Talk:Ithaca 37

Disconnector Feature

I removed this entry:

"This is because, unlike most modern pump-action shotguns, the Ithaca 37 had no trigger disconnector. Like the earlier Winchester Model 1897, and Winchester Model 1912, it too fired each time the action closed with the trigger depressed. Some recent sporting versions of the Ithaca 37 have deleted this desirable combat feature for safety reasons."

This was deleted because it's incorrect. The Ithaca 37 was made with three different trigger mechanisms. One was experimental and resembled a later model Remington Model 17 trigger with a proper secondary sear. Now, the original version had a disconnector. This is what causes the gun to fire when the slide is all the way forward. This disconnector engages a lug projecting from the right side of the hammer. When the slide trips the slide release while the trigger is held to the rear, the hammer is released and can strike the firing pin.

On guns WITHOUT the disconnector, the hammer will follow the slide home and rest on the firing pin, but will not fall with any velocity, therefore it won't discharge a round, however the gun will have to be cycled again to recock the hammer. This is a common misconception. You must visually examine guns with and without a disconnector to understand this well. The book referenced at the end of the article is an excellent source of information and explains this well. For laymen, the only way to verify that you have a disconnector gun is to fire it at the range. Both trigger mechanisms will perform similarly when manually cycled without live ammunition. Disconnector, or "Slam Fire" guns will have a projection on the right side of the hammer.Asams10 07:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I have never owned an Ithaca 37 (but do have a Winchester Model 12). Based the input on the book, Hunters & Shooters, which I referenced, and which made the case that the version of the Ithaca 37 that the Navy SEALS used would fire each time the action was cycled with the trigger held down. I (erroneously) thought it applied to all Ithaca 37 shotguns. Thanks! Yaf 13:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duckbill

Removed text because it's anecdotal and beyond the scope of this article. I encourage you to create an article or sub-article under the Shotgun Choke article that describes this choke system. --Asams10 17:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the book reference is not adequate? When does a book become anecdotal? Yaf 17:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed claim that it was uneffective. Do you have a reference saying it was uneffective? Several authors in the book I cited claim to the contrary, that it was very effective. I personally don't argue with multiple US Navy SEALS in their written and published observations :-) Yaf 17:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the oral argument, but I read official accounts which I cannot cite at this time, but all came to the same conclusion. The official finding was that a cylinder choke was substantially identical in effectiveness. While I don't want to argue with the Navy Seals, I'll have to say that one anecdote is as good as another. At any rate, I don't believe that any of this belongs in a section under the Ithaca 37 as it only happens to be the case that this device was attached to the Ithaca instead of other guns. If your fond of the device, I think it is more appropriate that it have its own referenced article instead.--Asams10 19:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We still need to cite a public verifiable record to validate your claims. I am not particularly fond of the duckbill attachment; I only just read about them last week in a book, which I cited. So, I have a very open mind on the topic. Still, I think we need to document your claims; otherwise, they look like POV. Yaf 20:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop reverting, but I suggest that you take the discussion to another article. This is irrelevant to the Ithaca 37 article. I'd like to see those published reports or at least a transcript of the oral history you cite because it disagrees strongly with what I've read.--Asams10 21:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first use of the Ithaca 37 was mentioned, when it was being T&E (Tested and Evaluated) in Vietnam.

"The shotgun with the duckbill was an Ithaca Model 37, and the duckbill was a muzzle attachment that changed the spread of shot from a circle to an oval four times as wide as it ws tall. After we started to get some good hits, I picked up the shotgun as a preferred weapon for close-in, especially around hooches. With the duckbill, you didn't have to lead a moving target as you did with a regular shotgun. The spread of the shot made up for any target movement at the short ranges we fought at. The No. 4 hardened buckshot was my preferred load. Double-ought buck was good, by you could hit more with the greater number of pellets in a No. 4 load. Flechette was also good, at least I thought so. You could hit a man at longer range with it than with a regular shot load."

