Talk:Desert Eagle

References

I noticed that a lot of parts such as Size are generic, personal terms with no real data such as measuments, weight, etc. I will update it but if someone wants to help that would be great. Should a Bias tag be added to the entire article?

• • I dont think the entire article should have a biased tag, but I will help update the article with you if youd like (cherokee Cherokee40 17:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I removed the entire section that states "The Desert Eagle is often falsely represented as a sort of "Ultimate Handgun" in films and video games, which often exaggerate about the weapon and place it as either better than a rifle or shotgun, or as the best gun in the game. Also it is often shown oversized in most games in order to make it look impressive. However, the gun is widely observed as more for looks rather than as a combat handgun. Among many handgun owners the pistol is seen as something of a novelty due to its large size, tendency to stovepipe (empty cartridge cases not ejecting fully) or otherwise malfunction at any time when being fired, its high price tag, and high ammunition price. The power of the .50AE round and the extremely loud report limit the number of venues where the gun may be fired. Many indoor ranges have adequate backstops for high-powered handgun rounds, but firing such guns in an enclosed room requires heavy-duty hearing protection that not all shooters at the range will have. For this reason, some indoor ranges will not allow high-power cartridges such as the .50AE or .454 Casull. It is also the reason why the gun is not widely used during battle, it is dangerously loud, damaging the user's hearing unless ear protection is worn." as I personally do not find it to be true at all. Certain parts of it were, such as about how loud it is, but as a whole it was not. It is not oversized in any game I've ever played, nor is it ever shown as better than a rifle, although it is occasionally shown as more powerful than a shotgun but only if at a long range. Every video game and movie I've ever seen it in portrays it accuratly, as a very powerful, very accurate handgun. Not as a handgun that is way better than every other gun in existance. The problem I have with this article is that it makes the Desert Eagle seem like a pathetic weapon, when in actuality that isn't true at all. I also have never had it stovepipe, nor have I ever had it malfuntion when firing. However, I did edit the article to say "The Desert Eagle is known for being exceptionally accurate, but only when the user is highly skilled and used to firing the weapon. The high accuracy is due in no small part to its fixed barrel design, and the fact that optical sights mount directly to the barrel. Additionally, the polygonal rifling of the bore causes minimal bullet distortion. However, it would not make a good weapon in the hands of a bad or even mediocre shooter as due to its incredible recoil it is almost impossible to shoot accuratly and consitently without extensive training." to make sure that people understand it is not a practical weapon for a non-proffesional shooter. DurotarLord 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read several reports that limp-wristing is very common if you're trying to shoot the gun without a firm grip, due to the high recoil. Certainly I've seen more than one stovepipe, but nothing in the article mentions this now.

I agree with everything else though. It's as reliable as a really big bore gun should be, and though the recoil is powerful it's highly accurate. You could shoot someone in the arm with this thing and end up blowing their face off, if nothing more than because the large bullet guarantees high penetration. I think it's reputation in games and such is well-deserved. -205.251.80.95 09:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

practical?

Requesting cleaning up this section, seems very biased, almost as if the person has never fired the desert eagle. I have fired many variants of the desert eagle. too many biased (uneducated?) opinions

Cherokee40 19:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I don't think the "Practicality" section has any reason to be there in the first place. Sure, there are video game and Hollywood stigmas surrounding the Desert Eagle, but I think it's presence singles out the Desert Eagle as if it were the only uber-firearm that's been over-exaggerated, and it's not like video games or Hollywood havn't exaggerated anything before either. On top of that, it's redundant. There are all sorts of other crazy firearms like the S&W Model 500, Colt Anaconda, and .50 GI 1911s that people aren't pointing out the so-called "practicality" of, and even then, a firearm is only subject to the context of the environment and the personal preference of the shooter, and not to a bunch of anecdotal/made-up opinions forced into forged facts. Besides, am I the only one noticing that the majority of that section is geared to deride the Desert Eagle as if it were only chambered in .50 AE?

I say clean up the article by killing that section. SouthernStang93 02:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some variants of it chambered for the 9mm magnum round are very practical for a combat situation, though only if wielded by a very skilled and familiar shooter. That aside, the section should probably be done away with.MVMosin 08:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it should go. It's sort of POV anyway as to what's practicle and what isn't. So I killed the section. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that issues regarding practicality that rely on anecdotal experience should not be posted. I personally find them to be terribly impractical for a variety of reasons (cost and availability of ammunition, weight, cost of firearm, availability of parts and accessories, size, etc.), but my personal indifference to this fire arm is my opinion - if you don't like it that is fine, but keep you personal views out of the article or provide peer reviewed research and create "criticisms" section.

Mark VII status

An anonymous user noted that the Mark VII was discontinued; the Magnum Research website still lists the Mark VII in 6 and 10 inch barrels. I'm going to dig a bit more into that and see if I can verify it's status; it could be out of production but still in stock (it's not like $1k hand cannons sell all that fast--well, except for the .45-70 T/C). scot 01:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How are the spent cartridges ejected in the revolvers?

Depends on the type. Single action revolvers (the Old West style) do not have swing-out cylinders, and there is an ejector rod under the barrel that is used to push each fired case out of the cylinder through the loading gate, one at a time. Afer the chamber is emptied, a new round is loaded. The loading gate is almost invariably (I know of no exceptions) on the right-hand side, and the cylinder rotates clockwise--this lets the most recently fired chamber line up with the loading gate.

