Talk:Breechblock

Bolt (firearm)

Should Bolt (firearm) redirect here? -- Petri Krohn 03:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

rewrite

I have tried to address some of the inconsistent language. While galleries are not generally used, they appear to be a useful way of dealing with the many different variations. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@User:BilCat per WP:IG "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. I believe the illustrative images could be expanded and improved upon but this is a start. For example, I would much rather a picture of the BLR bolt , to illustrate that it is a rotating bolt but in the absence of such an image, this is a start and will hopefully prompt somebody to supply a better one. The use of galleries is only a small part of the total edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason given for the revert does not substantiate the revert nor does it recognise the value (or otherwise) of the edit as a whole. Perhaps it is better to build upon and improve the edit rather than revert it in total because of an individual preference on one element? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Aside from WP:MOS issues, the text you added had no references. It'd be better if you based your edits on reliable sources. Felsic2 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2. The alleged MOS issue is that galleries should not be used. This is incorrect per WP:IG as quoted above. I find it spurious to assert that existing, unreferenced text should be preferred over an amendment on basis that the amendment is unreferenced. The existing text is inconsistent, inaccurate and confusing - particularly in that it characterises breechblocks used in the Peabody action and the Ag m/42 as being of the same category and thereby operating in the same way. The edited text is referenced, though not in the conventional way. The written content is verified by the images. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The text you added went far beyond what could be deduced from the illustrations. Where did you learn about this topic? Felsic2 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC) that

I have a strong mechanical interest and have been in a position to use many firearms. I acknowledge that it would be nice to have more conventional references. However, when I looked at other pages, they were in a similar state. The pictures are there to suport the text closely. I also indicated that there could be both more pictures and better pictures. This is what I could find on Wiki. Unfortunately I don't have a camera atm. For example, it would be nice to get a cut-away of an L1A1. I am sure there is a lever action that uses a similar system but I can't think of which it is atm. Also, it would be better if some of these showed bolt detail, such as the BLR and Winchester 1200. The present images are, perhaps, a prompt to improve upon what is available. 121.212.205.241 (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Cinderella157 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many pages are not up to basic standards. However, that's no argument that policies shouldn't be enforced on this page.

I agree with your desire to have a single page that compares and contrasts different block actions. However the material you added does appear to be substantially redundant with Action (firearms). That article also suffers from a lack of sources and citations. Maybe everyone's time and energy would be best spent in getting one good article instead of two inadequate ones. Felsic2 (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:V "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." It gives specific instances where inline citations are required. As per previous, verifiability is achieved through the images. This is a lateral view. Most of what I have written is evident from the images or by comparison of images. Unfortunately, the wp image library is limited. What I wrote about rolling blocks was extracted from the image.

The rewrite has focussed on the nature of the breechblock. As a secondary matter, I have considered how the block might be locked and then finally, the actions that it might be adapted to. There is some overlap with Action (firearms) but the perspective is totally different and it is a mess. "In a rolling block action the breechblock takes the form of a part-cylinder, with a pivot pin through its axis. The operator rotates or "rolls" the block to open and close the breech; it is a simple, rugged and reliable design. Rolling blocks are most often associated with firearms made by Remington in the later 19th century; in the Remington action the hammer serves to lock the breech closed at the moment of firing, and the block in turn prevents the hammer from falling with the breech open." This suggests that the Snider and the Remington are comparable? I think it is useful to address the problem from two perspectives. It then becomes easier to see the multitude of possibilities by combining different breechblock types with different actions. I suggest that the rewrite is a way forward to grow and improve the article.

As a direct question, is the use of galleries in accordance with WP:IG. Do the images substantially serve to augment and compliment the text in a way that enhances the readers understanding? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlap between the two articles. Having two poorly sourced articles on more-or-less the same topic is worse than having just one. Deducing things from looking at photos is getting close to the prohibition on original research, WP:NOR. As for the gallery, maybe @BilCat: can explain that issue better than I could. Felsic2 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

But at the moment, without my edit, there are two poorly sourced and inaccurate articles. With my edit, there is atleast one article that is substantially accurate and largely verifiable. Furthermore, it is a solid foundation for improvement. It is a narrow view that only an inline citation to a passage of written text constitutes a reliable source. I have provided a rationale by reference to and in accordance with WP:IG as to why they are acceptable. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, while I've expressed my personal opinion on the matter I wouldn't revert you if you restored your version. It's hard for me to argue that poorly sourced material is really worse than unsourced material. Felsic2 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2, Do you have an opinion re galleries as this was the original reason for the revert and @ user:BillCat has declined to discuss and you are the only other that has participated in this discussion. Cinderella157 (talk)

Sharps rifle.

I can't speak for BilCat. But for myself, I'm still not sure how all the images included enhance understanding of the topic. Citing WP:IG: The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery...

