Talk:Combat shotgun

the m500 is not used by the US army

they use the m590 Edited the rude comment out, no need for it here.

wrong ink for the pistole

it links to the currency, and does it really exist?

Copyright concerns

Almost all of the information in this article is taken word for word from [1]. The images are also taken from the same website from the various shotgun pages. --Werbwerb 03:27, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Questions on Ammunition section

Couple of claims here that I'd like to query - not being a shooter or firearms expert myself, i'll post here for others to check rather than editing myself.

1. "Buckshot is also used for hunting large game, up to the size of bear or deer" - does anyone really use buckshot for bear?? I'd always heard that the largest game buckshot was suitable for was small- to medium deer (hence, buckshot...). While i don't shoot or hunt myself, i know people who do, and have some knowledge, and I've never heard anyone say buckshot was suitable for bear. Maybe the writer meant boar?

Could be; buckshot is a bit light on penetration to use against bears. Generally for bear you want something that will penetrate DEEP, because if you don't stop the bear, it might stop you. .45-70 is generally the lightest thing recommended for defense against bear, the Marlin 1895 with a short barrel being on par with a shotgun for size and weight, and provides a much tougher bullet.

2."Slugs give the shotgun greater reach, are effective against most body armor and can even disable a vehicle." Really? Slugs can disable a vehicle? Again, I've never heard that (at least not that they are any more effective than any other bullet type -e.g any of the standard military rifle calibres)the ks-23 slug round can destroy an engine block. Also, "effective against most body armour" seems misleading from my reading. Against NIJ Levels I, IIA and II, maybe. But most military, if they are wearing armour, wear at least level IIIA, if not Level IV (with solid rifle plates). Shotgun slugs will certainly not penetrate Rifle Plates, and probably not Level IIIA or above soft armour edit: it will NOT penetrate level IIIa body armor as confirmed by the box o' truth. See http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16.htm for a practical test, and http://www.bulletproofme.com/NIJ_Test_Rounds_CHART.shtml for some data- NIJ level IIIA is listed as stopping .44 Magnum, which has a higher velocity than most shotgun slugs, and Level III will stop 7.62 x 51 NATO (.308 Winchester) FMJ, so it would certainly stop a slug. Shotgun slugs may be effective against lower level armour, but not against most military armour- which is the context of the article.

Most body armor is lighter than military stuff, and a shotgun slug has the advantage of a lot of mass, and can break ribs even if it doesn't penetrate--just look at the armor tests done with clay backing, the slugs leave fist-sized imprints in the clay. A slug will also punch right though sheet metal that will turn smallbore bullets, so effectiveness against vehicles is certainly more than any 5.56mm military cartridge, and probably compared to the 7.62x39mm, unless the shooter can get a square shot to prevent deflection. The 12 gauge slug is still the ultimate brush gun, because even a twig can deflect nearly all smallbore rifle bullets, but a slug (or any other big, fat, low velocity bullet) will cut right through it with minimal deflection--Chuck Hawk's site mentions tests run using shots fired through a woven twig screen at a target at varying ranges behind the screen, and high velocity pointed bullets were off target in a matter of feet.

As i said, i'm not an expert, just an interested web-browser. would prefer to have my conclusions checked but someone with a little more expertise!

Ian, 06.24.06

Actually, the point about slugs is probably moot--I'm not sure the military really uses them. Military teams mix shotguns with assault rifles, so the shotgun is going to be used purely in a short-range role, loaded with buckshot for room clearing, door breaching, and the like. I'll take a look at the article again tomorrow and do some pruning. scot 19:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Thats exactly the kind of response i was hoping for- someone with more knowledge to check over the article. Given what you've said, i would say the reference to bear should be removed. Shotgun slug certainly ain't 45-70! I'll leave you do decide on the body armour reference- i accept that most armour isn't military level, but the context of that sentence is the military use of slug, so it seems some acknowledgement that even high level soft armour (let alone rifle plates) will stop a slug ought to be in there. --82.20.244.207 22:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Ian, 06.25.06