See note from RPellessier below--he's right, I got it backwards. Single actions rotate clockwise, at least the Colt descended designs, and they're about the only ones that survive to this day. I think all the double action, swing-out cylinder revolvers I've handled have rotated CCW, which makse sense, as it would put the most recently fired chamber on the outside when the cylinder is swung out to the left. scot 21:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Top break revolvers, which are all but obsolete due to their weak frames (they are only capable of firing low velocity rounds, generally 750 fps or so) are generally of the auto-ejecting type. In these, a latch holds the hinged barrel and cylinder in alignment with the frame. The latch is opened, and as the action is opened by rotating the barrel down, a cam pushes an extractor back, which pulls all the rounds in the cylinder out at the same time. Once fully open, any empty cases will fall free, while loaded rounds, which are longer due to the bullet still attached to the front of the cartrdidges, remain in place. When the action is opened fully, the extractor pops back down flush with the rear of the cylinder, and new rounds are loaded; the barrel is then rotated back up and the latch closes automatically. Most early double-action revolvers were top-break models. Since only fired rounds are ejected, and all chambers are accessible, the direction of cylinder rotation is not important.

The most common modern revolver design is the double action, with a swing-out cylinder. The cylinder is on a hinge, that lets it swing out to the side (invariably the left side) until the rear of the cylinder is clear of the frame. The cylinder is held closed by a latch, generally on the left rear of the frame, though some are on the left front, and the Taurus Raging Bull has latches front and rear. Like the top-break design, the swing out cylinder allows all chambers to be accessable at once, but the solid frame is much stronger, and allows much more powerful cartridges. The extractor of a swing out revolver is similar to that of a top break, but it is not automatic. There is a rod that projects from the front (muzzle end) of the cylinder, which is pushed to eject the fired cases. Like a top-break, the extractor only goes back far enough to completely remove fired cases, loaded cartrdiges are long enough to stay in (although in both cases, turning the barrel upwards will let gravity pull the unfired rounds out). Once partially or fully unloaded, new rounds are placed in the chambers, then the cylinder is closed. Like the top break, the direction of rotation is not important.

One other note--both top-break and swing-out cylinders can be used with revolver speedloaders, which greatly speed up the reloading process by loading all chambers at once. Jerry Miculek, a promement competition shooter in the USPSA, has in a public demonstration fired 6 shots from a S&W 625 (a swing-out revolver in .45 ACP), reloaded (using a moon clip, which is similar to a speed loader), and fired 6 more shots against the clock. All 12 shots hit the 6" x 11" center of the target, at a range of 15 feet, and all 12 shots were fired in under 3 seconds. Most shooters can't even change a magazine and get back on target in under 3 seconds. The double action revolver is by no means obsolete; while it gives away something in capacity and (for the average user) reloading speed, the utter reliability, insensitivity to ammunition, inherent accuracy (since the sights are directly attached to the barrel and frame) and generally lower cost make the revolver a better choice than a semi-automatic for many purposes and most people. scot 14:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Scot! Recheck paragraph 1, something is wrong with the direction of rotation and the loading gate location and the 'most recently fired chamber'. I'm not sure which is wrong, but they can't all be true. Maybe CCW is wrong? RPellessier | Talk 18:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Are speedloaders for revolvers legal for U.S. citizens to purchase and carry?

Yes. All restrictions on ammunition feeding devices tend to target primarily semi-automatics, though the language might not specify that. The restriction on capacity is, in all the cases I've encountered, 10 rounds, and I've never seen a revolver with a capacity higher than 9 rounds. I suppose if you had an 11 round revolver and a speedloader for it, that might be illegal in some areas. scot 14:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

But since the Assault Weapons Ban ended, the magazine capacity is no longer limited by law. Weapons like the FN57, civilians can now employ the 20 round capacity clip legally. TotalTommyTerror 15:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That was a federal law, so there are no longer federal restrictions on magazine capacity--many states still have laws on the books restricting magazine capacity--in fact, California bans fixed magazines of greater than 5 rounds on semiautmatic shotguns. Also, the FN Five Seven is not clip fed, it is magazine fed--magazines include the spring, clips use an external spring. Since the only clip-fed semiautomatic I'm aware of is the M1 Garand, and has a maximum capacity of 8 rounds (the original in .276 Pederson would have held 10) the issue of whether a >10 round clip would be a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" never came up. scot 15:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

In California, are firearms only chambered for the .50 BMG banned or all firearms chambered for cartridges with .50 caliber or more banned?

Would the Desert Eagle .50AE and S&W Model 500 revolver legal for U.S. citizen civilians to purchase and carry in California considering the discretionary system for the permit?

Unless you are a good friend of the chief of police, or rich and famous, you're not likely to get a carry permit for anything in California. Also, carrying a .50 caliber anything for self defense against anything less than a seriously annoyed bear is overkill, and in that case a .50 caliber handgun might well be underkill (just look at the cartridges for express rifles). As for .50 caliber legality, I think Arnie's ban applied to specifically to .50 BMG. The think to do then is neck it back half an inch or so, increase the shoulder angle and reduce the taper and make your own .50 bottleneck rifle cartridge. Rechambering a .50 BMG rifle would require cutting the breech end by .5 inch and rechambering. Slightly less powerful, but more efficient with the shorter, less tapered case, and legal. scot 17:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Your info on CCW permits in CA is highly inaccurate. Each county has its own policies, ranging from "No issue", to almost "shall issue". See www.packing.org for more information. Also, you are correct that the .50 BMG ban applies only to .50 BMG rifles. See .510 DTC Europ for more information. CynicalMe 18:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the Desert Eagle's gas operation system reduce considerable amount of recoil for the shooter?

