Talk:Air gun/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge proposal

Should this be merged with pneumatic rifle? Seems to cover the same topic and the first line of this article says they are the same. Don't forget the term BB gun. Rmhermen 14:27, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

The relationship between the airsoft, air gun and BB gun articles

I think there is too much overlap between these three articles. When one looks for information on a particular aspect of this topic, one sometimes finds it scattered across all three.

Please consider the following propositions:

I propose: 1. That the BB gun article be merged with the air gun article. 2. That the portions of the airsoft article relating to the mechanics and operation of airsoft guns be moved to the air gun. 3. That the airsoft article restrict itself to the sport of airsoft (including required equipment not thoroughly canvassed in other Wikipedia articles

So, in essence I propose that we have one article for the sport/game of airsoft and one for air guns (whether designed for the sport of airsoft or not.

I'm posting this on the talk pages of all three articles. Please give us your thoughts. If there's no great opposition to this I'll go ahead and make the edits, but I thought it was only fair to raise the matter with contributors first. Wulfilia 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Usage Tips

Under Usage Tips, can someone clarify the 2,500rd break-in period? I've personally never needed more than a few dozen rounds to cook the maker's grease.

Also, does someone have the time to write more about the differences in recoil and handling, elaborating on "Get comfortable with your airguns first.". Moreover, should we add a bit about Airgun Safety? --LuciferBlack 04:13, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

The 2,500 round break-in claim seems to be traceable to the questionable writings of Robert Beeman, who copied a lot from Robert Law and Ladd Fanta without noting the context. The old leather-sealed guns that used heavy grease were very different from modern, minimally lubed guns with synthetic seals. This claim is also found on Pyramid's "blog" (http://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2005/05/bad-vibes.html).

My own experience- and I tested a lot of guns for American Airgun, as well as my own- was that most modern guns need no break-in whatsoever. Michael Edelman 2:39 26 Jan 2007 (EST)

It looks like those "Usage tips" have been removed from the article a while back. --Claygate 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm

This is going to come across as being extremely inappropriate, but I genuinely believe in my heart of hearts that my own article on this topic at Everything2 [1] is generally of a higher standard than this one; ableit that it is written for a different audience, and in a chattier, more openly entertaining style - I was trying to emulate [The Straight Dope] rather than an encyclopaedic. I am loath to edit this page at all, for fear of seeming like an egoist, and I know that my edits will eventually amount to replacing entire paragraphs. But it's there, at the back of my mind.-Ashley Pomeroy 19:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, WP:AGF
  • I think the article you refer to is rather childish and not something that should be emulated here. For example,

"As an offensive weapon, air rifles would be extremely handy in a world where human beings are made out of jelly, assuming that these jelly-beings do not wear thick clothing. Unfortunately, in the real world, air rifles are not unless one welds a bayonet to the end of the barrel, in which case the rifle becomes an expensive, heavy, fragile pike."[2]

Stephenjh 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Read-only requested

This page should be re-edited and the locked-out (read-only) to prevent vandals and jerks to keep putting obscenities in it.

I'm new in wikipedia, so please anybody help. Thanks.

WP:AGF if we locked every page that had an incident of vandalism, Wikipedia would turn into an ordinary online encyclopedia editable only by the elite Admins. As it is, I find more people with good intentions editing this page than vandals and jerks, so perhaps the balance is what is necessary rather than the restriction.64.90.198.6 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Airsofts should be kept entirely separate

I can't research real airguns anymore without the interference of the "6mm BB." For crying out loud, a plastic "Airsoft" projectile could by no means be used as either a Ball Bearing or a shotshell load between 'B' and 'BBB' size! All BBs are 4.5mm steel or lead shot, period. As far as I'm concerned Airsofts are for people who can't afford paintball. They should be confined to their own Wiki page, subsumed under 'Airgun' and tucked well into a back corner of a subscript of a link, maybe on "fake guns" or "replicas." 67.163.0.9 13:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)semiautopellet

"So long as some liquid CO2 remains in the reservoir, a constant vapour pressure results in constant velocity over a wide range of ambient temperatures without the need for a pressure regulator."