So far, I've found a reference on the DOD website for a JAN-S-726 spec for 12 gauge ammunition, but it was canceled in 1949, and they don't have the scanned doc online. The 3443G spec for shotguns (currently filled by the Mossberg 590A1 mentions in section 3.17.3 "standard velocity commercial 12 gauge, 2 3/4 inch, 00 buckshot (9 pellets) maximum load cartridges conforming to SAAMI standards". Also, the 3.17.4 sections (looking at rev. D of the spec, from 1975) involve patterning the shotgun, with a minimum of 1/3 of the pellets in a 30 inch diameter circle at 40 yards. That's a pretty wide pattern (as expected from a cylinder bore) and that puts the effective range at under 40 ayrds. Unfortunately, I can't get into the Army's doctrine library (gotta have a military supplied ID to get in, it used to be open to the public for non-classified stuff) so I can't look up the shotgun doctrine stuff. I know someone active in the OK Nat'l Guard (shipping out in a few months, in fact), I'll see if he can look it up for me. scot 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, whaddaya know, I happened to have the Army Ammunition Data Sheets for small caliber ammuntition (TM 43-0001-27) from April 1994 on my computer. They list 5 types of 12 gauge ammunition:

• No designation, paper cased 00 buckshot load, probably the old pre-1949 spec stuff
• M162, all plastic case 00 buckshot load for guard/combat use
• M19, all brass case 00 buckshot load for guard/combat use
• M257, plastic case (with brass rim in illustration), #4 hard antimony lead shot, guard duty/riot control use in 20" full choke barrel
• M274, paper or plastic case, #4 hard chilled shot, small game and riot control use

And, just as a side note, the specs list a .45 caliber line throwing blank, used in a .45-70 line throwing gun...who'd have thought that the .45-70 was still in the military inventory. scot 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Scot", I assume the page as currently altered is your work? If so, thanks! Far more specific now, and confines itself to current and past ammunition actually used by the military, and its applications. This is surely the way to go! --82.20.244.207 16:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Ian., 06.26.06

Yep, "Fluzwup" is my user ID and that was my edit. BTW, if you're interested in the history of combat shotguns, from the old "buck and ball" musket loads to the current cutting edge, read the JSCS Program report. It makes quite interesting reading, especially the statis the Brits did on hit probabilities: 1 in 11 for an assault rifle, 1 in 8 for an SMG, 1 in 5ish for a shotgun. Which just goes to support my long held belief that the search for the "all purpose" cartridge is a pipe dream, and infantry squads should be composed of a couple of Designated Riflemen with battle rifles for long range work, and the rest split between assault rifles, for medium range and suppressive fire, and shotguns, for close in work and special purpose stuff like door breaching work, and the new Frag-12 experimental indirect fire rounds. You'd want everyone crosstrained, of course, so you could very the assault rifle/shotgun mix as needed for the mission--more shotguns for urban work, more rifles for flat terrain. DR's you'd probably want to keep constant, even in urban work they'd be good for countersniper fire.

One more thing I might do is yank the police section. Police use falls more under the riot shotgun category than the combat shotgun, so I think a cross-link directing people here for military use and there for police use would be best. scot 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you about the police section. And thanks for the link- absolutely fascinating! Again, thanks for your improvements to this article.

--82.20.244.207 14:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Ian, 07.01.06

Like anything else involving firearms and ammunition, what ammunition or cartridge or firearm to use on a "specific" game animal or category thereof is personal choice. Since "buckshot" was designed for deer by your own admission but specifically for BUCKS, is it "right" or "correct" to use it on DOES? As for your size classifications of deer, I can only surmise that you do not hunt. "Ground shrinkage" is common and judging the live weight, dressed weight or any other weight of any deer period is basically impossible. Nor is it relevant when most hunting regulations specify and permit the hunting and harvesting of one or more individual deer and where "sex" is specified, a "buck" is described in some way that makes it impossible to legally shoot a doe by requiring a deer harvested to have at least one anter at least X inches in length etc etc etc. Nothing else matters and "yearling" bucks actually born much less than a year prior and usually roughly 5-6 months prior is effectively a "doe" because bucks don't have antlers until they reach sexual maturity after becoming "full grown".

