User talk:Winged Brick

My First Message

You must not want anyone to leave a message. This talk page redirect to your user page. And the user page redirects to your talk page. If that's really what you mean to do, then revert this.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Actually, I was playing to see what it would do and didn't fix it yet. Wasn't as cool as I thought it would be. Did you have a comment that I preempted with my experiment? --Winged Brick (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in particular. Was just looking at your pages and noticed that redirect thing. Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mousegun

Before redirecting/deleting entire pages, it is generally considered proper to open a discussion on the talk page of the article in question, e.g., mousegun, and even post a merge tag on the article pointing to a discussion for a period of 5 days or so, building consensus. Otherwise, one editor's unilateral decision to delete content is viewed as vandalism. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I really wasn't aware that "Mousegun" contained content of any significant value beyond the pejorative definition. --Winged Brick (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"The patent on which the shotgun was based is Browning's"-Win Model 12

Actually, the only part of Bowning's 1893 patent which was carried forward into the Model 1912 was the reloading carrier: the bolt and trigger lock were all Johnson's.--Solicitr (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Replacement text in M16 rifle

This replacement stuff the IP user keeps adding to the M16 article is mainly about replacing the M4 Carbine. So I don't think that belongs anywhere in the M16 article. Just thought I'd point out another reason to remove this stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AK-74 edits?

Hi, I've seen you've been keeping the vandals at bay, appreciate that, but some of your other edits are a bit cryptic and confusing. What for isntance do you mean by "firearm" "Rifle" and "Weapon" not interchangeable" in tke AK-74 article? I used that wording to diversify the vocabulary, make the article seem a little more publish-worthy. Koalorka (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Firearms are not just weapons, though, they are tools. One cannot use the term "Weapon" to completely describe a firearm. It's not only imprecise, but it adds a usage connotation when the VAST majority of times a firearm is used, it is not used as a weapon. The term weapon is somewhat pejorative in this instance implying that is the tool's primary use when it so clearly is not... even in time of war. --Winged Brick (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I'm all for abolishing the incorrect fear-mogering media phraseology on semi-automatic sporting arms in civilian hands, but the AK-74 is a selective fire weapon of the Red Army, there are no illusions there, we aren't going to start sanitizing basic facts. I see you are a relatively new editor, read the WP:Firearms directives, eyeball the talk page to get an idea about standards and policies and remember to discuss before introducing dramatic changes. Welcome aboard. Koalorka (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and elaborate. It's a logic thing. While the AK-74 is USED as a weapon, that doesn't necessarilly make it a weapon. For instance, a knife is a tool that is sometimes used as a weapon. In fact, knives are the prefect analogy. If you have an article on knives use the term "weapon" instead of "knife", you are implying intent. Weapon has an imlication of usage that goes far beyond the reality of the situation. A sword is a weapon. A grenade is a weapon. An assault rifle is occasionally used as a weapon, yes, however it is much more often used for target practice... when we go down that road we are ignoring the basic fact that a rifle is a tool and has no predetermined usage requirements. For instance, if I collect rifles, those rifles are not weapons anymore, they are ornaments. Does my collecting change their nature? No. What of hunting, target practice, or flare projecting? Do those activities, all possible with firearms, change the nature of the firearms that are used for these purposes? Think "Sniper Rifle". What makes a sniper rifle different from a hunting rifle or a self-defense pistol? The nature or intended use of a firearm are irrelevant to the basic design and function of a firearm. A firearm is a tool used to accelerate a projectile... THAT's IT. A rifle stabilizes the projectile by spinning it. A weapon is an useage for the rifle that is in no way implicit by its design. --Winged Brick (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying is fine with civilian firearms, I'm not going to go into semantics about nomenclature, that is something for the entire project to determine, not the two of us, but literature worldwide refers to military small arms as weapons, and that's what we will continue using interchangeably until a consensus against that is reached. Regards. Koalorka (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To draw a distinction between firearms based on "civilian" and "military" is not productive either. They are rifles first, sometimes weapons. Much like men are humans first, rapists sometimes. Just because a man is designed for sex does not make him a rapist. There does not need to be a concensus against using "rifle" in place of "weapon" in the AK-74 or any other article. I'm not asking that you agree to removing every instance of "weapon" and replacing them with "rifle" and "firearm", only that you don't remove them when I do unless it's inappropriate. For instance, if it reads, "The AK-74 was the weapon used to kill Osama Bin Laden." This is more appropriate with "weapon" in this instance because the sentence is describing the actual usage of the rifle as a weapon. As an analogy, saying, "Mahatma Gandhi was a peace activist. The rapist was an advocate for Indian independance." Just because men can be rapists does not mean that all are. Just because AK-74's can be used as weapons does not mean that all are. It's crystal clear to me, but I can understand where you are coming from. --Winged Brick (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Circular logic. You don't need to preach the tool vs. weapon argument to me, I'm an advocate of civilian firearms ownership, I know every single such analogy I use against the "grabbers". I ask you not to politicize technical gun articles with sanitized phraseology. I will not ask you again. The AK-74 was designed from the ground up to incapacitate or mortally wound enemy personnel effectively. It is not a sporting rifle, target rifle, plinker or training instrument, even though it can be used as such. Hell, you could even use it as an entrenching tool and the Galil as a bottle opener. Going around and changing every military small arm description to "high-velocity projectile lobbing instrument" or "bottle opening self-loading rifle" is absurd. Common sense my friend. Koalorka (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not using the phrase "bottle-opening... etc.," I'm using the word "Rifle". "Rifle" is a succinct and narrow. It clearly defines to a broad audience exactly what we're talking about. Less clear would be firearm. Even less clear would be gun. Further down the road somewhere in another county is the term "weapon." Substituting a succinct, narrow, and universally accepted term for a vague, broad, and prejudicial term ("weapon") seems like the right thing to do. Since it's only you and I speaking about this, we could ask for a third opinion. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase, "I ask you not to politicize technical gun articles with sanitized phraseology. I will not ask you again." It seems like a threat, but I don't see this as a situation where you should have to argue for "weapon" as that is a very vague term. It's especially not anything to get upset about. --Winged Brick (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to come off as hostile, nor am I upset, just a few comments. Koalorka (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback. --Winged Brick (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