Not really, and in fact it increases felt recoil to some extent over a similarly massed revolver. The gas operated system acts like a solid unit until the gas starts to push the slide back; this happens quickly, but the bullet is long gone by the time the slide moves more than a tenth of an inch. The slide's rearward velocity is matched by a movement of the frame forward, which will counter the recoil to some degree, but you get all that energy back when the slide comes to a stop and begins to move forward again. What you get is a 4 part movement:

• Bullet begins to accelerate forward, producing the bulk of the recoil (most acceleration is in the first couple of inches of travel). The slide is locked into place at this point, and all recoil energy is transmitted back to the shooter's hand. The frame begins to rotate back and up around the center of mass.
• Gas pressure builds up enough to push the slide backwards, and drops to zero when the bullet exits a millisecond later; frame rotates forward and down to counter the mass of the slide moving backwards.
• Frame rotates back and up as recoil spring absorbs energy of travelling slide.
• Slide returns (assuming the magazine is not empty) and locks into battery, pulling the frame back down.

Compare this to the solid action of a revolver, which transmits all of the energy in one movement, rotating the frame up and back. The first time you shoot a DE in a heavy caliber, especially after firing magnum revolvers, the cycling of the slide is very shocking. Because you have a heavy slide working against heavy springs, the force of the slide hitting the end of its rearward travel and coming back forward gives the DE quite a bit of muzzle flip, and unlike a recoil operated firearm, there is a slight but noticable pause between the true recoil and the movement caused by the slide. This pause is not present in a recoil operated firearm because the recoil impulse goes only into the slide and barrel, and is transmitted to the frame through the recoil spring compression.

To sum up, the initial recoil impulse is moderated somewhat by the gas action pusing the slide back, but this recoil is merely delayed slightly, and not felt until the recoil spring compression. This gives a completely different feel, and whether it's more or less "felt recoil" depends entirely on who's doing the shooting. scot 19:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've shot a .44 Magnum Desert Eagle and revolver. Once I was able to shoot them side-by-side so I could easily compare them. The DE definitely has less "felt recoil". The revolver was a large frame, probably weighed about 3.5-4lbs and I shot the DE XIX which is a bit over 4lbs, so the weight was comparable. Obviously the true recoil is about the same, and the energy being exerted is the same (from the same cartridges). As scot said the revolver gets all the recoil at one single moment, where the DE has it spread out. This make the whole experience a lot less jarring. Imagine the difference between being slapped in the face and someone pushing your face. Both ways your face moves your face out of the way, but one had all the energy upfront, and the other seems more spread out (this is a bad example if you know anything about ballistics, but it gets the analogy across). Of course, the question was "does the gas operated system reduce recoil". The actual recoil reduction that the DE uses isn't any more efficient than, say, a blow-back system, it's just that the initiating properties are different. Especially for those who do not shoot revolvers often or for beginners who are afraid of the great deal of recoil, I would suggest the DE over a revolver. Bobbfwed 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are armor piercing rifle rounds legal for civilians to purchase and carry?

For example, are .50 BMG rounds banned from civilian sale because it penetrates IIIA level bodyarmor?

Federally, I think there are no restrictions; however, the BATFE takes a very broad view of "armor piercing handgun ammunition", and use it to cover 5.56x45mm and 7.62x36mm among others. There are a number of .50 BMG "handguns", so steel cored .50 BMG might be considered "armor piercing handgun ammunition". Some states ban AP rounds of all types, which is a shame, as the .30-06 AP the US used is more accurate and causes less barrel wear than the standard ball ammunition. Of course, keep in mind that most FMJ rifle rounds, even lacking the steel core, will do a significant amount of damage to normal body armor. The stuff that will stop rifle rounds uses ceramic or ceramic composite plates to do so, and they are significantly compromised after a single shot--that's why emphasis by a number of designers on ultra-high cyclic rate 2 and 3 shot bursts, to use the first shot to compromise the armor, then send the rest through the same plate. scot 23:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

how does a hand gun fire a 50.BMG have u seen them there like 8 inches long. there are smaller 50 calibers but i doughjt they are 50 bmg because it would be a ridcoulosly hard gun to hold. user Eskater11 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esskater11 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Under US federal law, there is no maximum barrel length for a "handgun". If it has no stock, and the maker claims it's to be fired with a single hand, then it's a handgun (no stock and two handed firing makes it an AOW, as I recall). scot 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

.50 BMG is legal for sale. There are a few civilian .50 BMG sniper rifles on the market. But read the article closer, the Desert Eagle is .50 AE not BMG.--LWF 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As for armor-piercing rounds, the gun-grabbers in Congress once tried to pass a bill banning all so-called "cop-killer" bullets, i.e. bullets that can penetrate so-called "bullet-proof" vests. Fortunately, the NRA was able to stop it by pointing out that this law would have banned virtually every type of hunting round and nearly all pistol rounds (which, of course, was the law's real intent).

The simple fact is, armor in the age of the high-velocity rifled weapon just isn't practical. The best used by most police will only stop .38 and 9mm rounds. .40, .45 and larger calibers, or high velocity rounds, will punch right through kevlar like it was even there.

A couple of years ago, here in the Vegas Valley, a Metro cop Sgt was killed when a punk shot him with some Sig-Sauer semi-auto rifle (I never use the term "assault rifle" sense it is utterly meaningless). The officer, Henry Prendes, was wearing his vest and it didn't make a d*mn bit of difference.