Take, for example, the Sharps rifle image, under "Sliding block". The image and caption don't work together to tell me anything about sliding blocks.

The Browning BLR uses a rotating bolt

Or this one, which illustrates the rifle but not the rotating bolt within. To convey that info it'd be simpler to just list examples in the text.

Other than that type of problem, I think most of the images are appropriate. My reservation is still about using images as the basis for text. I repeat my recommendation to go to a library and find books that describe these actions. But I don't see a major problem with the images themselves beyond a few that are unhelpful illustrations. Felsic2 (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@talk, you assume that it is simple case of just going to a library and that the material will be there. The nearest is some 30 km away and it is exceedingly small. As for the current photo of the BLR, it is a prompt to get a better image. As for the Sharps, I think there is some value in keeping it even if it is marginal. Thank you for your opinion. With some resolution to this, I intend on improving the article further - including finding some in-line references. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Many libraries can arrange interlibrary loans at minimal cost. There's also Google Books, which can be tricky to use because it only shows parts of books. But I do see many references that are available there. For example: [1][2][3][4] It can at least help you decide which books are likely to have information you want. Felsic2 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, many libraries nowadays subscribe to digital archives like Gale (publisher), OverDrive, Inc., etc. Those provide access to high quality reference works for free. Felsic2 (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for close

Pls see Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Talk:Breechblock Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe that a consensus has been reached. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of edits by User:AnnaGoFast

@User:AnnaGoFast I have reverted parts of the edit for reasons as follow:

• "Perhaps the simplest(mechanically speaking, not necessarily in terms of manufacturing)" The statement is already qualified. There is hardly anything simpler to manufacture in its simplest form. Further qualification clutters the text without providing additional clarity? If there is something more specific to add, a note might be a better option.
• "or may be considered integral with the receiver". It may be part of the "reciever group". It is nonetheless a separate component regardless of how easy it can be stripped out. Again, a qualification that tends to complicate more than it clarifies. The added text is also in the wrong place in the sentence.
• "An breechblock is almost always part of the action; however, the action itself may consist solely of the breechblock and how it moves, in simple, manually operated firearms." The Action describes the operation of the firearm. It is not a component of a firearm. One may also refer to the smoothness of a firearm's action - which is how smoothly is works. One doesn't refer to the "bolt action" of a firearm but the bolt. Similarly pump or lever actions can have very different methods of closing the breech. The commonality is that a pumping or lever is used to actuate the cycle of operation. Further, the qualification tends to complicate more than it clarifies.
• "(i.e. the bolt handle serves as a locking lug, rather than utilizing separate)." This phrase is not fully formed. The description is already sufficiently clear that the cocking handle serves to lock against a shoulder. The next level of complication is introduced in the next sentence plus one. The qualification tends to complicate more than it clarifies.
• "in the Lee–Enfield (at the cost of a reduction in strength)." The SMLE uses two rear locking lugs. It is quite strong. The issue is that the longer distance between breech and the lugs allows for greater relative streach over the life. This, in turn, increases the head space and the likelihood misfires with service. You will see, that I understand the drawback of rear lugs. It might be more appropriate to add a note. A reference would be good too but this is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black - just saying it would be good.
• "designs and lever or pump actions (or straight-pull bolt actions, which are similar in function to a pump action)". This qualification is addressed just after. I have added to that text and edited to clarify.

I hope this clarifies my reasons for the partial reversion. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, although I don't care enough to start a fight over it.

• For starters, no. An "action" is the component of a firearm that moves. When you say "the action of this firearm is smooth", you are saying that the motion of the action is smooth. The action of the component that moves in order to load and unload the weapon. That's why you say "work the action", "bolt action", etc. I was trying to make it clear that while on some firearms, the breechblock is part of the action, while on others, it is the action: rolling block, falling block, trap-door, etc. On those guns, the breechblock is the only moving part, and hence is also the action. Look it up.
• Next, I said "integral with the receiver" in the part where it was talking about break-actions. You cannot remove the breechblock from a break action, hence I said it was integral with the receiver in this case, because it is.

Also, I don't think it's obvious that something like a break-action, which is mechanically much simpler in concept, can be harder to manufacture than something mechanically more complex, like a semi-auto, since the receiver of a break-action or rolling-block, etc, must be very precisely machined to fit properly. Where does it "later make this clear"?