As for "buckshot" use on bears, there are plenty of deer in the U.S. that are larger in body size and weight and in some cases a LOT larger than many black bears that are taken. Were you under the impression that only grizzly and polar bears are hunted? That is not the case. Black bear hunting is common and popular in several areas of the U.S. and like most other game animals, black bear ranges are steadily expanding due to decreased hunting and a lack of natural predators.

What I see in your questions and assertions is a complete misunderstanding of guns and gun owners but a common one even among gun owners in that you apparently believe there are actual "rules" and other absolutes when it comes to guns. There are none. There are laws and regulations and "conventional wisdom" and "common sense" and a hell of a lot of speculation and lots of "expert analysis" and a lot of people who make a lot of money and "earn" a lot of "respect" through their ability to convince supposedly intelligent and independent gun owners that there is a "wrong way" or "right way" or "wrong gun" or "right gun" for a given situation, task, etc etc. But its all still personal choice and opinion and in the end not a single "expert" has ever or will ever put his or her money where their mouths are and put a warranty or guarantee on their training, methods, opinions, beliefs or actions.

It really all boils down to this. You're either a "gun person" by nature and get what they're all about and the freedoms and liberties they represent and that they don't come from the guns themselves but a personal belief that we all have a right to control our own personal space and preserve our lives even if it means taking the life of another because DEFENSE is the counter to OFFENSE and ultimately it is not our decision that someone attacks us but its also not our responsibility to save their lives if they don't have any more regard for their own life than to invade the personal space of another without being invited or allowed to do so. In the end, shooting someone is no different than kneeing them in the groin. It's a physical response to a physical attack and its basic human nature to do the best job possible of fighting back when flight is an unacceptable option.

That people supposedly have a "duty to retreat" if they can do so "safely" is a laughable concept given the stupidity one has to possess to turn his or her back on an attacker. But just like your idle speculation that you no doubt consider thoughtful and "intellectually curious" and "open-minded", in the end you're trying to put everything into a category and pass judgement on it in a black-and-white scenario to try to "understand" and then "Define" something that only people who don't understand and never will understand why some people want a gun while they want more police officers with guns. Even when we try to make it as simple as possible, it just doesn't register with people who themselves are so isolated from the "real world" and have lived such sheltered and protected and "safe" lives they have no concept of personal danger or even their own mortality.

When you live in a country or area with "very little crime" its not the lack of guns keeping you "safe". Its your self-isolation and fear of going anywhere you might not be known and accepted or at least recognized as "normal" that keeps you "safe" and it's that kind of thinking that keeps others locked away in similar situations but by FORCE since they don't have the MEANS to move elsewhere even if they DO have the "freedom of movement".

When you can't grasp why somebody who is perfectly free and has a right to do so would own a gun but you think nothing about the 3 locks on your door or your alarm system or fence around your home or secure job in a building in the "good" part of town where the police are seconds or maybe at most minutes away and you are safe only because others who might not like your privileged existence can't get at you, you should be thinking about your own reality and lifestyle and rights and privileges and not what someone in a far different situation chooses to use to hunt bears or if they do if its "right" or "wrong".

And thats just the "defensive" side of gun ownership, which believe it or not is secondary at best to most shooters. Even if they "train" and "prepare" and "plan" for it in whatever way and to whatever degree they wish, they're still SPORT SHOOTERS FIRST. And a gun is not a "weapon" until it is used in BATTLE. Self-defense is not "combat" and "war" is not "self-defense". Combat and are are offensive situations. Even if the enemy is charging across the battle field, you're still on the "offensive" as you shoot at them from a trench or bunker or wherever. Self-defense is personal and inter-personal. And when both parties are there to kill the other and prevent them from doing them same to them or anyone else on their "side", that's still an offensive struggle. And its never machines that win wars. Its men using them in the majority of cases. Sometimes women.