CO2 is not liquified under pressure by the way.

It is unless it's warmer than carbon dioxide's critical point, 31.1°C (88.0°F). See [3]. Air guns usually use pressure of a few hundred atm, so it's certainly liquid below that. -- Jao 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

When you get a big cylinder of CO2 from the bottled gas store, you have a choice of syphon-type or non-syphon, according to whether you want the cylinder to dispense liquid CO2 from the bottom or gas from the top. You never see liquid CO2 because it instantly turns to a mixture of dry ice and gas at atmospheric pressure.--Another name 00:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, yeah, should we change it so that it doesn't refer to pressurized CO2 as "liquid gas?" not only does it sound oxymoronic, but I was under the impression that carbon dioxide, being a sublimating substance, is either gas or solid. Just a little confusing there. 64.90.198.6 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"Liquid gas" is an accepted term--for example, in the term liquified petroleum gas. While CO2 does sublimate at standard pressure (14.7 psi), that's only because the vapor pressure at room temperature is about 50 times atmospheric (700 psi). If you take CO2 liquid and compress it to that vapor pressure, you will liquify the gas. This is opposed to liquifying, say, nitrogen, which is done by cooling it at standard pressure. If you burst a CO2 catridge (say, by punching a 1/8" hole right trough the seal) what happens is that the liquified gas instantly sublimates, and in doing so, gets very, very cold. So cold, in fact, that some if it turns into CO2 snowflakes--little bits of dry ice. I figured this one out making a spigot mortar that used 12 gram powerlets, and punched the seal with a nail to trigger it. You'd get a loud "THUMP" as the PVC and foam rocket launched, and then there would be a small dusting of CO2 snow around the base of the spigot that would quickly sublimate away. Never did spend much time shooting it though--at US$0.50 a shot it was too expensive to play with much.
On the other hand, you are right in that it's confusing, so I'll see about changing that... scot 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Could we have a picture please? Thank you. Later!!! Chili14 (Talk) 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Regarding the airgun image. Thanks for adding that image but the labelling is incorrect, airguns don't have "Bullet Holes" as they don't fire bullets. It should be labeled "bore". Bullet holes are what appear in a target after a gun has been fired.
  • I used "bullet hole" because the "bullet" goes into a hole. So, "bullet hole"! I'll reupload a fixed image soon. Thank you for saying something about it. --AnonymousOrc 14:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. The PSD is available for easier alterations if required. --AnonymousOrc 14:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making the effort to do that. My point was based on the difference between a bullet and a pellet). Airguns don't fire bullets, by definition.

CO2 cannot be stored in gun?

As I understand it, if a CO2 powerlet is left in an airgun it burns the seals. This is a pretty big negative as one has to fire off the excess gas before retiring the gun until the next shoot, thus wasting an energy source that is not free to charge (unlike a spring/gas ram gun). If this is true it should be included in the relevant section to balance things. It's an even bigger issue with Crosman's new Airsource 88g units: if you just fire half a dozen shots you've wasted an entire cannister which has to be emptied if you don't plan to shoot again very shortly after (I don't want to go hunting with a power source that cost me £12 if I only fire off half a dozen shots and I have to use the rest firing "blanks" or shooting at tin cans). Can something with greater knowledge than me please comment? 86.7.209.101 00:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends. CO2 doesn't "burn" the seal, there's no chemical reaction involved. What does happen is that the seal is left under compression, and can eventually "set" into the compressed position. Once the seal sets, it will have trouble sealing again. However, this is not a big deal, a new seal is about US$0.50 or so. Modern plastic seals are far better about this than old leather or rubber seals (leather is used in pump pneumatics, maybe in CO2 as well). These degrade naturally with age--standard black rubber O-rings are subject to the same thing, after years of use they get hard and brittle and start to crack and leak. I have stored CO2 in my guns (Crosman 357, 2240, 2210, 1008, Daisy 693) and the only problem I had was with the Daisy. I left a partial CO2 cartridge in place for a couple of months, and when I unscrewed it, it twisted the piercing cap, seal, and O-ring loose. I had to replace the O-ring, because it got cut when I was fiddling with the CO2 cartridge trying to get it out, but I bought a 10 pack for under US$1 at the local hardware store to replace it, and it's still going strong years later.
One problem that you do encounter with seals is opening a CO2 catridge when it's still partially full. This dumps all the gas past the piercing cap seal, and this freezes it--really cold, I've actually seen dry ice snow form by dumping a 12 gram cartridge all at once, and that's about 189 Kelvin as I recall. This will make most soft materials brittle, such as the plastics used in the seal, and tightening or even further loosening of the seal might fracture it and cause a leak.
The thing to remember though is that all seals are expendable; dirt, age, wear, solvents, pressure cycles, and temperature cycles can all take their toll. Do what you want, and keep a spare piercing cap seal or two handy, or you can use a bit of thick grease as an emergency seal. Most airguns are actually pretty easy to take apart and repair, and I know that Daisy and Crosman will send you parts lists if you contact them. I assume if these low end companies will be so helpful, and higher end company ought to have even better customer service. scot 03:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