300 winchester

Removal of content

Sorry but how was that advertising? Its a fellow wiki like this one. Advertising would be "hey everybody come buy my guns at Amazon.com. Not telling people about a wiki. SteelersFan-9 4 18:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You're advertising your web site. The Firearms project is for improving Wikipedia, not personal gain. --Winged Brick (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please look at WP:OWN, the same goes for that wiki. does User:Jimbo Wales own Wikipedia just becase he created it? No. I'm reverting it because I've been on Wikipedia for over three years and I know the guidelines very well. Have a good day. SteelersFan-9 4 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You've obviously got a point to make. Your assertions do not change Wikipedia policy. You are spaming your web site here so it can get some recognition. That is wrong. Per Wikipedia's spam policy, your entry is unacceptable and, shall I go out on a limb, you seem to know this but you're doing it anyway. In fact, you put yourself out here as somebody with three years of experience at WP and somebody who knows the guidelines. Either you're doing this intentionally against the rules or you missed one. Assuming good faith, I'll just have you re-read WP:SPAM. --Winged Brick (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'm just saying, you didn't look at WP:OWN, I don't own that wiki. Its one that has the same article's as this project. You obviously don't get it. There's no WP:Hunting project, that's as close as it gets.And what in the heck does "Spamming" have to do with this? Again I don't own that or any wiki! I SteelersFan-9 4 00:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And you said you removed a personal attack on your edit comment. What attack? And look, it's not advertising, it's a Wikimedia site, the same as Wikipedia. Advertising and spaming would be "Hey I'm selling a Remington 870 on Ebay. please bid on it." Not saying we have a site base on the same info. SteelersFan-9 4 00:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You're getting a bit heated over this. You're advertising another web site... and justifying it. You think I didn't look at WP:OWN? My goodness, you're psychic powers are incredible. Leave it off the firearms page, sport, you've lost this one. --Winged Brick (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I could take this further to one of my MANY administrator friends, but It's not worth it. I have many other matters to attend to other than "fighting" with some random user. Good day, and happy shooting. SteelersFan-9 4 03:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

