This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Self-loading rifle page were merged into Semi-automatic rifle on 8 February 2009. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Callie Bigrigg.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
this is a poorly stated headline. it would be more accurate to say Semi-Automatic vs Full-Automatic, and any reference to automatic be reviewed and changed to full-automatic if the inference is of a weapon capable of firing more than one round per single function of the trigger. Semi and Full classify the function of the trigger mechanism in the firearm while automatic (vs manually operated) classify the operating principle of the gun. citation for the definition of "automatic" can be found here: https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/automatic-weapon/ Colloquial use of the term "automatic" as an operating principal start showing up at the turn of the 20th century in defining firearms such as the 1911, officially designated "automatic pistol, caliber .45, M1911" citing Wikipedia's own page on said gun, which was designed in tandem with the .45 automatic colt pistol cartridge. the Browning Automatic-5, an early semi-automatic shotgun, and the Weably-Fosbery automatic revolver. many more could be cited here, but the intent is to establish the pattern using clearly recognizable weapons that are clearly semi-automatic, but are also clearly labeled just "automatic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.44.21 ( talk) 23:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The list on this page needs some serious revision. Submachine guns and assault rifles do not fall under the catagory of semi-automatic rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko ( talk • contribs) 4 June 2004
The introduction leans a little too NRA and is not well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.185.50 ( talk • contribs) 24 October 2005
Excellent article, though I would argue that select fire weapons do indeed fall under the semi automatic moniker as select fire has an option for semi automatic operation. Also take into account that many of these weapon platforms have been modified to only fire in semi automatic. For example many open bolt Submachine guns have had their receivers replaced by closed bolt semi automatic receivers making them full time semi automatic carbines.
The British version of the select fire main battle rifle FN FAL the “SLR” is a good example as it was modified for semi automatic use only. Many people compete in high power rifle competitions using the AR15 semi automatic rifle which is a doppelganger for the select fire M16 “assault rifle”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grune ( talk • contribs) 5 June 2006
The picture of the Polish weapons is indeed interesting, but I am not sure if it is wholly appropriate to the article... especially since very few examples of the Kbsp wz.38M were ever produced and that the wz. 39 SMG is not a semi-automatic rifle. I would suggest a picture of an M1 Garand or SVT40. Twalls 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why a reference was deleted and a 'Citation Needed' tag inserted in its place. Also, copy in the controversy section was replaced by a statement on handguns that is only indirectly relevant to semi-auto rifles. I'll restore the original copy and citation. Twalls 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this section, as at the moment it seems to lean towards the viewpoints of the NRA and their criticism of gun control and is badly sourced. It states things as "facts" without providing proper references, and it doesn't go into the motives behind gun control and makes it seem like there is only one reason for the control of fire-arms, and this reasoning is wrong, and therefore gun control is wrong. I am not even sure if this belongs in the article rather than just the Gun Control article. Sigurd Dragon Slayer ( talk) 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is still not fixed even about a year on from this original discussion. There is a decidedly heavy bent against the assault weapons ban in the tagged section. The section weakly portrays the arguments against the ban and is poorly cited. It mostly portrays the arguments of the author. The section is however not completely flawed; the closing section is purely factual and should be retained. Yet the beginning section needs serious revision. I myself might find difficulty in successfully accomplishing this being heavily against the ban myself, but I may attempt it. I feel that it should be more of a community edit. Suggestions? Cpuwhiz11 ( talk) 13:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted the most egregious editorializing describing a supreme court decision as "fortunate", but this article still needs a lot of work. Perhaps a whole chunk should just be deleted because it's about gun control and not semi-automatic rifles specifically? Joezuntz ( talk) 17:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The article still is very bias and sounds like NRS propaganda. It's very far from an objective point of view 188.25.39.87 ( talk) 19:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Rantingmadhare ( talk) 03:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC) In my humble opinion, this page needs to be merged with the Self-loading rifles page, thereby deleting this current page. "Semi-automatic rifle" is misleading, since it implies the rifle is capable of being switched to automatic fire. Although many semiautomatic military rifles have been produced as in the SKS, FN49, MAS49, M1 Garand, and so forth, these rifles do not have selector switches and therefore cannot be switched to automatic rates of fire without alteration. Terminology is key here, and the self-loading rifle page has evolved into a fuller and more developed discussion of the actual topic targeted by this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantingmadhare ( talk • contribs) 30 December 2008
so i am looking for the history section like all the other types and there is not one here. 1st one, popularity etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.242.58 ( talk) 16:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I moved the picture of the M16 because it might have been confusing for someone to see it next to the "Recoil Operated" section when it is gas operated. 209.198.84.222 ( talk) 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The FN PS90 is semi-automatic, but is not a rifle. Why is it on the list? 74.79.239.198 ( talk) 21:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Suggesting of this page into Action (firearms) as it is redundant and should be a subsection of Action (firearms) Digitallymade ( talk) 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no mention about the aforementioned Benelli M4 Super 90. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scimiot ( talk • contribs) 09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an excellent resource for both the technical and historical facets of this topic: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/F-Working-papers/SAS-WP25-Self-loading-rifles.pdf. Recommend its key points be incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.227.249 ( talk) 05:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Honestly that is a pretty poor addition imho. No problem with the section, or it's placement, but:
- Snori ( talk) 00:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- But my edit was simply an attempt at a background framework to address a perceived ambiguity about first self-loading rifles in comparison to first effective self-loading rifles to satisfactorily achieve the theoretical advantages of the concept. I encourage other editors to use or modify such parts as may useful to address this ambiguity. Thewellman ( talk) 02:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
This entire article is heavily biased. Everything beyond the beginning needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Biased pro-gun source "ammoland.com" used in reference 90. Not credible.