This article is very informative and contains a lot of worthy content, however it is a bit disorganised (IMHO) and could do with a good clean up. Anyone else agree? Stephenjh

Yep, that it could. I fixed the powerplant section a bit, still needs some work; for one example, the PCP and the old resevior guns are actually the same concept (many, many pumps to fill, multiple shots per fill). I moved the pneumatic piston up to spring-piston, those are the same technology, just one uses a steel spring, one an air spring--in fact you can buy drop-in pneumatic springs for many spring-piston guns. scot 03:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Airgun & Child photo

Do we really need a photo of a 7 year old child and airgun? I don't think it really adds anything to the encyclopeadic nature of the article.

Yes and no. The picture in question may be a case of someone wanting to stick their son's picture in the article, but air guns and BB guns are the choice for young shooters. A better choice might be, say, a Cub Scout shooting a BB gun, or the NRA's junior shooting badge, as it would tie in air guns to organized youth shooting. scot 15:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought the article would be better served by example photos of the various types of rifles, for example (which I have tried to upload). I just think the photo doesn't illustrate or explain anything in particular. Perhaps just a comment that air guns are "starting points" for many shooters would suffice, but that also gives an impression that they're used (mainly) by youths, which I don't think they are, there are thousands of adult airgunners globally. (IMHO) Stephenjh
It's a gateway drug, y'see. First they start out with a BB gun, then move up to a .22 rifle, and before you know it they're grown up and moving away to BulletHead University packing uzis and MP5Ks in their trenchcoats... *sniff*

Ummm, yeah...right. ? Stephenjh 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pellet article

The pellet article is getting to loaded with other meanings and I think the air gun usage needs to be split out. Go to Talk:Pellet to discuss. scot 15:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Big-Bores

without a doubt, big bore air rifles are among the most powerful. logic would dictate that, of course, due to the mass of the bullet. however, one line says, "such as the .45, .50, and .68 calibre paintballs" paintball markers are among the most powerful? it qualifies for the classification of a bigbore airgun, but i think it is a little misleading as a reader would associate something like a .50 shinsung dragon slayer with a sub 350fps paintball marker. i will leave it to someone else to reword this. 198.166.226.14 00:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Hopefully I did it justice. Great justice! 64.90.198.6 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

theres a citation needed for the korean airgun statement. here's a link to the shin-sung site; i'm not good with the coding. http://www.shinsungrifle.com/html/eng/main.htm 66.222.214.217 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry, wrong link: http://www.shinsungrifle.com/html/eng/body3.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.222.214.217 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Big bore air gun manufacturers

Big bore compressed air rifle manufacturers (ie Gary Barnes, ...) aren't mentioned. Also, I'm not sure whether big bore compressed air sniper rifles exist, ie is the kinetic energy of the http://www.blueline-studios.com/kuengairguns.com/news.html high enough to be named a big bore rifle ?

SPRING HAZARD

I tried to make a change, and the bot decided it was vandalism. Does it think c_ck is a dirty word?

