Talk:Air gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an image.

various corrections[edit]

First CO2 is indeed a liquid under pressure. It does not exist as a liquid at "room" pressure.

For spring piston guns the piston compresses the air in the tube containing the piston. The air is heated in this tube by the compression of the piston. There is a transfer port which throttles the air into the bore behind the pellet.

"Spring-piston guns have a practical upper limit of 1250 ft/s (380 m/s) for .177 cal (4.5 mm) pellets. Higher velocities cause unstable pellet flight and loss of accuracy.[citation needed] Drag increases rapidly as pellets are pushed past the speed of sound, so it is generally better to increase pellet weight to keep velocities subsonic in high-powered guns. Sonic crack from the pellet as it moves with supersonic speed also makes the shot louder sometimes making it possible to be mistaken for firearm discharge and drawing unwanted attention. Many shooters have found that velocities in the 800–900 ft/s (270 m/s) range offer an ideal balance between power and pellet stability." This would be true for any pellet gun, not just spring piston type.

"Spring guns, especially high-powered ones, have significant recoil resulting from the forward motion of the piston." Well, the piston moves forward then recoils. The piston is recoiling before the pellet ever breaks free and starts moving down the barrel.

"Spring gun recoil also has a sharp forward component, caused by the piston as it hits the forward end of the chamber when the spring behind it reaches full expansion." The piston should never should hit the forward end of the chamber. Rather the piston reaches its maximum forward travel in the chamber and recoils due to the compression of the gas pushing the piston back. The pressure builds in the chamber because the transfer port limits the gas transfer to the barrel.

"PCP guns have very low recoil and can fire as many as 500 shots per charge." Don't know of any typical rifle/piston that gets that many shots from HPA. 50 is probably closer to a reasonable upper limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.38.184 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"projectile weapons"[edit]

Even target pistols are considered weapons. Air guns can and have been used in war and in hunting, and are typically categorized as weapons. Many jurisdictions even regulate them as firearms. So I think it's correct to describe them as "projectile weapons" in the lead. Rezin (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a sensitive subject, but the wiki page linked describes weapons as "device[s] used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems". Whilst initially developed as a "weapon" by that, or any definition, I am not sure that "weapon" correctly describes modern air guns or their usage. Yes, they can and are used to hunt, but I suspect most are used for plinking or target practice. Lumping them in the same category as "intercontinental ballistic missiles" seems a little extreme, regardless of whether certain jurisdictions consider them firearms (and that is a legislative definition only) they are not, and can never be, by literal/mechanical definition a "firearm"). Stephenjh (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Slingshots are weapons too, just ask Goliath. But your solution of linking to Pneumatic weapon is good. Thanks for finding that. Rezin (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Danger to humans[edit]

The user Stephenjh started an edit war over this section.

The reasons given by "Stephenjh" are that:

  • "Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual.": It is not clear how the referenced material pertains to an "instruction manual".
  • "Are you going to add a danger to humans section on every weapons page, maybe knives and forks?": To the average reader it is not obvious if an air gun can be lethal or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.165.17 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "have you read the article? They originated as weapons designed to kill! Clearly stated.": Historical, high caliber air guns cannot be compared to modern low caliber air guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.165.17 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes you are correct. Many think of airs guns as toys or at most tools with dealing with pests & light hunting such as birds. They don't know that air guns can be lethal to humans. It's entirely encyclopedic to have your section, and nothing to do with any "instruction manual". I am restoring your section. If Stephenjh cant agree with this, he should stop edit warring and get consensus to re-remove here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.31.162 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I see you have already restored the section. Jolly good. It needs to stay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.31.162 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah, my bad I missed the 3R. the reverts were carried out for the reasons stated above and more.

I can only assume the editor has not read the article. It's an article about a form of 'weapon' "used in warfare", and clearly developed (initially) to kill wild game and people. The article states this and it's obvious (literally) that there is a 'danger'. Adding a warning as if it's a 'product page' or manual for safe useage is unnecessary and unencyclopeadic. Should a warning be placed on every article page, about every 'weapon' on wikipedia that there is a 'danger to humans'? Ridiculous.