And if you think that the fundamental strength and confidence and resolve that Americans or least MOST Americans and virtually all Americans who VOLUNTEER for the military doesn't come from that individual right, ability and even responsibility to defend yourself first and foremost since that's really all anyone can do and kNOW they're getting some result from the effort, you're...still not getting it. And you never will. You're not even "over-thinking" it. Thinking involves forming opinions and making a decision. You're doing nothing but creating hypotheticals and theories and asking questions and not really communicating anything or saying anything worth responding to. I know its hard to think when you've never learned how, just like its hard to understand why anyone would want a right you were denied without understanding what it meant or even a chance to voice your opinion.

There is no problem with gun ownership in the U.S. The problem is a lack of gun ownership in all those countries that claim to be "independent" but couldn't fight off U.S. high school trap shooting team if they had to rely on personal firearms to do it. And to claim that gun ownership in the U.S. is pointless even if to ward off tyranny because the "military has tanks and planes and machine guns and...". Who do you think joins the VOLUNTEER military in the U.S. and how long do you think there'd BE ONE if orders went out to go shoot or even round up "civilians" or their guns?

If you're not an American, you ain't ever gonna get us. And you're a damned fool if you think we're ever going to let anyone "get us" in the physical/territorial/political sense. All it took was a handful of pissed-off guys with some rifles and a couple small ships and the FRENCH to kick British ass back across the pond TWICE, which isn't surprising given a rather spotted history of British success even against natives armed with spears and shields during the first few "battles". The bottom line always is that if you have to trade blood for territory or resources, you're already lost. The U.S. has never done so, regardless of claims to the contrary. The "American Indians" were civilized enough to "elect" chiefs and those chiefs cut deals and signed treaties and hobknobbed with Washington politicians and dealt with government Indian agencies and for the most part sold what they didn't even own AND their "own people" to the only bidder. And that was long after the U.S. had already purchased the land from other European countries that claimed "ownership".

If you want to understand something quintessentially American, I suggest football. The REAL kind. It has rules. Guns and rights and liberties do not. They just exist and we make it up as we go along.

Legality

I seem to remember reading that there's some international law (Geneva Convention?) that forbids the use of shotguns in combat. Anyone know anything about this?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No such law, to the best of my knowledge. Germany did, however, protest the use of combat shotguns by the US during WW I, but the outcome was that there was no violation of any treaties or conventions, and no changes were made. Shotguns were also used later in WW II, Korea, and Viet Nam, and are also used even today by US military forces. Yaf 03:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there was a provision added to the Geneva Convention at one point, but no one signed that provision. Combat shotguns are quite simply to useful.--LWF 14:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The best analysis I've run across was a legal breif by a US Amry JAG officer, who did an historical analysis of shotgun use in combat, and a legal review of it's legitamacy according to the laws of war, when the military was working on what became the M1014 joint combat shotgun. The full breif is here. To sum up, shotguns have been effectively used for as long as firearms have been around; the buck and ball loading in a musket, or a handfull of pistol balls in a musketoon were functionally equivalent to a buckshot load, and when rifled muskets came into use during the American Civil War, the fowling piece (which is what shotguns were called before they were called shotguns) served with both sides. The first challeng under the laws of war was when the Germans issued a protest to Allied use of trench guns in 1918, on the grounds that they caused undue suffering and therefore were forbidden by the terms of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which states:

That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy;

That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;

That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;

That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity;