First you troll, then you threaten. Good tactic. Howsabout you just report me to all of your admin friends and have me banned? Because you're not going to do it. I dare you. I double-dog dare you. Did a little checking on your history and, well, you've got a history of harassing, taunting, threatening, and baiting. --Winged Brick (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

SPI case

Hyphens

Wellrod

Suppressor

Blow_forward

Remington Model 10

Brunswick MG patent

Alright then, its just that it has a similar operation if you read the patent. Howabout moving it to the discussion page? Uiyugr 02:41AM, 27/04/2017 (UTC)

I see no point whatsoever. I read the patent. It is a fluted chamber, as used on dozens of designs prior. Nothing special and does not fall under the category of a delayed blowback system. The fluting facilitates easy extraction on a blowback firearm. This weapon falls under another type of delayed blowback. It's not notable, either. Feel free to write an article on the gun, but it's certainly not notable enough to list in the general article. --Winged Brick (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes i know about fluted chambers, but its that this one is actually the delayed blowback. It would be worth note to technologists though due to the unusual design and if it doesnt fall under delayed blowback, what type of operation is it?. Other than the Brunswick MG, does any other firearm platform chambered in rifle rounds use this operation? Uiyugr 14:16PM, 27/04/2017 (UTC)

Neither of us are patent attorneys or engineers that I know of. I am not going to consult an engineer or a patent attorney to tell me exactly what is being claimed, but I can tell you it does not resemble chamber-ring delayed blowback. You need to find a reliable source that says it is something. As far as I know, there were three or four firearms with chamber-ring delay and the design you list is not one of them. --Winged Brick (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We have uncovered its not chamber ring delayed blowback (although it does operate in a similar way using a fluted chamber if you know what im on about), so would it be described as 'fluted chamber delayed blowback'?. Uiyugr 01:44AM, 28/04/2017 (UTC)

No, the fluting does not add a delay. If anything, fluting accelerates the bolt by floating the fired case in the chamber and decreasing its adhesion to the sides of the chamber. Again, is there any secondary source out there or is it just this patent? --Winged Brick (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fluted chambers (on most firearms, notably delayed blowback) are used to 'unstick' the cartridge from the chamber to prevent rupturing. However on this occasion with the Brunswick MG, the round is actually supposed to obturate itself into the walls of the fluted chamber lines holding until the gas pressure drops to a safe level to extract. Thats what is unusual about this operation. As for references, im just doing some research to find more info on it. Uiyugr 02:51AM, 28/04/2017 (UTC)

That defies physics. You can say what you want in a patent. It does not have to work. It is a claim, not a statement of fact. Fluted chambers do not work differently in different guns. They make the claim that it sticks to the chamber harder because there is less surface area. This is nonsense. Fluting is fluting. Reducing the surface area does not increase overall case adhesion to the sidewalls. Absent an actual gun, actual testing, and a reliable secondary source, this is clearly a dead end. Winged Brick (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at the images on the patent a few times, it shows the fluted chamber and note the first inch of the barrel lacks rifling to allow the round faster projection when firing to allow higher pressure to build up. The last image has a chart showing the time of the propellant ignition. This patent has nothing to do with the platform but may give you more of an idea of the operation. Regarding references, looks as if this is the only one found. Uiyugr 22:43PM, 28/04/2017 (UTC)

I've looked at the patent. I understand what they are saying it does. Reality doesn't work the way the patent says it does. A single patent with claims that defy everything known about fluted chambers is not notable. If you believe it is, feel free to come up with a reliable secondary source and write an article about it. There are tens of thousands of firearm patents that don't hold water. It's not for me to decide if this one does, but the level of proof required is pretty high given that the claim seems pretty far fetched. I'm done discussing this. --Winged Brick (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)