Talk:Firing pin

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Firing pin. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.americancopmagazine.com/articles/xd/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Disputed edit

This edit by Ain92 has been reverted by me with the summary: not realy an improvement. Pls discuss. It is not really appropriate to reinstate without discussion. See also this edit, for a copy-edited version of the text The first issue would be the inserted image of the Dreyse needle gun. It is an evolutionary dead-end and not helpful to readers, particularly without context in the article body. There is then an issue with the text added to "cock-on-close". It removes what are quite reasonably the two most icon examples - ie The Mauser M 98 and M1903 Springfield rifles are two notable examples ... The text would now read: Introduced in Mauser Model 1871 initially to remove the risk of accidental discharge upon closing, the system became a staple after Gewehr 98's success and it is used almost exclusively (barring straight-pull rifles) in modern center-fire rifle designs. I know that the article isn't all that well referenced but it would be nice if you could provide a reference for this. It probably isn't correct to say that the risk is removed but reduced. A "staple" generally refers to a food crop. There is an issue with (barring straight-pull rifles), The two sections are preceded by Striker-fired (or similar) bolt action firearms may be classified as cock-on-close or cock-on-open (similar, being a linear hammer). Part of the added text is therefore redundant. Straight-pull rifles are not a "bolt action" although their breechblock typically (but not exclusively) has a round cross-section and is referred to as a "bolt", nor are all straight-pull rifles striker operated (or similar, having a linear hammer). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Dreyse has most likely invented the concept of a firing pin (even though I wasn't able to find a source on that), therefore I believe it's worth mentioned his designs here. Could you please specify, in what sense his striker is a dead end? From my understanding, all the firing pins for centerfire cartridges are direct evolutionary descendants of their earlier analogs in the needle guns.
• You have confused modern Mauser M 98, a modern civilian weapon, with either G98 rifle, Kar98k carbine or both, it is the latter ones not the former which is iconic. Also, Springfield 1903 is not so iconic outside of the United States: in Eastern Europe, Middle East and China Mosin-Nagant is much better known (in fact, unlike Mauser and Springfield it's actually still used in modern military conflicts, e. g., in Syria and Ukraine), and in France MAS-36 would be a better example. That's why I propose to only retain the G98.
• On Mauser 71 here's a source literally saying "remove" (do you have a source stating that the problem continued?), and here's a source on a 2006 straight-pull rifle (however, I'm aware that quite a few modern straight-pull rimfires cock-on-open).
• A staple is not just a food crop, but also 'something that forms an important part of something else' ([1]), which is a sense I used. You are free to reformulate it, I just wanted to write that it's very common now.
• Straight-pull is indeed overwhelmingly considered a bolt action (see, e. g., Bolt action#Straight pull), I'm surprised that one of the authors of the article doesn't know that. The aforementioned 2006 rifle does indeed have a striker; moreover, rotating bolt action rifles may not have a striker as well (counter-examples are Remington-Keene rifle and Palmer carbine). Ain92 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• The Dreyse image was placed with no context in the text of the article. It is consequently inappropriate. Therein is the main concern. The general concept itself was short-lived and not widely taken up.
• Yes, a link to Gewehr 98 would be better. I would maintain that there should be two (or three) examples but certainly not an exhaustive list.
• You have a source and it should have been cited. "Removed" (rather than significantly reduced) is a bold claim but it is stated in the source.
• The Browning T bolt is neither fish nor fowl but is partially cocked, then fully cocked on the opening and closing actions of the cycle (see here) a little like the Glock. There are always novel designs.
• It is true that firearms terminology is often loosely and inconsistently applied but WP is never considered a reliable source (per your Bolt action#Straight pull). A straight-pull action does not use the rotate-and-pull operation of the bolt-action. A bolt is a breeckblock with a nominally round cross-section. A rotating bolt found in many semi and automatic firearms are not called "bolt action". Not all straight pull rifles have a bolt (ie their breechblock is not nominally round) (eg M1895 Lee Navy). Not all firearms with a bolt use a striker mechanism. Many will use a linear hammer that is often termed a "striker". Many assault rifles with a rotating bolt use a conventional hammer (such as the SLR). Even some straight-pull rifles use a conventional hammer (SAF Lithgow Target Rifle - it also doesn't have a "bolt"). As I have said, firearms terminology is often inconsistently applied but we can strive for some consistency in and between our articles. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • How was the general concept short-lived? All bolt-actions before 1871 AFAIK that weren't manually cocked (indeed a popular idea in the 1860s, not limited to bolt-actions at all) were cock-on-close (e. g., Berdan No. 2), all Lee-designed bolt actions and their derivatives since 1878 (including the Lee-Enfield that was produced into the 1960s), most if not all export Mausers between 1889 and 1898 were, all the Arisakas (but surprisingly, not the earlier Muratas) were, even the P13/P14/M1917 Enfield family designed well after the G98 was. There continuously were cock-on-close rifles in service with at least one major military for a century until bolt-actions were obsolete as service rifles!
  • As a compromise, what about having a G98, a Mosin-Nagant and some French rifle of your choice (they were all cock-on-open since Gras) listed there?
  • Should have been according to our rules but it's not always practical, sometimes I look at the article and write stuff from my memory because I don't remember which source I took it from, I have to specifically google it (and can't even always find it, e. g. if it was from a video), for which I don't often have time.
  • Hm, I checked several search queries and wasn't able to find a better example or a RS, so if you don't know any newly-designed cock-on-close actions then I can agree we could remove the contested phrase in brackets altogether.
  • Even though with the concession above this point is moot, nothing less than Britannica includes straight-pulls bolts into bolt action. My wording was unfortunate, I agree that a few straight-pulls fall into this category of exotics which may or may not be considered bolt-actions (there are also straight-pulls on the market like Romarm MLR that are based on assault rifle mechanics but cycled manually), but I wasn't thinking about them. Ain92 (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• How was the general concept short-lived? I am referring to the cartridge which had the primer at the base of the projectile about which the rifle was designed and necessitated the "peculiar" firing pin. This article is particularly about the "firing pin". Operation of the striker is something of an aside. We may be talking at cross-purposes. My point still stands and is supported by image use policy. One can't just drop this image in without appropriate context in the article text.
• We both agree on the G98, I will accept the Mosin-Nagant as your suggestion though I think we should retain the Springfield for several reasons. It is the significant example from Anglophone countries and this is En WP. The Spingfield's article, in dealing with its development, specifically talks to the adoption of the cock-on-open operation and compliments what is being said here.
• OK, we now have a reference.
• I similarly looked and couldn't find any. Yes, remove the phrase in brackets and that issue is solved.
• As I said, firearms terminology can be quite ambiguous and inconsistent. We have "bolt action" and we have "straight-pull action". Bolt action firearms are all related by a common mechanical principle. Any similarity with a straight-pull action is usually in outward appearance only - it looks a bit the same so we (some people) will lump them together. Yet if we are talking about the two side-by-side (as here) they are clearly not the same.
• I think we can agree on the text bit that can be re-added. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, now I finally got your point (that it's about the length of the needle and the primer placement). Would you mind if I return the image along with adding to the text that the firing pin was invented by Pauly along with the first self-contained cartridge and first adopted with the Dreyse rifle even despite the location of the "primer" (the percussion cap? Not sure about the terminology in this context) at the base of the projectile was unfortunate?
  • I added Gras, Mosin and Springfield (also, replaced the "staple"). Ain92 (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I copy-edited your prose IAW summary style. And the compromise was for three examples - yours, mine and one we both agreed upon.
• I have no intrinsic objection to a section that might include the Dreyse and the pinfire cartridge. The issue would be how and where. This article is about firing pins generally. It is not a complete firearms history. The version before my redraft started from the basis of the metallic cartridge. It is conceptually easy to present. I did consider introducing some of the earlier attempts but chose not to go down that rabbit hole. It is too easy to get sidetracked while overly complicating things. However, here is a proposal IAW your suggestion. It needs citations yet (I know where to get them) and some images can be added: yours for the Dreyse and one from the Pinfire cartridge article (the revolver). I'm still not certain if it is in quite the right place or if the cartridge section might need to be moved further down so we aren't putting the horse before the cart. Sequencing was always going to be a problem. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I wanted to show the time schedule of the adoption of cock-on-close but you appear to view that as somewhat a sidetracking (which I disagree with, but I'm tired enough not to insist). What I disagree the most in your copyedit that you present "the risk of accidental discharge upon closing" as a still actual problem while it is not, and in fact there are many other reasons to prefer cock-on-close: one I can now take from the top of my head which I encountered in the context of 1870s was the easiness of cocking in the presence of excessive/sticky/dried grease inside the bolt by hitting the (straight) bolt handle with a palm.
  • I believe that readers expect to find a section about the origin and development of the firing pin, they want to google "who invented the firing pin", get an answer about Pauly and be directed to our article. I agree we wouldn't want to center the aforementioned section on the development of a modern cartridge but the topic seems somewhat impossible to get around altogether. Ain92 (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ain92, your intent of showing a timeline was not clear; therefore, it is arguable that you didn't achieve your intent. What can be said is that once it appeared it was fairly quickly widely adopted. The SMLE pretty much belies any significant advantage in operation. To the edit "significantly reduces" v "removes". Yes, the source says removes but it is an exceptional claim that it is altogether removed. For an exceptional claim in WP we generally require more like a consensus in sources. I was being a little circumspect - which isn't a bad thing. Significantly or substantially removed does not imply it is still a problem of consequence. A section on cock-on-close should be in proportion to the rest of the article else it could be another article.