The US Army's position on this was that a shotgun was designed to inflict casualties on mulitple targets at long range, just like a bursting artillery shell--exploding shells of over 400 grams are allowed, while exploding rifle bullets such as those used by the Russians were banned by the treaty (this is also what limits the Raufoss Mk 211 to antimateriel use). And, just like a bursting artillery shells, standing too close to the burst results in far more serious wounds, but that's acceptable because it's a side effect of trying to wound as many targets as possible, which is allowed. Likewise, the shotgun, loaded with buckshot, would wound multiple targets at long range (far less lethally than a rifle or machine gun round), and if you get too close, the multiple projectile impacts are just a side effect. The other argument that might ban the use of buckshot would be the Hauge Convention of 1899, Declaration III, which bans:

...the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

This was targeted at the British Dum-dum rounds, which were .303 British rounds loaded with jacketed hollow point bullets. The use of pure lead buckshot, which does expand pretty easily even at low buckshot velocities, could be considered banned by this. However, since this soft buckshot deforms upon firing as well, resulting in wider patterns, shorter range, and lowered penetration, the military uses either plated or antimony hardened buckshot, which does not deform significantly more than the typical military full metal jacket bullet upon impact. Standard shotgun slugs in civilian and police use do deform very significantly upon impact, so those would likely be prohibited; a non-expanding slug made of a hard allow, such as brass or copper, would probably be allowable, depending on comparitive performance against the FMJ rounds.

Germany, in their manual on the laws of war, does prohibit the use of the shotgun in combat; however, the German military also uses a former Soviet copy of the US M18A1 Claymore Antipersonnel Mine, which is functionally identical to a giant shotgun, only with a spread measured in radians, not degrees, of arc. The only restrictions on claymore type mines are general restrictions on landmines; since a shotgun is individually targeted and "command detonated", then it's exempt from those restrictions.

On the other side, shotguns ARE really useful. Loaded with buckshot and used at ranges of 35 meters or less, they are far and away the most effective infantry weapon, vastly superior to either an assault rifle or submachine gun, and are effective out to 75 meters. Add to that the vast array of rounds, such as door breaching rounds, flechette, slugs (assuming a sufficiently non-deforming design), and exotic stuff like the Frag-12 fragmentation grenade rounds, and considering that a mil-spec Mossberg 590A1 is running the military a whopping $316 each, I'm of the opinion that the military needs to be running about 50/50 shotguns and assault rifles in jungle or urban operations. scot 18:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

in one of the sections there is a large space of blank. has someone been blanking off pages? (Gooly 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

No that is just a side effect of picture placement.--LWF 20:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Effectiveness

I'm removing the table from this section since http://www.frfrogspad.com/ is far from being a reliable source. Plus I'm in the military and my primary weapon is a shotgun, and if that's all the hits they could get at 50 yards, then they obviously can't shoot or don't know how to handle the weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies/omissions.

I intend to edit this article to add some information I came across while reading a book on warfare in Gallipoli (which references many other sources); it turns out that an Australian Major was using a sawn-off shotgun as a trench gun during the fighting there, and it made a "terrible mess" including taking one man's head "clean off", and it turns out the Turks submitted an appeal based on a UN convention and the Australian or British higher-ups confiscated his "toy", to which he was bitterly disappointed. So yeah just letting you know the statement that only the Germans protested is inaccurate and I will make some cited edits tomorrow when I get a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.23.200 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Combat shotgun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070913071505/http://www.benelliusa.com:80/firearms/specialPurpose.tpl to http://www.benelliusa.com/firearms/specialPurpose.tpl

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect information on U.S. military trench shotguns

The statement about M1987 shotguns being capable of "slam firing" is factually incorrect. The cited source is also incorrect and simply having statements and opinions published by a publisher focusing on weapons/firearms/guns does not make a person a reliable source. Current "facts" that are demonstrably false by simply testing the actual firearms to see if the state "facts" are or not true doesn't meet any standard of "proof" accepted by the so-called experts who have believed in the facts despite never have personally tested them because it cannot undo decades of misinformation, published "facts" that are actually lies, and the accepted "expert" status of those that manage to have their incorrect or false statements published. Winchester 1897 shotguns can NOT be slam-fired and the major reason Winchester released the slightly redesigned 1897 only a few years after the 1893 was that the 1893 WAS capable of being slam-fired both intentionally and inadvertently. John Browning modified the design slightly and slam-firing was made a physical impossibility in the 1897 because the hammer can not and will not strike the firing pin with sufficient force to ignite the primer if it is "riding the bolt" as the bolt goes forward into battery. By definition, a "slam fire" occurs OUT OF BATTERY which is what makes it a dangerous phenomenon.

