From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Firearm:
  • Create a section to better detail the history of firearms
  • Scope, cultural issues, etc.
  • Better coverage of legal issues; e.g. licensing.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Firearms (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Could you help moderate?[edit]

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.

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:

Parts of a firearm is not explained[edit]

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:

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.[1] I found these pictures that can help.

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)

Cleanup of firearm and gun articles[edit]

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" [2]. 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)

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[3].

Firearm- a sub type of Gun, references as a portable gun[4][5].

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...


Small arms
Handguns, pistols, etc.
Single shot
Long guns
machine gun
Medium arms?
Portable cannon
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)

Air guns are not firearms.[edit]

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

Here's three for starters.

[ ]

[ ]

[;page=0;query=CompId%3A6452e9c4-95f1-4a1f-a0d8-abe75f0c3c7b;rec=0; ]

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)

earliest recorded firearm??[edit]

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 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)