"The spring in a spring piston air gun is very powerful and is held back by a sear that has a very small engagement area. There have been cases of severe crushing and even amputation when the spring has been released unexpectedly. " MY ATTEMPTED CHANGE: Because of this, break barrel spring piston guns should never be c_cked before loading, and the breech should never be left open with the gun c_cked. The proper loading procedure is to open the breech just until it rests on the spring loaded stop, insert the pellet, and then c_ck the gun. If you are not shooting immediately after loading, you can load the gun without c_cking it and c_ck it just before shooting to reduce the risk of accidental discharge. If you forget to load before c_cking or if you decide not to shoot, you can dec_ck the gun by pulling the barrel hard against the spring as if c_cking it and pulling the trigger, then slowly bringing the barrel forward to release the spring tension. Note that this method of dec_cking is only for spring piston guns! Be sure you understand the mechanism of your particular gun. --17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Another name

  • A good point, well made. I have inserted it under it's own heading "Safe Loading". Hopefully no 'bot will revert or spoil it. Stephenjh

The "safe loading" paragraph is flawed....

First, a breakbarrel gun should not necessarily be loaded with a pellet prior to cocking. There's 2 reasons for this.

1) Many guns do not allow this to be done easily. Even when the breach is cracked open, some rifles do not have sufficient clearance to allow a pellet to be inserted. This requires a user to hold the barrel partially open with one hand (against the mainspring) and attempt to feed a pellet with the other, while holding the gun under the armpit. Very awkward, and it's easy to pinch fingers.

2) Cocking the gun with a pellet already in the breach increases the chance that the pellet will inadvertently be shaken out during the cocking stroke. If the shooter doesn't notice this, the result is a "dry-fire", which can damage the gun.

Second, many (if not most) modern break-barrels cannot be de-cocked as described. They have an "anti-beartrap" that prevents the trigger from being pulled when the breach is open. This is to prevent "barrel slam" because that could also damage or destroy the gun. The only modern ones I know of that CAN be "de-cocked" are the very cheap and unreliable Chinese B1 and B2 series, and the Xisico B20/B26 (and probably the Beeman R9 it's copied from).

Third, there is really no reason a shooter would get his or her fingers far enough into the mechanism that a severe injury would likely result... at least not during a normal loading procedure. The injury problem is far more common with the "sliding compression tube" type of breach, as is found in many Chinese underlever and sidelever guns and the RWS 48/52/54 series.

More good points. I recall it being the HW77 (and similar) that seemed to make people cautious about their loading habits / fingers. I assumed methods of loading had changed since I began shooting, it's not a method I have ever used with my own break barrel. I have removed the text for now, maybe it can be modified, even reduced to a sentence or two, or eventually the section on "Springers" broken down into break-barrel, under-lever, side-lever and a word of warning added in the appropriate section. Stephenjh 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Rather hilarious that people here seem to be more worried about damaging their guns than, for example, destroying someone's eye (which happened to someone I know a couple of days ago - even though the gun in question wasn't even loaded. Let's have a section on safety, please, written by someone who knows what they're talking about.

Exile 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a manual. If you want to write something suitable, go for it. Stephenjh 07:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

'Inaudible'

The end of the first paragraph had this tacked on the end: "One might also assume that the sound of an air gun would have been inaudible against the noise of a pitched battle."

Unsourced, and while not blatantly false, it does give the impression that air guns are silent (which they are not). I certainly wouldn't mind it if somebody would find data on the noise of muskets/blunderbuss rifles vs. air guns, but as it stands this statement needed to be rewritten at the least. --Edwin Herdman 05:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Legality