Yes agreed, this is full of pro-gun propaganda. "Semi-automatic rifles are an excellent option for self-defense" could be from a NRA press release. A Wikipedia article should not be recommending what guns to use for self-defense. It should be describing how guns are actually used. In the case of this article, that would include saying that in most of the world, and in parts of the USA, semi-automatic rifles are illegal for self-defense purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.80.181 ( talk) 15:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I saw from the article of the Charlton that it is also an LMG, so will it be not a good example of a semi-automatic rifle? The Charlton is currently replaced by the M1907 SL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.168.214.47 ( talk) 04:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't dispute that military forces have moved to less powerful cartridges for service rifles. I simply suggest that move was specifically motivated by the adoption of self-loading service rifles. Modern non-self-loading military rifles for sniper use have retained older cartridges or adopted even more powerful cartridges because of their greater range and anti-vehicle advantages. I suggest it is misleading to imply the swing toward cartridges of intermediate power was motivated by anything other than infantryman mobility with weapons reliably firing the largest practical number of cartridges in a short period of time. I will withdraw my objection if examples can be provided of modern infantry forces using non-self-loading service rifles chambered for cartridges of intermediate power similar to the 5.56×45mm NATO or 7.62×39mm. Thewellman ( talk) 19:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe the change was motivated by anything else, but what implication are you suggesting? I'm afraid I don't quite see how the text suggests that the change was for any other reason. Loafiewa ( talk) 22:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The redirect Patrol rifle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27 § Patrol rifle until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 16:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Self-loading rifle page were merged into Semi-automatic rifle on 8 February 2009. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Callie Bigrigg.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
this is a poorly stated headline. it would be more accurate to say Semi-Automatic vs Full-Automatic, and any reference to automatic be reviewed and changed to full-automatic if the inference is of a weapon capable of firing more than one round per single function of the trigger. Semi and Full classify the function of the trigger mechanism in the firearm while automatic (vs manually operated) classify the operating principle of the gun. citation for the definition of "automatic" can be found here: https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/automatic-weapon/ Colloquial use of the term "automatic" as an operating principal start showing up at the turn of the 20th century in defining firearms such as the 1911, officially designated "automatic pistol, caliber .45, M1911" citing Wikipedia's own page on said gun, which was designed in tandem with the .45 automatic colt pistol cartridge. the Browning Automatic-5, an early semi-automatic shotgun, and the Weably-Fosbery automatic revolver. many more could be cited here, but the intent is to establish the pattern using clearly recognizable weapons that are clearly semi-automatic, but are also clearly labeled just "automatic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.44.21 ( talk) 23:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The list on this page needs some serious revision. Submachine guns and assault rifles do not fall under the catagory of semi-automatic rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko ( talk • contribs) 4 June 2004
The introduction leans a little too NRA and is not well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.185.50 ( talk • contribs) 24 October 2005
Excellent article, though I would argue that select fire weapons do indeed fall under the semi automatic moniker as select fire has an option for semi automatic operation. Also take into account that many of these weapon platforms have been modified to only fire in semi automatic. For example many open bolt Submachine guns have had their receivers replaced by closed bolt semi automatic receivers making them full time semi automatic carbines.