Fortunately, a second officer shot the punk dead a split second too late to save Sgt. Prendes life. And no, the criminal's weapon was NOT obtained legally or at a gun show.

Barrett Rifles [1] sells a rifle that fires the same .50 caliber rounds as the venerable M-2 machine gun; the military designation for it is the M82A1A. It can also fire the NATO standard 12.7mm/.50 caliber round. The Army and Marine Corps use them not only for sniping (they can hit man-sized targets at 1800+ meters, more than a mile) but for larger targets as well. When it is also used in anti-vehicle role against "equipment"-sized targets such as jeeps or tents, the ammunition is (Raufoss Grade A DoDIC A606 .50 caliber ammo is used for this role). Although someone with a Federal firearms collector's license could probably legal obtain them.

Comment on this: As long as there are no state prohibitions, i.e. California's ban on .50 BMG rifles, it is perfectly legal for any US citizen otherwise qualified to own a firearm to purchase a Barrat M-82 .50 BMG or any civilian version thereof. They cost more than your average new car, but it's perfectly legal and does not requre any type 3 FFL (Federal firearms collector's license, or a "curio and relic" license), as implied above. One other thing: the 12.7mm NATO *IS* the .50 BMG. It's the only 50 caliber weapon used by the US military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.237.166 (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As with so many things in American life, it's legality varies widely state-by-state.

PainMan (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The current laws only prohibit handgun ammunition that is classified as "armor piercing." AP generally means that the rounds have a steel part in the core of the round. Therefore, sale of "AP" rifle ammunition such as the "5.56x45mm" (more commonly called the .223 Remington) or the "7.62x54mm" (i.e. .308 winchester) are NOT prohibited. Some large gun stores will sell surplus M851 Ball rounds if they can find them (which are AP, and have the green tips), many stores have Wolf ammo that is usually AP (and will be designated as "bi-metal" because of the steel in the core), and I've even seen Winchester US-GI surplus 5.56 NATO rounds for sale. There is DEFINATELY no restriction (except state prohibitions such as in California) on selling 5.56 NATO (i.e. .223 Rem) ammunition that has steel cores or is otherwise considered "armor piercing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.237.166 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actual Location of MR Company

Despite the fact that the company lists Minneapolis as its location on their website, it is actually located in Fridley, Mn. This is commonly done with addresses in first ring suburbs. I know this is a trivial detail, but I am going to change it nonetheless, both because it is more accurate and because I am adding Magnum Research to a list of companies located in Fridley. To verify this do a mapquest or google maps search for the address given on the company website, you will see that it is clearly in Fridley. Asedzie 11:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

IMI vs. IWI

I'm changing all the IWI references back to IMI; my 26th Ed. Blue Book of Gun Values lists IMI and Saco as the makers; no IWI is listed in the Blue Book. If anyone can provide verifiable reference to an "IWI" (maybe IMI just changed their name?) then provide it and we can discuss what do do. scot 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Israel Military Industries IMI is now Israel Weapon Industries IWI: [2].--81.197.218.62 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stocked Pistols

I recall back in the late-90s MR offered a stocked version of their pistols to the LEO/MIL market. It would be classed as a SBR, so civvies would have to jump through the NFA hoops.

It must have not be very successful, because I only recollect seeing one ad for it.

Anyone else remember this?

Actually, I think I remember a 16" barreled version being available as well, which would be class I, as long as you had the 16" barrel on the receiver. However, given that the the DE sells mainly due to the "BFG" factor (I actually knew one guy who sold his DE a week after shooting my T/C in .45-70 Government), there's nothing special about a .44 Mag carbine--there are the venerable model 1894 lever actions by both Marlin and Winchester (it was a very good year for lever actions), plus the Ruger .44 semiauto, which even at the inflated prices of the 90's (it was discontinued in '85, and was still in high demand as a brush gun) sold for under $400. I think it was just too pricey to compete as a carbine in the hunting market, and that's where you'd find the buyers for a carbine. scot 20:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture references

Per the AfD, I've condensed the Desert Eagle In Popular Culture list into a paragraph with a few examples of it's use. IMO I do not feel it is neccessary to add EVERY appearance it has made in movies or video games. Manmonk 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Desert Eagle was a gun used by the main character in the game, Ray, with animation very similar to South Park. Ray is a game found on "heavygames.com". I'm not trying to advertise. --66.218.12.60 02:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I Did not think you were persay advertising but i dought its that notable.(ForeverDEAD 00:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

Brought back the popular culture section. It's short, vague, and reference-less. Hopefully it'll be shaped up over time =p FoxDiamond 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If some sources are added, especially for the "deagle" part I think that the popular culture section will be excellent. It avoids trivia better left to tvtropes and gives a brief overview. Stargate70 (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The second and third paragraphs in the Practicality section contain a lot of personal views. It needs to be an objective analysis to have a NPOV. - D'Agosta 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That was vandalism, no? I think someone reverted it because I do not see what you are talking about. Manmonk 04:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I forgot to check the history. :-P - D'Agosta 23:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think something needs to be added to the part about Practicality. I'm not sure about the stove pipe thing but since that's a common limpwristing problem on many handguns I don't think it should be pointed out as just a DE thing.

"This weapon is very powerful, however, the huge recoil and size make this gun hard to control. Additionally, the .50 AE cartridge is simply deemed by many to be unnecessarily powerful for self-defense or military purposes."