• Did you see the proposed amendment? It pretty much says that Pauly invented the firing pin, though I haven't seen a good quality source that explicitly says that? Even as to his cartridge, it is generally attributed to him and his (lesser) partner. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Is wording "significantly reduced" in the past tense fine for you? As of "fairly quickly", export Mausers were newly designed with cock-on-open all the way into mid-1890s, that's basically a quarter of the century since the invention of cock-on-close in the very same company. Not what I would call "quickly".
  • I did, and it IMHO centers around the cartridges too much. We should rather write along the lines of "Pauly (with the help of Prelat) invented the firing pin in order to fire his revolutionary cartridge, made from paper, in his equally revolutionary breechloader, and Pauly's apprentice Dreyse refined the design in order to be adopted for the Prussian military". We don't even have to mention pinfire there. Ain92 (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry but I am not understanding your first point. Too your second. While Dreyse may have been Pauly's apprentice, Dreyse's rifle is not a refinement of Pauli's concept but a different approach to the problem. It also reads too much like a WP:SYNTHesis of events. As to the pinfire, it is an example of an early firing pin. Though not in the context of a firearm component, this article is about firing pins generally - not just as a firearm component. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ordinance vs. Ordnance

Per merriam webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ordinance) ordinance (with an "i") is defined as authoritative order or degree. While ordnance (without an "i") is defined as military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ordnance). What needs to be done to have my change reverted back to accept "ordnance" without an "i"? Thank you. Hillarin (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)