Talk:Locked breech

[Untitled]
In Locked-breech:References the first reference: appears to me more of a "Blog" type of post than a reliable resource. The refrenced article does not cite any sources. I am not disputing the information in the article, but it seems that a better source is needed. Should it be left as-is, or should better source(s) be identified? N0RC (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)N0RC
 * HI, I'd be inclined to agree that blogs aren't reliable sources, but WP:UGC does note exceptions for post for experts in their fields. We can tentatively consider this a reliable source if the author (who appears to be Firestone, not Davis) is a credible authority on what he writes (something I am not sure about). I certainly don't think anyone would object to replacing it with a better source if you have one. Having a few more sources would be nice for this article. Me, Myself &#38; I (☮) (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting merge into Action (firearms)
Suggest merging this into Action (firearms) as this is a redundant page which is a sub category of action.Digitallymade (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Purpose of the section on recoil?
Not an expert, but it doesn't appear that the section on recoil relates in any way to the rest of the article. Later in the article, recoil is discussed in relation to locked breech actions, but this seems to just be three sentences that describe the phenomenon of recoil. Forgilageord (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)