That part about recoil is subjective to the person shooting it. I'm a small person and I thought the .50 Desert Eagle was pretty tame especially in comparison to some revolvers I've shot. I thought a .44 Mag kicks more than this thing. Saying it has "huge recoil" and suggesting it is hard to control is subjective. Maybe for someone new to firearms but once again I think this statement is subjective. The second sentence quoted needs to be cited (although I agree with it.) The paragraph immediately following the quote above (about recoil) seems to turn around and suggest the recoil is less (which I agree with.) Makes it a bit confusing. 74.131.56.240 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Deagle

Is "Deagle" commonly used to refer to the Desert Eagle or is that just a Counter strike thing? --Ortzinator 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that's a Counter-Strike thing, as all the Desert Eagle owners I know of regard both the term and the game with something approaching outright contempt. BobBQ 14:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is just a Counter-Strike term. The makers of the game shortened many of the weapon names for ease in coding or to bypass the copyrights/registered names. I have not heard another shooter call it by that unless talking about CS.74.131.56.240 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps, it WAS just a Counter-Strike term... My friends and I (those of us that shoot regularly, at least) only refer to it as a "deagle" now. Of course we all fall into the 18-24 demographic and play or have played first-person shooters online at some point growing up, so we have come to understand and appreciate the convenience of shorthand and abbreviated terminology that is characteristic of the internet. Furthermore, the tacticalshooting.com forums, which I frequent, also have a regular mention of "deagles", when referencing real-life shooting practices, from time to time. It is interesting to hear deagle owners regarding the term with contempt... At the risk of assuming stereotypes, I'd venture to guess most or all of them have had much first-hand exposure to the game itself, or a computer for that matter... 69.166.14.83 08:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also a Rainbow Six term. I've seen "Deagle" in one of the games. 68.196.110.215 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not just a Counter-Strike term. Deagle is a common pop culture reference to the Desert Eagle itself. If you want to talk ghetto, sometimes a Desert Eagle is considered a Deagle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.122.184 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So what is the consensus concerning this issue? Does anyone think that this term should at least be mentioned? I have heard the Desert Eagle called a "Deagle" by quite a few people for quite a while, and as such I believe that it deserves to be at least mentioned somewhere. Thoughts? -- OranL (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be at least mentioned. It's not just a Counter-Strike or Rainbow Six thing; gamers on the whole typically refer to the gun as a Deagle (and apparently so do people in Ghettos). "Deagle" is practically a word/name in its own right now, even if many fans of this weapon despise it. FoxDiamond 22:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Does anyone have a picture of someone actually holding a Desert Eagle? I know it's referred to as large, but I can't find a picture of someone holding the gun through Google.

--58.179.115.136 10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I can probably make one. Let me see what I can do. Thernlund 22:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be good if somebody could replace the pimped out gold DE image with something relatively more pratical. That thing looks like it belongs to Goldmember or Snoop Dogg. Gamer Junkie 04:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Millsy 02:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I have a few pictures of my hand holding a desert eagle. (.357, Mark VII) I don't know if it is a good reference though, as I have large hands (which is why I like the Desert eagle as much as I do, the grip is perfect for me) Links for now I'll upload them if someone else thinks they are good. First shot Second

How do you fix the main Desert Eagle page from saying "You're all fags" back to the original?

ive got a good image, Ill try and upload it soon

I can't help but feel the main picture is of a Tokyo Marui airsoft Desert Eagle. Can't prove it, so probably not important. But surely it must be possible to find a picture of an actual ten inch Desert Eagle, rather than a screen grab from what I think is a Resident Evil game? Optimus Sledge 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The trademarks would suggest otherwise, especially if the picture was taken in the USA. Also, there are no Tokyo Marui markings on it, which it would have if actually an airsoft gun. Still, I would prefer a higher quality image than the present one.--LWF 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Shot of a TM Deagle here: http://www.airsoftatlanta.com/images/tm_cdeagle_jpg.jpg Does bear out that the pic we have isn't an airsoft one. My bad. Optimus Sledge 16:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we now have a scale picture in the article. I realized that a picture of someone holding it is still subject to scale problems, so I used a CD instead. Most everyone does know how big a CD is after all.--LWF 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing the Main Page

How do you change the main page from the idiot who wrote "You're all fags", back to the original?

When were the first?

Other than a reference to U.S.-based production in 1995-2000, there's no indication of dates. When were the various marks first produced? Belltower 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dilemma over country of origin

There seems to be a slight dilemma in this article over the country the Desert Eagle originates from. I was wondering if we could weigh in on which country is the true country of origin, Israel, or the United States of America. The main problem is that the original design and patent originated in the USA, and were then refined by Israel, which then was given a license to manufacture Desert Eagles. This creates the problem of whether we go with the original design's origin, or if we go with first mass-producing country. I personally think that in this case it should be America, as the design is of American origin, and I license to manufacture being issued by an American company lends credence to the idea that the design's country of origin is the USA. Please tell me what you think and weigh in on this discussion.--LWF 03:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The essence of the design is the use of a rotating bolt in the rear of the open top slide, and gas operation working directly on the bottom front of the slide; this is what differentiates the DE from the Automag, Widley, pistol sized AR-15s, and and other gas operated handguns. This layout is clearly established in the original MRI patent. MRI then contracted with IMI, who simplified the gas piston (going with the self cleaning Mini-14 style system) and performed other minor revisions to make the gun easier to produce, and started producing it. IMI has NEVER marketed or sold the DE; and it has NOT always been made by IMI. MRI owns the design, just like the company I work for owns whatever software I design and write while they pay me; it wouldn't get written unless the provided me with the specifications, so the software originates with them. Anything patentable I develop while working for the company gets patented with my name as the inventor, the company as the assignee, and if it was done for one of their customers, that customer would then get a license (exclusive or not, depends on how the contract was written) for the use of that technology. That's just what happened with the second (filed) DE patent. An engineer working for IMI, who was in turn working for MRI, developed a patentable refinement of the original design, it was patented with his name as inventor, IMI as assignee, and MRI, who funded it, gets a license to use the patent, even if it's Saco and not IMI that's building the thing. scot 13:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice pic, truly scary sight :) Anon 003 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Performance

