![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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
CO2 is not liquified under pressure by the way.
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)
Could we have a picture please? Thank you. Later!!! Chili14 ( Talk) 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
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.
Ummm, yeah...right. ? Stephenjh 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ?
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
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.
Exile 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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).
In the section 'Gas piston guns' the last sentence is truncated '5 mm projectile at'...
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
You cant learn anything here. Micko32 ( talk) 11:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Air_gun#Dart ---> WP:NOTHOWTO
186.58.198.133 ( talk) 23:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The user Stephenjh started an edit war over this section.
The reasons given by "Stephenjh" are that:
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.
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)
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)
@ 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)
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 <USA Eddson storms ( talk) 01:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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
CO2 is not liquified under pressure by the way.
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)
Could we have a picture please? Thank you. Later!!! Chili14 ( Talk) 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
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.
Ummm, yeah...right. ? Stephenjh 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ?
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
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.
Exile 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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).
In the section 'Gas piston guns' the last sentence is truncated '5 mm projectile at'...
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
You cant learn anything here. Micko32 ( talk) 11:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Air_gun#Dart ---> WP:NOTHOWTO
186.58.198.133 ( talk) 23:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The user Stephenjh started an edit war over this section.
The reasons given by "Stephenjh" are that:
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.
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)
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)
@ 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)
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 <USA Eddson storms ( talk) 01:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)