Wikipedia has a rule WP:OBVIOUS. While an expert in air guns may find it obvious that the typical air gun is deadly, I am not convinced the average reader knows this. You are correct that the article does clearly state that air guns have historically been used in warfare. However, I believe it is incorrect to insist this historical view reflects on the whole article. The article deals with both historical and modern air guns, and they are different. Modern air guns do not appear to be designed for warfare. It is not evident from the article as it is that the modern air gun can be deadly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.165.17 (talkcontribs)
Ì disagree, one does not need to be an expert to know that 'weapons' are dangerous. The article clearly states they have been and continue to be used for "hunting" and "pest control" and are therefore, by definition, "deadly". But I do not believe this article needs to state a 'safety warning' concerning their mis-use. Stephenjh (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Who are these "Many" that think of 'airs guns as toys' [sic]? If they exist, then they too haven't read the article - and if they do it would make it quite clear they aren't. Stating "high caliber air guns cannot be compared to modern low caliber air guns" makes no sense and proves the article has not been understood. Calibre has nothing to do with anything, it's muzzle energy that counts and comparative muzzle energies are stated throughout the article in both the historic and modern sections. Stephenjh (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a reader who reads the article should not believe a gun that can be used for "pest control" is a toy. However, I still refer to WP:OBVIOUS and the fact that dangerous does not imply deadly. It is noteworthy information to include when there are studies regarding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.165.17 (talkcontribs)
Again, I disagree. Many things are deadly when mis-used, should Wikipedia have warnings on every article? I believe not. Stephenjh (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
How irrelevant. Our policy, WP:BALASPS, indicates that we should cover all aspects of the topic in roughly proportional weight to their coverage in reliable sources. An IP editor has graciously added several excellent sources to a quite poorly sourced article, and as an experienced user your failure to recognize that and help incorporate them is quite bizarre. VQuakr (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I considered the original edit to be unnecessary along these guidelines 'Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal'. That, having re-read, may well not apply so we moved on. But your willingness to interpret and accept a reference source that does not support a statement I find equally bizarre. Hopefully that has now been corrected. Stephenjh (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The reference / source provided to support this 'new section' is itself dated 18 years ago (1998) and even that concludes by stating "One person each year dies from an air powered weapon injury in the United Kingdom. Which is tragic for that one person but statistically speaking, insignificant. Stephenjh (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a note to specify the date of the study, especially if the characteristics of air guns have changed since then. However, I don't believe that the small statistics are relevant, dealing with human lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.165.17 (talkcontribs)
The statement as entered is poorly written, and I still argue unnecessary. Have the characteristics of airguns changed since then? I think that is for you to elaborate upon, cite and source, certainly the original reference itself concludes with a statistically insignificant figure. Stephenjh (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
If you think a statement is poorly written, rewrite it. VQuakr (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
If I believed it should be there, I would. Stephenjh (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Stephenjh: have the terminal ballistics of small-bore air rifles changed significantly since 1998? It seems to me that the IP has brought two new, peer-reviewed sources to an article that is quite poorly sourced at the moment and I am having trouble seeing how you could justify your reverts (and behavior in general) in the context of WP:ROWN and WP:BITE. Anyways, moving forward I think it would be more productive to discuss how to include these sources, since I think whether to include these sources is a given (yes). Putting them in as a two-sentence section doesn't seem to fit very well. If you still think these sources should be excluded can you please attempt to better frame your reasoning in the context of our guidelines; otherwise what are your thoughts on how to incorporate them? VQuakr (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There has been no change in the terminal ballistics of small-bore air rifles in the UK since the early 1970's. They are limited by law see: Air gun laws. One of the references provided is apparently an abstract with misleading information regarding age resstrictions (because it relates to India presumably). Does that improve a "poorly sourced" article? Stephenjh (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
What is wrong with using a source that relates to India? VQuakr (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't support the statement in the article it's placed by. "This has been the case for guns of caliber .177 and .22 that are within the legal muzzle velocity of air guns in the United Kingdom". Stephenjh (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It appears to support the sentence prior. Not a reason for a revert. Can you reply to my queries in the 02:36 post? VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
No it does not support the sentence prior. The sentence prior states "Modern air guns have been noted as the cause of death in the literature". Apart from that being rather badly written, there is nothing at all in the source cited to support the statement that a 'modern air gun' was indeed used. That, I suspect, contradicts Wikipedia:Verifiability; "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Stephenjh (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe it supports the sentence prior. "Modern" in this section refers to modern in the context of the article itself, i.e. warfare era compared to modern era. In this context "modern" is the type of gun made for recreational shooting, sports, pest control, etc. It is exactly this type of modern gun which it is not clear just how dangerous can be to the casual reader. I agree everyone should understand it can be dangerous. However, I don't think everyone regards air guns as a serious weapon that can kill. From what little I know, the modern air gun is not a military weapon. Clearly both papers are not dealing with historical, military air guns. Both papers are dealing with the issue regarding how dangerous a typical modern air gun can be. The fact that there are scientific papers written regarding the issue of lethality of these devices justifies the information being included in the article. You bring up the question regarding knives and forks, I don't feel this is the same. Regardless, if there are studies showing e.g. statistics regarding deaths due to knives, then I'm sure that information could be useful for the knives article. However, perhaps it can be rephrased to more clearly state something you prefer, but I fail to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.165.17 (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The edits improve the section. I also believe that it is incorect to state "Clearly both papers are not dealing with historical, military air guns" that would be an assumption not supported by the 'Indian refrence', but we have moved on. Thanks. Stephenjh (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Stephenjh: so you think the sources might be referring to an antique air rifle? That seems implausible, but I guess we could drop the word "modern" if you really feel strongly about it. It doesn't seem that you've addressed either the letter or the spirit of my 02:36 question yet, the goal of which was to encourage you transition into editing constructively and collaboratively. Could you please expedite that transition? VQuakr (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You have no way of knowing what 'weapon' was used, which is why referring to abstracts and not the paper itself is not always optimal, and you should not assume - you should know that. I have addressed all of your points so far, but your framing of the issues begins with the belief that the edit should remain. I disagree - but if this is the consensus then so be it. As it now stands the edit is better written and the references better placed to support the statements made. Stephenjh (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You don't know how to find a paper, given its abstract? Yikes. VQuakr (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, inspite of responding to all you've asked and pointing out various errors, your response is to insult. Presumably, in light of your earlier comments regarding the 'Indian reference', you haven't got past the abstract. Stephenjh (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ot mentioned in article.Air Macine guns used to train World War 2 Gunners.[edit]

Not mentioned in aicle were Air powered BB,machine gun used to train Bomer pilot gunners in Wrld War 2 The fame air gun manufactuer was DAISY Co,Arkansas <USAEddson storms (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)