What license (if any) would be required to own and use a .177 air rifle in the United Kingdom? Liamoliver 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the power; under 12 ft lbs of muzzle energy (calculated by w * v / 450800, with w being pellet weight in grains, v being velocity in feet per second) it's considered an air rifle and has relatively few restritions; over 12 ft lbs of energy it's considered a firearm and requires an FAC. For more details, try asking at http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/backyardmarksmanship/, as there are a number of British members in the group who should be able to tell you more about the particulars of the laws there. scot 18:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
So basically as long as I purchase one below that specification I don't need a license? And is the age limit 16 or 18? Liamoliver 17:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm seeing, and it looks as though the minimum age is 18 for purchase or unsupervised possession, 14 years for possession with adult (21 years or older) supervision. Here's a quote from http://www.cybershooters.org/law.htm:
2) Firearms not requiring a licence - essentially pistols powered by compressed air or carbon dioxide with a muzzle energy of 6 ft/lb or less or rifles powered by compressed air or carbon dioxide with a muzzle energy of 12 ft/lb or less. These types of firearms can only be possessed without supervision (by a person aged 21 or older) by a person aged 18 or older (with certain limited exceptions for sporting use, and for pest control by people aged 14 or older), or acquired by a person aged 18 or older who is not prohibited from owning firearms.
scot 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

Lead image in the article should be a free image of reasonable quality. Could somebody take one? vlad§inger tlk 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gunpowder in pellets? Smoke?

Hi, Do pellets have any sort of gun powder in at all? or is a pellet moved bcoz of the compressed air in the gun? if yes, how comes smoke comes out of the barrel afterwards? Ryan4314 12:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, mostly, and depends.
First, gunpowder. Nearly all airgun ammunition is just inert metal, with the one exception of the Daisy VR system. The VR system included a solid block of propellant at the rear of the pellet, much like the modern Pyrodex pellets (only smokeless). Unlike modern caseless ammunition, it had no primer, but was ignited by being fired in a special spring piston airgun. The extremly high temperatures generated by the compression of the air was enough to ignite the propellant, which greatly boosted the power of the airgun.
Second, compressed air. Compressed gas is used in airguns for most or all of the power; this may be compressed at the moment of firing, in a spring piston gun, just before firing, in a single or multi-stroke pneumatic, or far ahead of time as in a precharged pneumatic or a CO2 gun.
Last, the smoke. Gases heat up when compressed, and cool when they're allowed to expand. In the case of a CO2 gun or a pneumatic gun, the "smoke" is actually caused by very cold gases, the result of rapid cooling of decompressing gas; what you see is generally the humidity in the air condensing to form tiny clouds. In a spring piston gun, the smoke really is smoke. The piston of a spring piston gun needs to be kept lubricated, so the piston will slide easily inside the cylinder, and the lubricant also helps the piston form a tight seal to prevent air from escaping. When the air is compressed and heats up, it gets hot enough to cause some of this lubricant (generally something similar to non-detergent 10W40 motor oil) to burn. This actually does provide some of the power; this has been shown by replacing the air, which is about 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen, with pure nitrogen. The gun filled with pure nitrogen, which is not reactive enough to burn the oil, loses some velocity. Some airguns, like the Mexican Mendoza brand, as I recall, actually have you over-oil the cylinder to generate more power. Most airguns, however, are not designed to burn more than a tiny bit of oil, and the detonation of the oil (called "dieseling", since it's basically the same process diesel engines use) can actually damage the piston. scot 14:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Product Placement

Could someone take anothe picture of some pellets without advertizing fo a chewing gum company please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.57.214 (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


It is not advertising - it is for a sense of scale. There is no need to be so absurd. 81.154.184.29 (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 

     It is mildly innapropriate, the use of a coin would be a far more sensible option and avoids any such problems 88.105.77.208 (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparisation to regular (gas-propelled) guns

A comparisation between the custum airguns and regular weapons should be included, to show that these weapons (when set to max) are comparable with them in terms of power (aldough it should be mentioned that at these settings only a handful shots may be fired and that they are thus unusable as military firearm, ...

