauto; in a manual operation, the user has to operate all mechanical aspects of the action by means of a bolt, lever, pump, or the trigger (in a double-action revolver). In a semi, all stages of the operation related to cycling the chamber are performed automatically, but not those related to the hammer / striker, which might not even be cocked by the cycle (in a DAO semi-auto); even if it is, the sear is designed in such a way that it requires a pull of the trigger for each shot. A fullauto removes this limit; it must end each cycle with all parts of the action ready for the next one, and the sear is designed so holding the trigger allows the weapon to cycle continuously. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You want to add a section of the main article? It kind of needs it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with what Herr Gruber said; But I still don't understand how exactly should the sear be designed in order to make a weapon either semiauto or fullauto. 189.15.239.218 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. So whoever comes along and explains it, please add it to the main article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No great expert on the mechanics, but IIRC in a semi the system generally ends the cycle in such a way that the trigger has to be operated to release it again (for example, the action of releasing the trigger is needed to reset the sear); in a fullauto, there's no such mechanism present and holding the trigger will result in constant cycles. Think of a door; the semi auto would be one of those cheap cylinder locks that engages every time it's shut, so every time you want to open it you need the key. The fullauto is a mortice lock; once it's open, you can operate the door as many times as you like and it won't stop being open until you lock it again. A select-fire weapon is like the first; they tend to have that little tab that you can push up to lock the thing open or closed (corresponding to fullauto and safe on a fire selector). Herr Gruber (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this only adds to the confusion between automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Some who want to ban certain guns try to use this confusion to political advantage. "I want to ban automatic weapons" is a relatively easy sell when put into context of "fully automatic, repeating fire with a single trigger pull". But when put in context to include semi-automatic weapons (one round fired per trigger pull), the political landscape changes. The definitions of automatic and semi-automatic should really be differentiated with clearer language. Furthermore, there are some weapons capable of bursting out three (and only three) rounds per trigger pull - does that make it automatic, semi-automatic, or something in-between? --96.244.248.77 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If a weapon is capable of firing any number of rounds more than 1 (one) with a single pull of a trigger, then it is an automatic weapon. While "Full Auto", "Fully Automatic", "Burst Fire Automatic", etc. are commonly used subsets of Automatic_Weapons there is no legal difference. Semi-Automatic Weapons, Bolt Action Weapons, Revolver Weapons, breach loader weapons (with Certain Exceptions), and Muzzle Loading Weapons, etc. were governed by Federal_Firearms_Act_of_1938 until it was replaced by Gun_Control_Act_of_1968. Automatic_Weapons, destructive devices, and certain concealable firearms are governed by National_Firearms_Act --PerkinsC (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Error In First Paragraph

I want to start out by saying I know virtually nothing about guns. That being said, I'm pretty certain that the first paragraph has an error in it. It states that

This mechanism is different from a single-action revolver, a pump-action firearm, a bolt-action firearm, or a lever-action firearm; all of which require the shooter to cock the weapon manually before each shot and eject each empty round afterwards (these are called repeating fireams).

But single-action revolvers do not require the weapon to be cocked after each shot, hence the name "single action". Based on my reading of Trigger (firearms), "double-action only" revolvers are the only revolvers that require cocking between each shot and "double-action/single-action" require cocking prior to the initial shot but not between shots.

So, unless I'm completely misunderstanding the text, "single-action revolvers" do not belong in that list. Sorry for not editing it myself but I really don't feel I have enough domain mastery to be certain.

Neil Smithline (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Single-action revolvers require cocking before each shot in order to rotate the cylinder. Double-action revolvers use the trigger to both rotate the cylinder and to cock and release the hammer, all in one movement. Double-action/Single-action revolvers allow the user to choose whether to cock the hammer and rotate the cylinder (as one action) separately from pulling the trigger and releasing the hammer, or to go with a heavier trigger pull that does all of the above. Single-action only autoloaders require the user to cock the hammer before the first shot, but every subsequent shot re-cocks the hammer for the user. Double-action only autoloaders' triggers cock and release the hammer as one motion, and the hammer returns to the resting position, forcing the user to both cock and release the hammer with the trigger pull (meaning there's a heavy trigger pull). Double-action/single-action autoloaders allow the user to fire in either double or single-action mode. Firing in double action mode on the first shot means that the trigger pull will be used to cock and release the hammer; every shot after that will be in single action, since the slide cocks the hammer as part of its cycle. The user may also cock the hammer before the first shot, meaning that the gun will then effectively function as a single-action firearm (albeit with a slightly less crisp trigger than true single-action only autoloaders). Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A simple way to cover this is that people unfamiliar with guns may incorrectly assume that single or double is the number of operations the shooter has to perform, ie "cock and pull trigger" vs "pull trigger" but what is really refers to is the number of operations the gun performs. Just a short explanation since it's often confusing to newcomers. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Revolvers