• I also didn't think " rotates to lock against a shoulder in the receiver or body of the firearm" is very clear either. We are supposed to be writing for people who have no clue how firearms operate, not to make it concise and direct....but only if you already know what the page is talking about. I find this time and again, I go to a page about something I don't know much about, and find a lot of random facts that seem to be trying to say something, but without ever explaining things to me in a way that helps a person who doesn't know the subject already understand what they are talking about. What does "locks in a shoulder of the firearm" actually mean to a person who has never handled a bolt action? I suppose I could assume that they probably mean it serves as a locking lug, but I'd be annoyed that whoever wrote it couldn't just say so. Plenty of masterpieces of concise writing on Wikipedia that probably make their authors and editors flush with pride, but don't serve to actually explain anything to anyone who doesn't already know the subject. If I had thought the explanation was suitable, I would have left it as it was.
• As for the Enfield: "rear locking lugs don't make it weaker, they just mean that the bolt is more likely to stretch out, rendering the gun useless over time". Okay, however you like to think of it, fine by me. But there is a reason they were going to switch to a newer, stronger design before WWI interrupted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:AnnaGoFast (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @User:AnnaGoFast, I appreciate your interest and for that reason, I have tried to explain why I reverted part, but not all of your edit - and give reasonable reasons. You might notice, that across these articles there is a lot of conflicting information. I have not been able to find a "good" reliable source or two. I also think that this is a topic where a picture is worth a thousand words. I have received some opposition to the galleries I have added for this very purpose. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of "good" copyright free images that illustrate breechblocks in sufficient detail. Anything that you might contribute would be very welcome. I found this article in a very poor condition (IMO). I think it is much better but could certainly be improved. Per WP:BRD, discussion is the key to improving an article where there might not be initial agreement on how this occurs.

• • "A breechblock is a separate component and is not a feature of the break-action, or may be considered integral with the receiver.". What you were trying to say is clearer, given further explanation. However, the preceding explains how the breech is closed. It also defines that the breechblock is a separate "component" and therefore not a component found in a break-action. Some of the problem is that "receiver" is neither defined nor linked in the edit. Also, it is debatable as to whether you might call the rear section of a break-action a receiver. I note that the Break action article does not describe it as a receiver. Thinking back, this informed how I wrote this bit. I admit, that I misunderstood what you were trying to say. The point though, as I see it, is that a break-action has a way of closing (blocking) the breech but not a breechblock. The added words create a contradiction with what was already written (that a breachblock is not a feature of a break-action) and more words are required to explain the apparent contradiction. IMO, it is more a confusion than a clarification. To quote: "We are supposed to be writing for people who have no clue how firearms operate, ... but only if you already know what the page is talking about."
  • "Perhaps the simplest (mechanically speaking, not necessarily in terms of manufacturing)" and resp: "Also, I don't think it's obvious that something like a break-action, which is mechanically much simpler in concept, can be harder to manufacture than something mechanically more complex, like a semi-auto, since the receiver of a break-action or rolling-block, etc, must be very precisely machined to fit properly. Where does it "later make this clear"?" The edit implies that a break action is inherently more expensive. There are some expensive, finely made break action rifles and guns. There is nothing much cheaper though, than than a single barrel break action shotgun. The tolerances aren't particularly fine. The expence comes in adding a second barrel and trigger mechanism for two barrels. I suggested: "If there is something more specific to add, a note might be a better option." I did not say: "[it] later make this clear".
  • "This article primarily addresses the matter of breechblock design, as opposed to the action, which relates more with how the mechanism is operated, even if the distinction is not always clear. An breechblock is almost always part of the action; however, the action itself may consist solely of the breechblock and how it moves, in simple, manually operated firearms." From Action (firearms): "In firearms terminology, an action is the mechanism that handles the ammunition (loads, locks, fires, extracts and ejects) or the method by which that mechanism works.". There are a number of issues with that article. It implies that "an action" only applies to a repeating firearm (or better) but then reports "single shot" actions. It then confuses the issue with single and double actions. This article (breechblock), defines what it means by action (the method by which the mechanism works). Your added edit tends to contradict the preceding text (underlined above). That was the main reason for reverting it. "An 'action' is the component of a firearm that moves." It is rarely (if ever) just one component that moves to cycle the operation and is not (in my experience) a component that can be stripped out as a group. Even in a bolt action, the action (and the firing component of that) includes more than the bolt and you don't hold up a bolt and say: "this is the bolt 'action'". It can/does "describe" how components move and operate togeather to complete the cycle of operations. To operate the action, is to cycle the operation (how it works). " I was trying to make it clear that while on some firearms, the breechblock is part of the action, while on others, it is the action: rolling block, falling block, trap-door, etc. On those guns, the breechblock is the only moving part, and hence is also the action." Except (pretty much) in the case of a bolt action, the breechblock is never the only moving part. In the three examples you give, there are other moving parts that lock and unlock, cause it to move out of the way, eject and fire - by the Action (firearms) article, all parts of the action. These are all reasons why I thought the edit was problematic.
  • "I also didn't think 'rotates to lock against a shoulder in the receiver or body of the firearm' is very clear either." See: "rotates to lock against a shoulder in the receiver or body of the firearm (i.e. the bolt handle serves as a locking lug, rather than utilizing separate). ... More often, the bolt locks closed with two or more lugs". The issue is that "lugs" comes just after your edit - so it is repeating the idea. And if somebody doesn't understand "rotates to lock against a shoulder", they won't understand "the bolt handle serves as a locking lug". What is a "lug"? That is why, I have tried to provide images to illustrate the text. This is why I reverted this. You will note that I have reordered the image of the TOZ, which is intended to make this clearer than words alone might.
  • Re SMLE: "a reduction in strength". The first problem is the "implication", with limited information for the uninitiated, that it is likely to fail "catastrophically" v not operate correctly after firing a lot of rounds. It is also, something likely to be "challenged" and by WP policy, really needs a reference. I have encouraged you to provide a reference. I note that the SMLE has been re-barrelled for high-pressure 22 cal wildcats (.303/22). BTW, it is the receiver that stretches and not the bolt.
  • "If I had thought the explanation was suitable, I would have left it as it was." Ditto - and for some part, I thought it was, so I left those contributions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Breechblock vs. Bolt