The British version of the select fire main battle rifle FN FAL the “SLR” is a good example as it was modified for semi automatic use only. Many people compete in high power rifle competitions using the AR15 semi automatic rifle which is a doppelganger for the select fire M16 “assault rifle”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grune ( talk • contribs) 5 June 2006
The picture of the Polish weapons is indeed interesting, but I am not sure if it is wholly appropriate to the article... especially since very few examples of the Kbsp wz.38M were ever produced and that the wz. 39 SMG is not a semi-automatic rifle. I would suggest a picture of an M1 Garand or SVT40. Twalls 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why a reference was deleted and a 'Citation Needed' tag inserted in its place. Also, copy in the controversy section was replaced by a statement on handguns that is only indirectly relevant to semi-auto rifles. I'll restore the original copy and citation. Twalls 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this section, as at the moment it seems to lean towards the viewpoints of the NRA and their criticism of gun control and is badly sourced. It states things as "facts" without providing proper references, and it doesn't go into the motives behind gun control and makes it seem like there is only one reason for the control of fire-arms, and this reasoning is wrong, and therefore gun control is wrong. I am not even sure if this belongs in the article rather than just the Gun Control article. Sigurd Dragon Slayer ( talk) 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is still not fixed even about a year on from this original discussion. There is a decidedly heavy bent against the assault weapons ban in the tagged section. The section weakly portrays the arguments against the ban and is poorly cited. It mostly portrays the arguments of the author. The section is however not completely flawed; the closing section is purely factual and should be retained. Yet the beginning section needs serious revision. I myself might find difficulty in successfully accomplishing this being heavily against the ban myself, but I may attempt it. I feel that it should be more of a community edit. Suggestions? Cpuwhiz11 ( talk) 13:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted the most egregious editorializing describing a supreme court decision as "fortunate", but this article still needs a lot of work. Perhaps a whole chunk should just be deleted because it's about gun control and not semi-automatic rifles specifically? Joezuntz ( talk) 17:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The article still is very bias and sounds like NRS propaganda. It's very far from an objective point of view 188.25.39.87 ( talk) 19:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Rantingmadhare ( talk) 03:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC) In my humble opinion, this page needs to be merged with the Self-loading rifles page, thereby deleting this current page. "Semi-automatic rifle" is misleading, since it implies the rifle is capable of being switched to automatic fire. Although many semiautomatic military rifles have been produced as in the SKS, FN49, MAS49, M1 Garand, and so forth, these rifles do not have selector switches and therefore cannot be switched to automatic rates of fire without alteration. Terminology is key here, and the self-loading rifle page has evolved into a fuller and more developed discussion of the actual topic targeted by this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantingmadhare ( talk • contribs) 30 December 2008
so i am looking for the history section like all the other types and there is not one here. 1st one, popularity etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.242.58 ( talk) 16:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I moved the picture of the M16 because it might have been confusing for someone to see it next to the "Recoil Operated" section when it is gas operated. 209.198.84.222 ( talk) 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The FN PS90 is semi-automatic, but is not a rifle. Why is it on the list? 74.79.239.198 ( talk) 21:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Suggesting of this page into Action (firearms) as it is redundant and should be a subsection of Action (firearms) Digitallymade ( talk) 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no mention about the aforementioned Benelli M4 Super 90. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scimiot ( talk • contribs) 09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an excellent resource for both the technical and historical facets of this topic: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/F-Working-papers/SAS-WP25-Self-loading-rifles.pdf. Recommend its key points be incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.227.249 ( talk) 05:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Honestly that is a pretty poor addition imho. No problem with the section, or it's placement, but:
- Snori ( talk) 00:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- But my edit was simply an attempt at a background framework to address a perceived ambiguity about first self-loading rifles in comparison to first effective self-loading rifles to satisfactorily achieve the theoretical advantages of the concept. I encourage other editors to use or modify such parts as may useful to address this ambiguity. Thewellman ( talk) 02:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
This entire article is heavily biased. Everything beyond the beginning needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Biased pro-gun source "ammoland.com" used in reference 90. Not credible.
Yes agreed, this is full of pro-gun propaganda. "Semi-automatic rifles are an excellent option for self-defense" could be from a NRA press release. A Wikipedia article should not be recommending what guns to use for self-defense. It should be describing how guns are actually used. In the case of this article, that would include saying that in most of the world, and in parts of the USA, semi-automatic rifles are illegal for self-defense purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.80.181 ( talk) 15:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I saw from the article of the Charlton that it is also an LMG, so will it be not a good example of a semi-automatic rifle? The Charlton is currently replaced by the M1907 SL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.168.214.47 ( talk) 04:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't dispute that military forces have moved to less powerful cartridges for service rifles. I simply suggest that move was specifically motivated by the adoption of self-loading service rifles. Modern non-self-loading military rifles for sniper use have retained older cartridges or adopted even more powerful cartridges because of their greater range and anti-vehicle advantages. I suggest it is misleading to imply the swing toward cartridges of intermediate power was motivated by anything other than infantryman mobility with weapons reliably firing the largest practical number of cartridges in a short period of time. I will withdraw my objection if examples can be provided of modern infantry forces using non-self-loading service rifles chambered for cartridges of intermediate power similar to the 5.56×45mm NATO or 7.62×39mm. Thewellman ( talk) 19:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe the change was motivated by anything else, but what implication are you suggesting? I'm afraid I don't quite see how the text suggests that the change was for any other reason. Loafiewa ( talk) 22:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The redirect Patrol rifle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27 § Patrol rifle until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 16:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)