This is from Master Chief Aviation Ordnanceman Mike Boynton, USN (Ret.), on pp. 79-80 of the cited reference, relative to his tour in Vietnam that started in 1967. Additional sections, written by others, went into considerably more detail regarding the Ithaca Model 37, and it was used more and more, with typically one or two members on each patrol carrying one. If you have any other references on the duckbill attachment, it would be interesting to see what the claimed differences in performance were. Yaf 02:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaf, thanks for your efforts. I reread your comments and looked through the material I have without luck. Here's a logical argument. Even with a duckbull attached and, if you are to believe the claims of 'four times wider' patterns, then you would have n 8" pattern vs. a 2" pattern in a hut. Using number 4 shot is old gun-shop and armchair commando lore. In fact, Number 4 shot penetrates significantly less and is less reliable at stopping. While these sailors certainly had positive things to say, their stories are not emperical. It is my belief that they would have had similar positive experiences using a cylinder or modified cylinder choke and 00 buck. What gets under my skin is anecdotes and conjecture that is contrary to logic and emperical data that gets published as fact. It's voodoo and should be reported as that. At close range, the shot pattern hasn't opened up enough on the vertical plane to make a significant difference. At medium range, the shot pattern has, indeed, opened up, but the 'killing zone' range where the shot is both dense enough to score multiple hits and wide open enough to account for aiming errors is reduced by a factor of four. Further, as the pellets are essentially 'scattered' horizontally and 'full choke' vertically, range errors for hits beyond 30-40 yards are critical. For 'human wave' attacks, this makes it practically useless unless you intend to estimate range and 'hold over' your targets as they charge. Since I obviously can't cite anything emperical, I will appeal to your trust that I have seen the data. Duckbill patterns sporadic and variable. Different loads would pattern wildly different based on the individual choke used. One would be heavy on both ends, some would be heavy in the middle, some would look like a snake that swallowed two large rats. Few patterns resembled the 'holy grail' pattern that is essentially a wide oval. The bottom line being, if they were so good, why didn't they keep using them? I'm sure somewhere in my mounds of research there is the article I seek.--Asams10 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

28 gauge

I added reference to the 28 gauge model. The current Ithaca shows a special order only 28 gauge built on a 28 gauge specific receiver.

US Military Use

Since the US Military bought and used the weapon, shouldn't the US be listed under the Users section?

Thom430 (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The US is listed under the "Users" section. But there was a second "users" section that apparently only included users of the Argentinian variant. It was redundant, since the variant section discusses users, so I deleted it. Felsic2 (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ithaca 37. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

illustration

While the Ithaca 37 has been standard issue with many police departments and was adopted by the US military, most US users were sportsman by sales numbers. A better illustration for the article would be one of the hunting, skeet or trap shooting model variations. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Ithaca 37

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ithaca 37's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Congo":

From M3 submachine gun: Sicard, Jacques (November 1982). "Les armes de Kolwezi". La Gazette des armes (in French). No. 111. pp. 25–30.
From M2 Browning: Sicard, Jacques (November 1982). "Les armes de Kolwezi". La Gazette des armes (in French). No. 111. pp. 25–30. Archived from the original on 2018-10-19. Retrieved 2018-10-18.
From M16 rifle: Sicard, Jacques (November 1982). "Les armes de Kolwezi". La Gazette des armes (in French). No. 111. pp. 25–30. Archived from the original on 19 October 2018. Retrieved 18 October 2018.

Reference named "Bishop":

From M1 Garand: Bishop, Chris (2002). The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II. Sterling Publishing. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-58663-762-0.
From Winchester Model 1895: Bishop, Chris: The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, p. 239. Sterling Publishing, 2002.

Reference named "Jones":

From M1911 pistol: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010. Jane's Information Group. pp. 896, 897, 899. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
From M14 rifle: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010. Jane's Information Group. pp. 893–901. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
From .38 Special: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010. Jane's Information Group. p. 621. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
From Pakistan: Adam Jones (2004). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge. p. 420. ISBN 978-0-415-35384-7.
From Malta: Jones, Huw R. (1973). "Modern emigration from Malta". Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 60 (60): 101–119. doi:10.2307/621508. JSTOR 621508.

Reference named "Capie":

From M16 rifle: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 63–65. ISBN 978-0-86473-453-2.
From M60 machine gun: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 63–65. ISBN 978-0864734532.
From Heckler & Koch MP5: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 70–71. ISBN 978-0864734532.

Reference named "French":

From The Terminator: French, 1996. p. 16
From M1941 Johnson rifle: Vigneras, Marcel (1989) [1957]. Rearming the French (PDF). The United States Army in World War II, Special Studies, Publication 11-6. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, United States Army. p. 252.

Reference named "PRC":

From United States: "Executive Summary: A Population Perspective of the United States". Population Resource Center. May 2000. Archived from the original on June 4, 2007. Retrieved December 20, 2007.
From Pakistan: Miller, Tracy, ed. (7 October 2009). "Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population". Pew Research Center. Archived from the original on 27 March 2010. Retrieved 9 June 2010.

Reference named "Smith":

From North Hollywood shootout: Smith, Doug; Mather, Kate (February 28, 2017). "20 years ago, a dramatic North Hollywood shootout changed the course of the LAPD and policing at large". LA Times. Retrieved June 4, 2018.
From Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle: M14SE “CRAZY HORSE” SQUAD DESIGNATED MARKSMAN (M14SE SDM) AND MK14 SEI RIFLE. Retrieved on September 23, 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]