Talk:Firearm

Template:WP1.0

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)