Even with no "trigger disconnector", the hammer of an 1897 can not fall until the bolt is "in battery" and if it falls at any point prior to the bolt being in battery, it will not strike the firing pin with sufficient force to ignite the primer and the firing pin itself is not long enough to reach a "floating" cartridge only being pushed ahead of the bolt until the shell is chambered with the bolt in battery behind it. When the trigger is held to the rear, the trigger sear is held from engagement with the hammer sear but the hammer is still held reward by an internal "safety sear" that only disengages to release the hammer once the bolt is in battery. When the trigger is held rearward and the slide or "pump" is cycled, the internal movements are obviously invisible and the human eye is not fast enough to see the bolt stop its foward motion - and thus be in battery - a fraction of a second before the hammer drops. There is also a "quarter-cock notch" in the mechanism that prevents the hammer from dropping fully against the bolt even if the hammer is held to the rear intentionally by the shooter and released prior to the bolt going into battery.

As I said, these changes were made to "correct" a non-existent "flaw" that was exposed when 1893s were intentionally or inadvertently "slam-fired" by inexperienced users attempting to duplicate "speed shooting" demonstrations made with the then-new shotguns as promotional events produced by Winchester. The demonstration shooters were both using "trick" ammo with low pressures and recoil and were allowing the trigger to reset after a shot while appearing to hold it rearward during cycling of the action and letting the forward motion of the slide mechanism and shotgun itself pull the trigger back forward against their finger to fire another cartridge. Even if their timing was off and the result was an cartridge fired "out of battery" there were no firearm failures due to the low pressures and high-quality, brand-new firearms. When inexperienced shooters loaded shotguns and particularly used shotguns previously used FOR such demonstrations with conventional, "full power" ammunition and fired it in large volumes and also unknowingly fired the then-new 2 3/4" loads in 2 1/2" chambers, the result could be a "slam fire" and a catastrophic failure since the bolt and shooter's strength were usually not capable of completely jamming in the longer cartridge to the point the bolt was fully locked forward. A catastrophic failure was therefore possible for multiple reasons in multiple situations but with the usual result being the bolt was ejected out of the receiver and into the shooter's face.

John Browning's insistence that Winchester fix what Winchester regarded as an operator error situation by modifying the original design to incorporate both safety features to prevent slam-fires AND the ability to perform "rapid fire" shooting by holding the trigger rearward and cycling the action SAFELY resulted in the 1897 shotgun. And unlike the 1893, all 1897 shotguns have 2 3/4" chambers so the pressure spikes resulting from a 2 3/4" shell (paper cases at the time) being jammed into and fired in a 2 1/2" chamber simply could not occur.

The article itself is factually incorrect even referring to the mechanisms within "modern" pump shotguns that prevent trigger-rearward "rapid-fire" as a "disconnector" since disconnectors are used in concealed-hammer firearms to disconnect the trigger from the hammer with the bolt or slide CLOSED so that another release mechanism trips the hammer for firing. In any repeating or semi-auto firearm disconnectors are used to prevent triggers from firing the gun altogether with the bolt or slide in battery. A magazine disconnector prevents firing without a magazine installed, for example. A "trigger safety" is another type of disconnector that prevents the actual trigger from firing the gun until a small safety lever within the trigger itself is pressed rearward to engage the trigger disconnector or more accurately trigger connector.

The only firearms that use a "trigger disconnector" of the style its implied 1897s are flawed for lacking are SELECT-FIRE firearms capable of both semi-auto and full-auto fire. In that case, when the firearm is in semi-auto, the trigger is connected to the hammer sear at all times and "slam firing" is theoretically made impossible by a "floating" firing pin that should not be able to strike the primer with sufficient force to fire the cartridge unless the bolt is fully in battery, the cartridge is properly headspaced and the hammer falls its full travel distance to strike the rear of the floating pin.