I tried to learn about the difference between Breechblock and Bolt (firearms), but neither article says anything about it. Yet both use the same pictures as illustrations.

Why are the two articles designed this way? Are they written by different, competing authors? 91.10.36.182 (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have worked on this article but not the other, so I cannot speak to the other and how it has been written. The distinction though (in my experience) is that a bolt is a sub-set or specific type of breechblock. In Australian service use, the L1A1 and MAG 58 have a breechblock while the SMLE, M60, F1, M16 and F88 have bolts. All of the bolts are of a cylindrical nature and, with the exception of the F1, lock closed with a rotating motion. The F1 is a simple blowback design and does not lock for firing. With the MAG 58 and L1A1, the rear of the bolt tips at the end of the cocking stroke (immediately before firing) so that it engages a locking lug. Service usage was pedantic in its terminology but civilian usage is often not. While I have a good knowledge of mechanisms etc I don't have access to any good sources.

Of the examples given in Bolt (firearms), I might argue that neither the Browning M2 nor the SIG have bolts, but breechblocks; however, firearms terminology is often inconsistent and variable. I am therefore sure that there will be those that disagree with me. While I hope this is helpful, I am not certain how to address your concerns. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Mannlicher M1886

Hi Ain92, I am not convinced that your edit here is an overall improvement to the article. The edit is clearly a different writing style. It tends to WP:EDITORIALIZE eg his system has never been very popular, was subsequently perfected and developed into much more popular. Much of the text added is un sourced. While I have added your image, on balance, I don't think that the added text improves upon the previous, noting that the Mannlicher M1886 was already exampled by way of an image with an explanation of its operation in the caption. A further explanation in text is unnecessary duplication. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• What about "this system has never been as popular as rotating or tilting bolt", "was subsequently improved" and "developed into much more well-known" (actually to measure the popularity, a large order for the M1951 was Egyptian 50k while a large order for 92 was US 450k)? What kind of sourcing do you want me to find? Do you insist on a source overviewing and comparing all these designs, or multiple sources describing individual ones will suffice? I strongly disagree that an explanation in text is unnecessary duplication, because people don't look at galleries to read the text (they actually look ugly with a long sheet of letters) there should be as little as possible of it in them, and the explanation should ideally be in the main body of the article. Ain92 (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Assertions about popularity are inherently editorialising. It was subsequently improved? It wasn't improved as much as adapted to a semiautomatic application. [M]uch more well-known is editorial. To substantiate this by citing the volume of sales would be WP:SYNTH. Sources need to support what is said. They should specifically support claims or opinions. The article is pretty well sourced and we should try to keep it that way or improve the sourcing. The type of prose that was added would be more suited to a gun magazine than an encyclopedic article (IMHO). My view is that it is difficult to compare and contrast the myriad of designs in a cohesive way (ie across the article) and probably outside the scope of the article and quite subjective. Our opinions don't count in this respect. We have opposing views on images. My view is that a picture is worth a thousand words and the caption inherently supports the image. The main reasons for the revert directly relates to WP:P&G. As to our differing opinions on differing points; it is another matter but not the substantive issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with "adapted to a semiautomatic application", although I personally see the introduction of a much more complicated locking piece as an improvement. Could you please propose how you would just neutrally list the designs without "editorializing" and SYNTH? As for the image, I hope we could find an impartial tiebreaker when we sort out the text part. Ain92 (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ain92, please see my edits on this. We might add the vz 58 and Beretta 92 but that would require refs that would indicate the mechanism, as in other cases in the article, but I don't have them at the moment. The Beretta 92 article clearly indicates the relation to earlier models. Hope this is a reasonable outcome? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)