Shouldn't there be more information about the performance and handling of the weapon? Including in relation to other calibers?Alexander 13:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Performance information is available under the articles on the calibers themselves, such as .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum. As far as caliber comparisons go, that's not really relevant to any particular article; there are hundreds of common calibers, so it's not practical to compare, say, the .44 Magnum to all other handgun calibers in the .44 Magnum article. That said, perhaps and article focusing on comparative performance might be in order. If you're interested in seeing a cartridge comparison article, go over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms and propose it, along with your ideas on what you'd like to see in such an article. scot 16:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in caliber performance, as I'm well aware there are individual pages for such things. What am interested in is the performance of the weapon itself, and how it stacks up to weapons of similar design/caliber/class. Say we use the DE .44 as an example, well, how does it compare to other .44 pistols? Or other large bore autoloading pistols? How does the weapon in and of itself handle? What is the recoil, weight, refire rate, etc. Obviously one pistol will have different performance characteristics than another, even if they they are very similar. Adding information on such things is valuable to potential gun owners, as well as those who wish to understand as much as possible about something. I myself do not know this information for this particular weapon, but I'm sure someone on Wikipedia does.Alexander 04:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

.41 AE

The Jane's Infantry Weapons for 1989-90 indicates that the Desert Eagle was, at one point, chambered for the .41 AE cartridge. Though authoritative, I believe the Jane's guide may be in error and the researcher may have confused the .41 Magnum with the .41AE. Having said all that, if the pistol in question was ever chambered for the aforementioned cartridged, perhaps it should be added. 68.116.99.232 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't; it was the .41 Magnum. The DE requires a high pressure, magnum cartridge to provide the force needed to operate the mechanism, and even moderate pressure loadings of the .357 Magnum were not sufficient to the task. The .41 AE was chambered in the Jericho 941, which was later marketed under the name "Baby Eagle", which may be the source of the confusion. There is some cosmetic resemblance, but the Jericho was short-action recoil operated handgun based on the Browning tilting barrel, while the DE uses a direct impingement gas operated mechanism with a rotating bolt, similar to the AR-15. Damned shame the .41 AE was eclipsed by the .40 S&W, as the .41 AE was the better answer to the FBI's quest for a reduced 10mm Auto variant. Most reloading manuals these days say to just use .40 S&W info with light .41 Magnum bullets when loading for the .41 AE--case capacity is nearly identical, as is bore diameter (.400 vs. .410), and the SAAMI max pressure is the same for both[3]. scot (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think you are correct; I also did not think the .41 AE would have worked well in the DE system. Even though Jane's is usually regarded as authoritative, I think we hold off unless we can find another source. 66.191.19.217 14:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The copy of Fjestad's Blue Book of Gun Values I have in my office (13th edition, about 15 years out of date--my more current copy is at home somewhere in a huge stack of boxes full of books) does list the Baby Eagle pistols under the "Desert Eagle series" section of the Magnum Research entry, and it is possible that at some point they may have at some point marketed the Jerhicho somewhere as a "Desert Eagle" rather than a "Baby Eagle"; this source supports that. I'll stick in a "see also" link with that as a reference. scot 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

the BAM

i assume a firearm like this would produce a sound much louder than standard Glock or other handguns right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murakumo-Elite (talk • contribs) 07:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say yes, but after looking at the numbers, I'm going to have to say only sometimes. The muzzle blast is a function of the pressure remaining behind the bullet when it exits the barrel, and it's a function of the peak chamber pressure, the burn rate of the powder, and the length of the barrel (see internal ballistics). The peak pressure for the .40 S&W and 9x19mm are 35 kpsi, and the +P 9mm is 38,500 psi; the max for the .357 Magnum is 35kpsi, the max for the .41 Mag, .44 Mag and .50 AE is 36kpsi[4]. Now, to get the high powers out of the magnum rounds, they take full use of the larger case capacity and load them with slow powders, which means that you have a flatter pressure curve, and for any given distance down the barrel, you'll have a higher pressure than with a faster powder. So given a 6" barreled DE and a 6" barreled longslide Glock, the DE is probably going to have more residual pressure. However, comparing a 3.6" barreled subcompact Glock to a 14" silhouette barrel on the DE, the DE is going to be a lot quieter. Now another issue I've noticed is that bigger bores tend to give a blast with more low frequencies in it, which makes it seem quieter; this means a .50 AE DE with the same residual pressure as a 9mm Glock would probably sound a bit quieter, due to the way humans perceive sound. Now keep in mind that this is all speculation; you might be able to find some empirical evidence on the web. I know suppressor manufacturers often give decibel readings of suppressed vs. unsuppressed firearms, and that may give you some more data to work with. scot (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:500 Desert eagle.jpg

I don't like the placement of this image, and I don't really think it contributes anything to the article. In addition, the image just doesn't look natural. I think that it should be removed from the article, but if anyone else thinks it could be moved to another area of the article, then please respond. -- OranL (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In defense of that image, somebody above in this talk page asked for a picture of somebody holding/ or shooting one to give someindication of scale. the woman shooting the gun is of average size. I though it was kind of neat that I caught the ejected case close to the lense making it appear outsized and kind of unnatural.