In full-auto "mode", the "trigger disconnector" keeps the trigger sear from engaging the hammer as it travels rearward, the hammer is instead held rearward by the auto sear and as the bolt travels back forward and into battery the bolt itself triggers the auto sear to release the hammer, allowing it to fall and strike the firing pin. Even if the trigger is partially released during the natural recoil and forward and rearward movements of the firearm firing full-auto, the trigger disconnector prevents reset until the trigger is fully released and the auto sear continues to be the only sear engaging the hammer sear as the bolt pushed it rearward and disengaging to release the hammer as the bolt travels forward into battery.

Difficulties and misunderstandings are natural and inevitable with so many different firearms and designs in existence, but the article, the author of the passage claiming 1897s can "slam fire" when only semi-auto and full-auto firearms are capable of a TRUE slam-fire and the fact 1897 itself exists because great effort and expense was put into fixing what was only a problem for inexperienced, inattentive or ignorant shooters are all true "facts" and well-known by the types of "experts" who spend the overwhelming majority of their "gun time" using, building, repairing, servicing, maintaining and handling firearms and very little time WRITING about them. I earlier stated that there are many cases of the "facts" widely and steadfastly believed and communicated by even "acknowledge experts" and "reliable sources" being completely false, and I will give another example simply to demonstrate that an "unreliable source" like the "anonymous" Wikipedia editor I am has virtually NO CHANCE of ever communicating the FACTS that automatically prove the conventional wisdom of "experts" wrong.

Here is my example:

In almost any and in almost every published "reliable source" of information on U.S. M1 "Garand" rifles (technically speaking there is no such thing since the U.S. military "adopted" Garand's eventual "design" after he and others made the required changes but not his original design and designated the "adopted" rifle "91st line) U.S. RIFLE (2nd line) CALIBER .30M1")_the author or speaker "aka reliable source" will claim that a fundamental "flaw" of the "M1 Garand" was/is that the rifle can not be "topped off" once a full en-block clip is inserted and rounds have been fired from it, creating what is considered a "partial clip" or "partial magazine", and that the rifle can NOT returned to "full capacity" or a "full magazine" or "full clip" condition by adding additional loose cartridges to or inserting them into the partial clip or magazine. No doubt this completely false claim results from someone looking at the design of the rifle and the "mechanical feed" function or appearance thereof where the magazine "follower" in the rifle itself appears to be mechanically linked to and dependent on bolt-cycling as the bolt and mechanism is either manually operated by hand or automatically operated by the gas system during firing.

Conventional wisdom appears to be that since there is no separate "follower spring" and there are some small parts involved the actually connect the follower to the OPERATING ROD SPRING and also enable the clip ejection function when the last round of an en-block is chambered and fired, then the follower itself must be "mechanically driven" BY the operating rod and gas system, which would preclude pushing it down once the rifle has chambered and fired a round from a fresh en-bloc. That is completely and totally false. The "follower" IS provided spring tension to allow it to elevate cartridges BY the operating rod spring but it at no point is every mechanically locked in any position and can be pushed downward against spring pressure to allow additional rounds to be inserted into a partial en-block just as the magazine follower of any other repeating rifle with an integral or removable magazine can be. That is considered "topping off" a firearm and the "experts" and "reliable sources" seem to unanimously agree that its impossible. I believed it impossible for quite some time until just thinking about the firearm and studying my OWN rifle and disassembling and reassembling it and finally TESTING THE CLAIM revealed to me that just as I'd already convinced myself by thinking and observing alone, I could "top off" my Garand or any other simply by treating it just like any other bolt-action rifle.