I've added the note to the opening paragraph that double-action revolvers are also manually operated, despite that the DA / SA heading on Trigger (firearms) doesn't actually include any description of a DA / SA revolver action (it says it includes automatic hammer cocking, but fails to note DA / SA from optional manual hammer cocking). There seems to be some misinformation here; the only semi-auto revolvers are the those few like the Mateba and Webley-Fosberry which automatically cock the hammer and advance the cylinder using recoil force. DA revolvers are just a manual action that uses the same part as both the operating lever and the trigger; all power for advancing the cylinder and cocking the hammer is still provided by the user, nothing is "automated" as in a semi-auto. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Article needs a total rewrite

I've removed the "problems" section, not so much because there are no problems as because most of those on the list aren't specific to semi-automatic actions: you can slamfire a pump-action shotgun, and anything, especially anything with a magazine, can jam (misfeed, mechanism failure or extraction failure). I think this ought to be bought back, since I'm aware of plenty of shortcomings, but it needs references. Here's a few things we could aim for:

• Early criticism and resistance to adoption: this included the same objections made to the first military magazine rifles (that the soldier would fire off all his ammunition as soon as he saw the enemy rather than aiming), the increased weight and machining costs, and greater complexity meaning soldiers would require more training.
• Pistols: difficulty in firing large cartridges compared to revolvers due to the magazine having to fit inside the grip.
• Sniper rifles: difficulty in engineering a precise mechanism without the result being prohibitively expensive to produce (see PSG-1, WA2000 and so on). While semi-autos have found their niche in the intermediate category as Marksman Rifles, they haven't yet really made a dent in the use of bolt-actions as dedicated sniper rifles.
• Legal issues: Semi-automatics have had a number of run-ins with gun laws, including being virtually or entirely banned in various countries due to their percieved destructive capabilities and lack of necessity. Additional point regarding ability to convert semi-autos to fullauto with garage conversions or drop-in sears (see MAC-10 and -11, TEC-9 and suchlike).
  

Could also go into the advantages (increased rate of fire over manual actions, doesn't require a manual operation that might throw off aim between shots, more suited to civil and normal police use than fullauto weapons, more controllable than fullauto especially in battle rifle calibres, etc). Herr Gruber (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See also

Hey Lightbreather, I understand the reason behind your edits[1][2], but this is one of the core articles for the Firearm Project. It's meant to be focused on the technical aspects of a device, even the "history" included in the article are from this perspective. Any chance we can keep the "political aspects" to a minimum?

By the way, the original list[3] was intended to represent the development efforts from across the globe so as to reduce the geocentric element.--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not create an Examples list like some of these other articles seem to have? As for politics, I don't really plan on adding much more than I have, but I think a See also or two is appropriate, as there are connections, even if the writers of these articles don't want to draw attention to them. They're all in need of work - especially in-line citations. Also, for being core articles, the way some were classified (start or stub) and rated (not rated, rather than "High" or "Top" as WP:GUNS says they should be) is puzzling. Lightbreather (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea! I'll take a look at the classification as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I am adding a link to the article on Repeating Rifles under the "See Also" section. I feel it may add value to the article because I was originally trying to find reference to the Girandoni rifle used on the Lewis and Clark Expedition, but mistakenly thought it was a Semi-automatic rifle instead of a repeating rifle. It may be useful for other people attempting to look up information on older styles of rifles. Sawta (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

M1 Garand vs Fusil Automatique Modele 17

Both of these rifles are described as "the first semi-automatic rifle to be widely issued to/in the infantry in any nation's army." This seems contradictory, so one of them should probably be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:26:4:659E:A41F:DA56:426B (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What's going on there is that two different things are being described: the Garand is the "first semi-automatic rifle to replace its nation's bolt-action rifle as the standard-issue infantry weapon." This is because the French could never make M1917s fast enough to replace the Lebel on a one-to-one basis (86,000 rifles doesn't go very far when France called up 8.8 million men in WW1), even though they could issue significant numbers of them. France didn't manage to adopt a semi-auto as the standard-issue service rifle until 1949. Bones Jones (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting merge into Action (firearms)

This article is redundant with at least two others on the same subject. Should be merged into Action (firearms)Digitallymade (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)