Maybe there will be other comments. However it shakes out, I think it was very polite of you to bring it up for discussion rather than just deep-sixing the image. --Mcumpston (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried the image on the right side but I see that Lwf has put it back where it was to clean up some blank space my move created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the idea of having an image of a person holding the Desert Eagle is good, it's just that this specific image looks kind of unrealistic, and doesn't provide a good representation of the scale of the gun because of the angle and lighting effects. I appreciate the fact that you have been bold and added this picture, but I believe that it can be improved. I'll see if I can't get the picture to appear on the right margin like the other ones are. -- OranL (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I moved it back while I was reverting vandalism to the article, feel free to move your image again. By the way, you do realize the point of the picture of the Desert Eagle with the CD was to provide the asked for scale image. Right?--LWF (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I realized that after posting my defense of the picture. the CD does provide scale and may contribute to the ultimate deep-sixing of the image I uploaded. I still like it but not enough to insist on it. sic transit gloria munde--Mcumpston (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The cd pic really does show scale better because all cd's are standarised a human can vary alot. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 20:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"...cd's are standarised a human can vary alot."

True. does the picture appear unrealistic because of the flying case or is it something else???. It is a true capture of this woman shooting the pistol. She's an adept shot and actually hits things with some heavy recoiling handguns. The 500 linebaughs are downright viscious while the DE just gives an insistant push --Mcumpston (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the picture of the woman firing the gun is fake look at the "casing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.62.39 (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The case really did show up just like that on the photograph. It is unusual enough to look like photoshopping but If I had decided to photoshop a fake case in the picture, I would have gotten on that was in sharper focus. --Mcumpston (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference if it is fake or not. The discussion is not regarding the authenticity of the photo, but rather its encyclopedic content. Personally, I believe it not a good representation, if for no other reason than it is not presenting the Desert Eagle in a neutral point-of-view. It seems to be an almost surreal depiction of someone firing the gun, and while this is nice artistically, it doesn't really help people study the gun and draw their own conclusions. Perhaps a more cut-and-dried picture of someone firing the gun would be more appropriate for the article. It might also help if people didn't wonder if it was a real photo or not, then they would be focusing on the article instead of the picture. Do you have any other photos of the Desert Eagle being fired? -- OranL (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of input now. I haven't heard from anybody (else) who likes this picture or thinks it belongs in the article. I believe I will switch on over to the article and delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Drum?

Can anyone explain why "drum" is listed under feed system? There is probably no such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.44.140 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The extra high capacity magazines used with thompsons, luger pistol carbines and several other magazine fed arms are called "Drums." They are circular in shape. here's a link

http://www.modelguns.co.uk/images/ThompDrum.jpg --Mcumpston (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that, but are there any for the desert eagle? The link you put up was for the Thompson.

Probably not. One of the sites that hawks Desert eagles also has a drum fed gun. They put the advertising blurb together in such a way as to make it sound like the desert eagle has a drum mag: The SpecialistsIMI Desert Eagle .50AE Tremendous power coupled with high recoil make this handgun ... and can fire up to 360 rounds per minute from its drum magazine. ... www.specialistsmod.net/weapons/weapons.html - 32k - Cached - Similar pages that might have made its way into one of the revisions.

Requested move

Desert Eagle → Magnum Research Desert Eagle — See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Naming for naming conventions this article should have the manufactures name before the model of the pistol —MRIanthony (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support

MRIanthony (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

Oppose This gun is pretty well known and by its common name rather than any link with its manufacturer's name, the wikipedia naming conventions are pretty clear on common vs official names. Narson (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read and understand the naming conventions on guns which i posted in the discussion below. It is to affiliate its model name with the manufacture name. A Desert Eagle could refer to a number of different items, a eagle in the desert?, or even the Tokyo Mauri Desert Eagle or SoftAir Desert Eagle either of which are not related to the actual article which is the Magnum Research Desert Eagle I hope you can understand what i am getting atMRIanthony (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, two of those are derivative products, arn't they? As for the wikiproject naming guidelines, I looked but the wikipedia naming conventions override any style guide a wikiproject has. Narson (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support per convention/nom. Also because this is not an article on birds known as eagles that live in deserts. 70.55.86.138 (talk)
• Vehemently Oppose The Desert Eagle is almost exclusively known as the Desert Eagle in popular usage. Changing it would result in confusion for most readers. Also is there another article that would need the name "Desert Eagle". Not that i know of. This whole proposal is ridiculous changing the name of a well know pistol to something extremely less common. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This article refers to the Magnum Research Desert Eagle we are not taking away from the article Desert Eagle. For the mean time Desert Eagle can be redirected to Magnum Research Desert Eagle. But for any other author(s) wanting to create an article for any Desert Eagle air soft, bb gun, bird, etc.. From then Desert Eagle can simply be redirected to Desert Eagle (disambiguation) and the user can choose the proper article if it comes down to it. MRIanthony (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your basing this whole (flimsy) proposal on the assumption that someone would make an article that would need the name desert eagle for something else. Once one of those pages are created we can worry about it. Also the likely hood of someone making an article on a air soft gun and it surviving an AFD is highly unlikely. Desert Eagle is BY FAR the more common name and if we haven't seem to had problems with this name since 2004 im going to guess that any new problems would be very unlikely and that most people looking up "Desert Eagle" would search for the weapons. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 04:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC).