It is a slightly different process since the "bolt latch function of the M1 Garand only locks back the bolt when there is NO en-bloc in the rifles internal magazine and no external lock button or release exists, but by using one hand to hold back the bolt with an en-bloc inserted, the other hand can be used to inert additional rounds directly into the en-bloc to "top off" the clip, magazine and rifle. That is cold hard fact and in fact at least one YouTube video exists demonstrating it, but the "experts" will still and will probably always will claim that "topping of a Garand" is impossible. Just like the "reliable source" that got his b.s. claims about Winchester 1897 "slam fires" is only considered a RELIABLE SOURCE because somebody copyrighted and published his fake "facts".

I don't know all the Wikipedia rules about "primary sources" and "reliable sources" but I know that "original research" is NOT considered a "reliable source" so even if I made a video or got a book published with my CORRECT facts published and copyrighted, what I learned through thought and theory and experimentation that disproves the "fact" and render it a lie in EITHER CASE doesn't "count". Which seems like a pretty RIDICULOUS want to provide facts from reliable sources and create not just an "encyclopedia" but a REFERENCE PUBLICATION that should contain either PURE FACT or NOTHING with the "source" completely IRRELEVANT. The guns are what they are because that's how they were designed. That somebody or a whole "community" of somebodies believes what they hear or read instead of picking up the gun that may be in their own safe or on the bench in front of them just feet or inches away doesn't make something a "fact" and the "reliable sources" aren't sources of anything but fiction.

And as long as Wikipedia editors are more interested in being "civil" than in being RIGHT and would rather "compromise" or "reach a consensus" than stand up and say HEY! THIS RELIABLE SOURCE/NO OWN RESEARCH THING IS BULLSH!T BECAUSE VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING EVER CREATED BY MAN IS THE RESULT OF THE ORIGINAL RELIABLE SOURCE THAT INVENTED IT USING HIS OR HER OWN ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO DO SO!, then Wikipedia will continue to be plaything for those who apparently have nothing better to do than obsess over and write about and when necessary delete the hard work and "own research" of others who DID have better things to do.

So, there's my take on just one of MANY complete farces of encyclopedic articles on firearms. I'm sure any attempts I made to actually edit them with the truth would be "vandalism" or unacceptable because I have no reliable source to disprove a lie, since lies can not be disproved being unproven to begin with. Which brings up another interesting aspect of Wikipedia. If I publish a YouTube video of me demonstrating the operation of my M1897 Trench Gun or topping off my M1 Garand and cite and link and use those as my "primary source", are they inadmissible and unacceptable because they're "original research"? Or was my "original research" actually conducted as I read what I thought sounded like b.s. claims and did the experimenting that led to my own "discovery" of the actual facts?

That SHOULD be a good topic for what SHOULD be many pages of theoretical discussions and postulations in an attempt to reach "consensus" given the thousand-word essays supposedly intelligent, educated, sophisticated and well-spoken "editors" and "administrators" need to communicate a very simple analysis and their opinion on very innocuous things like whether or not two people with different "facts" are "edit warring" when each believes in his or her "fact" and has a "reliable source" to cite as "evidence of it". Not to mention the multi-paragraph explanations people will write to communicate what isn't an opinion at all because they made no actual decision or judgement as they "decided" to "support" or "oppose" some "community action" that requires not a VOTE but a "consensus".

Are encyclopedias supposed to be democratic? Would Albert Einstein be able to get his articles past the Wikipedia fact firewalls as they exist today?

Anyway, if you want to block me again for the umpteenth time simply because I don't play by the "rules" I don't think anybody ever voted on when they first started creating this "open source reference" that relies entirely on publicly-owned and PUBLISHED resources but is controlled completely by a handful of private citizens. So I guess what I'm saying is that I reject your "rules" just like you reject my research. And since my research proves facts and disproves lies and your rules result in lies being published and facts being deleted, all I have to say is I'm right and no amount of blocking or length of time is ever going to change that.

Have a nice day, Wikipedians and especially fearless Administrators and selfless and obsessive reviewers and critics and judges of all edits all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.66 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)