I already calculated that most airrifles attain a kinetic energy of 30-70 joules or 200 bars and that regular pistols (9mm) attain a kinetic energy of 530 joules or 2700 bar. The custum airrifles would probably however attain a comparable kinetic energy to the 9mm gas-propelled pistols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.192.177 (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crosman Classic 2104X.jpg

Image:Crosman Classic 2104X.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pellet Sizes.jpg

Image:Pellet Sizes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation to sport shooting events

The new disambiguation approach is much more concise than the old one, but it introduces a problem: "air pistol" and "air rifle" often mean 10 m Air Pistol and 10 m Air Rifle respectively, but "air gun", on its own, never does. Therefore, these entries really don't belong on Air gun (disambiguation). So how should we best aid the reader looking up "air rifle" to get information about the sport shooting event? As I see it, either we must still mention these meanings (but not the three actual alternative meanings of "air gun") on this page, or Air rifle must be turned into a disambiguation page itself, forking out to this page and to 10 m Air Rifle (and with the corresponding treatment given to Air pistol of course). -- Jao (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it might be possible to do this with an extended intro, as it was too short anyway. I gave it a try. -- Jao (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely, someone "looking up "air rifle"" should be directed to "air rifle" not a sporting event. Can't that be covered within the article? Stephenjh (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, and I think it is now. Thanks for helping out with this. -- Jao (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal Issues

This section is becoming longer and longer and seems unnecessary. Is a list of nations and their gun laws what one would expect to find in an encyclopeadia under 'airgun'? I think the whole section should be deleted, or maybe moved to another article. Stephenjh (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, agreed on the splitting of that topic to a separate article. --claygate (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on splitting air gun related gun laws to a seperate article.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the section today, creating a separate article for Air gun laws of the World (if anyone is really interested). Hopefully it will reduce the unnecessary clutter on the main Air gun article. Stephenjh (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps a lot with the length and readability. --claygate (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardridges

Can belt-type cardridges also be used in air guns ? See the Nailgun-article (image completely below) ? If so, include in article (text+image) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.178.205 (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Blowgun

One would think that blowguns would be the oldest air guns. Or does it not count when the pressure is from human lungs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.143.66 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Just a question, sicne a picture got me rather excited. The rifle which is shown for the spring action, what model/make/name is it? I have 2 of them exactly the same, made in hungary, with serial numbers, and would like to know their specifications. Many thanks

  • If you have two of them you're probably in a better position to tell us the details.


EDIT:The two I ahve were passed down to me by my father, so they're about 30 years old. He can't remember what model they are or where he got them. A Captian I once served under suggested that they were probally a certain brand, but I can't remember what that is. Hopefully if he knows, someone else here will know.

EDIT: The gun shown was manufactured by FEG in Hungary. I own an identical example. It may have been sold as a Relum or Telly brand name. FEG air rifles were also sold under the Grothaus and Neckermann brands, but I am not sure about this particular model. JS144man (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Clipped sentence needs fixing

In the section 'Gas piston guns' the last sentence is truncated '5 mm projectile at'...

calibers

the airgun calibers are wrong (in mm) there is no 5.6mm (shoud be 5.5), and 6.4 shoud be 6.35 (I think 5.1 shoud be 5.0, but these I'm not sure). And the most powerfull airgun is diana 350 magnum which can shot a pellet at 360 m/s

This page should be re-edited and the locked-out (read-only) to prevent vandals and jerks to keep putting obscenities in it

  • Actually that's nonsense. Airgun calibres vary between countries. In Europe the Metric system is used and this produces barrels in (for example) 5.5mm calibre. In the UK, the old Imperial system produces barrels with a calibre of .22" (inches) and that, when converted to Metric, is closer to 5.6mm. This anomaly exists in the three main calibres .177, .22 and .25. and is one of the reasons that it is possible to purchase different sized pellets according to whether your barrel originated in the UK or Europe.
  • The most powerfull airgun is not the Diana 350 Magnum either. It is one of the most powerful spring powered rifles, but certain precharged rifles are capable of more power than that, and more to the point, better accuracy too.

this is so messed up. so much wrong info.

You cant learn anything here. Micko32 (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

For instance? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

rewrite or delete

Air_gun#Dart ---> WP:NOTHOWTO

186.58.198.133 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the section; it was uncited, just a "how-to", like you say. Haploidavey (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

various corrections

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"

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

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 (talk • contribs)
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 (talk • contribs)
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 (talk • contribs)
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.

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_gun/Archive_1&oldid=1216196979"