Your idea of most people is who? How many kids may be into eagles? How many people want to learn more about the non-lethal variants? I couldn't tell you who searchs for what in what frequency, and either should you try and make the assumption. And no, this is not about someone that would need an alternative for Desert Eagle, but it does however help the claim. The main purpose, if you have not noticed, is to combine the owner and model as the title name to help others (just like the 99% of other handguns). And this flimsy idea is coming from someone that has actually taken time to call MRI to: find out the facts and revise the information (which is not complete yet). On top of that the whole article seems it has been written by a high-schooler. So i ask, have you helped try to expand the information in the article and what did you do? MRIanthony (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Search results: "Magnum Research Desert Eagle": 111,000 hits. "Desert Eagle" -"Magnum Research Desert Eagle": 2,790,000 hits. Doing a google books search, "Desert Eagle" -"Magnum Research Desert Eagle" gets me 644 hits. "Magnum Research Desert Eagle" gets me 0 hits. The advantage of posting to RM is you get uninvolved editors who havn't got a horse in the race, Anthony. An argument based on wikipedia naming conventions would be good, remembering that there is a policy of, in a dispute, going for the one that remained the stable title for ages. (And that other Desert Eagle things may exist wouldn't affect this page as this is clearly primary usage.) Narson (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative

Im re-opening this becuase i have thought of a compromise. "Desert Eagle" to "Desert Eagle pistol". Thoughts? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Desert Eagle (pistol) would work. FYI: MRI also calls the pistol a DEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRIanthony (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a need for the disambiguator though? What else is there called Desert Eagle? Are we saying this isn't clearly primary usage? Narson (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Naming The names of firearm articles should start with the proper name of the manufacturer, followed by the firearm's name. Examples of this policy are Heckler & Koch MP7 instead of MP7 or Smith & Wesson Model 1006 instead of S&W Model 1006. Exceptions to this are firearms named with military designations such as M16 rifle or AK-47. See WP:WEAPON#Naming conventions for the guideline on naming military firearms.

I think that for the moment we should hold off on renaming this one. The Desert Eagle is an unusual case because of the way by which it came into being. I would suggest that the WikiProject Firearms discuss this first, and come to a consensus on what to do when one company owns the design, and another makes it and sells some, while the first distributes it.

But Magnum Research developed it, owns the design, imports it, and distributes it. Seems a no-brainer. IMI, IWI, and Saco are all just contract labor. scot (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quick Question

I've been curious about this for awhile, but I can't find any information on it anywhere. Does anyone know why the .50AE Desert Eagle lacks a fluted barrel, whereas just about every other (XIX) model has one? Thanks in advance. FoxDiamond 22:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern Firearms.

Perhaps a link to the Modern Firearms article would be of some benefit as it includes a photo of the original design. [5] 68.116.99.78 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statement: NPOV violation (?)

I believe the following statement, as it is unsourced, to be an NPOV violation:

Due to its size, weight, and considerable report and muzzle flash, it is a clumsy and somewhat unwieldy weapon for self-defense purposes.

I'm no firearms expert, but I cannot see how "muzzle flash" and "considerable report" could negatively effect self-defense? If one is committing a murder, yeah, these could be drawbacks. If, however, you're legally defending yourself, a loud noise and big flash can only hurry the police to your side (because if a perp in hanging about when you've capped off anti-aircraft gun, you're obviously dealing with a mentally unstable individually!).

Some people may well feel that way, but without a source, it's just an editor's opinion and, thus, I think it should be removed unless a source to back it up can be found; e.g. a review in a firearms magazine or website.

I have a cousin who carries this weapon for self-defense and he tells me he has no problem "clearing leather". Tho', fortunately, he hasn't had to use it for self-defense (he carries makes big cash deposits for his business), he did draw down on an armed robber who attempted to rob a restaurant in which he was eating. The would-be criminal pulled out a .38, only to find himself facing my cousins DE .50, a .44 mag and 9mm Glock. Whoops! Needless to say, they disarmed him and held him for Dallas' finest to show up and take him to the House of Blue Lights.

PainMan (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm no firearms expert either, but I think considerable report and muzzle flash could negatively affect self-defense because it might be disorienting, especially in a confined space where the sound waves are just going to reflect off all the walls and bombard your ears several times. If you miss your first shot, you're definitely going to want to make the next one, but if your ears are ringing and stars are dancing in your vision, that could be quite difficult, even without taking into consideration how large and heavy the Desert Eagle is.

Perhaps the sound waves could even disrupt the fluids in your inner ear, destroying your balance as well. However, that might be a stretch; the Desert Eagle is a loud gun, but its not like its a flashbang.

That's my two cents. FoxDiamond 19:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Desert Eagle is a novelty gun, but the statement is inapropriate IMO. Koalorka (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Why no popular culture section?

I noticed the popular culture section from 23:56, 12 January 2009 was promptly deleted via revert as though it were vandalism. Looking through the history I noticed there were past pop culture sections as well. Why are they all deleted?Splew (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:GUNS#Pop culture.--LWF (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

.440 Cor-bon comments

I know that for a time, they sold barrels in .440 Cor-bon that you could order from them directly. I know this because I purchased one this way. Is there a reasonable way of incorporating this in the section? It's currently written as if no such beasts exist.