# Talk:Winchester Model 1897

While I appreciate the contributions, the Model 12 did not replace the model 1897.  There were lots of them, but many 97's were also used years after you state.  There were also a few Ithacas, a few Remingtons, lots of Stevens of various models, and probably others.  The Model 12 never replaced the model 1897.--Asams10 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I have read M97s made before 1975 had slam fire. Slamfire is a feature that allowed the racking of the slide to discharge rounds so long as the trigger was depresed. Dose anyone know about this?

That would be what the following sentence is talking about:

Unlike most modern pump-action shotguns, the Winchester Model 1897 (versions of which were type classified as the Model 97 or M97 for short) fired each time the action closed with the trigger depressed (that is, it lacks a trigger disconnector). 

"Slamfire" is not a feature so much as a manufacturing shortcut (or in the case of this early gun, the lack of a refinement).  The Ithaca Model 37 also lacks a disconnect.  Some say it's useful in combat, but you can argue pretty convincingly that the disconnect adds reliability, another feature to be desired on a combat gun.
MisterFitz 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that use of this trench gun was considered a warcrime by the Germans, until resolved after the war that it wasn't because they law they were citing (from the Geneva Convention or something older from like the 1800s, maybe the first Hague, forgot which, actually here looking for it) said something about how a weapon was illegal if used to cause prolonged pain and injury without a great likely hood of death (at least not in the immediate future, basically no guns that just torture people, they have to kill em). Shotguns passed thru on the understanding that they were meant to cause death, instances of extreme injury from buckshot all over without immediate death were flukes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 

So did the Germans protest about the use of poison gas in WW1?     How is that more humane than a shotgun?  (Or machine guns or artillery or all the other articles of that war?)  Gas was employed long before the Americans entered the war.   Bad logic - no wonder their protest was unconvincing. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, guys, this is a good start.  It needs some serious copy editing to reach greater clarity in the prose.  As it is now, someone reading it would end up scratching their heads.  You've also got to deal with the citations.  If you make a claim, it has to be cited (for example, if it was the first truly successful of whatever). 

Here are some examples of problems.  These are consistent throughout.
The Model 1897 was an evolution of the Winchester Model 1893 designed by John Browning. The Model 97 is a hammered shotgun lacking a trigger disconnect giving it the ability to slam fire. This means that the user can hold the trigger down while pumping the shotgun and once the pump is returned to the forward position the gun fires.[3] 
These sentences could have some sentence variety, and a bit more sophistication in the writing. It isn't clear which model Browning designed (or both).  Something is not an "evolution" of something else.  Something evolves from something else. The 1897 is a variation of the 1893 (but it probably isn't, because that would mean it was much like the 1893).   The Model 1897 evolved from the Winchester Model 1893, designed by John Browning.... did Browning design the 1893 or the 1897?  Or both?  If both: Browning's design of the Model 1897 evolved from his previously (un?)successful Winchester 1893.  Then explain what was successful about the 1893 (or not) and what changed.
The 1897 itself is classified (by whom?) as a slide action pump shotgun (huh?). It was the first truly successful pump-action shotgun produced. From 1893 until it was discontinued by Winchester in 1957, over a million of the type were produced in various grades and barrel lengths. The model 1897 came in two different chambering. One was the 12 gauge and the other was the 16 gauge.[3]
Variety in sentence structure will make your article more interesting to read.
slide action pump shotgun -- there should be some wikilinks here, or else an explanation of what these terms mean.  Not This means it does xyz.
It was the first truly successful ....etc. The first successful pump action shotgun produced....what about ones that were not truly successful? Untruly successful? Failures? Goofs?  This is a paragraph or two or three unto itself.  What made this one successful? What was wrong with the other ones?  And what is a pump action shot gun, (see my first comment).
Was the 1897 produced in 1893?  When was the 1893 produced?  (I'm confused.  and this sence should also be clearer:  In its years of production, 1893  –  1897, Winchester produced over a million in various grades (of what) and barrel lengths, and with either the 12 and 16 gauge chambers.  I don't get how they come up with the models (I initially thought it was by year).
What on earth does it mean, came in two different chambering?  (should be chamberings, plural).  I figured this out.
Miscellanea
Famous American? Is that like Famous Amos?  Famous does not need a capital.  Spencer?  This needs explanation.

After sitting back and “observing the war for the first three years they realized how brutal trench warfare was and how much you needed close range fire power when you were in a trench”  Surely you can paraphrase this comment more elegantly than whoever said it.
What made it ideal for close warfare?
Reliable sources
What makes the Sangamon County Rifle Association a reliable source?
What makes Anglefire a reliable source? (and you should spell it right, too)
Generally, web aggregate sources are not considered reliable by wikipedia standards. This means that "Never Yet Melted" is not a reliable source, nor is it, for other reasons, an unbiased source. See its own self description: Another Right-Wing Web Aggregator and Purveyor of Unpopular Opinions.  If you are using this source as a way of highlighting the controversy over the weapon, I'd suggest finding more reliable publications (Time Magazine, NYT, etc.).  I'd suggest you follow the link that the author included in his discussion of the problems of the shotgun in WWI, to see what the source is.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll have lots of other comments.  This is a good start. Keep working.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, guys, this is a good start.  It needs some serious copy editing to reach greater clarity in the prose.  As it is now, someone reading it would end up scratching their heads.  You've also got to deal with the citations.  If you make a claim, it has to be cited (for example, if it was the first truly successful of whatever). 

Here are some examples of problems.  These are consistent throughout.
The Model 1897 was an evolution of the Winchester Model 1893 designed by John Browning. The Model 97 is a hammered shotgun lacking a trigger disconnect giving it the ability to slam fire. This means that the user can hold the trigger down while pumping the shotgun and once the pump is returned to the forward position the gun fires.[3] 
These sentences could have some sentence variety, and a bit more sophistication in the writing. It isn't clear which model Browning designed (or both).  Something is not an "evolution" of something else.  Something evolves from something else. The 1897 is a variation of the 1893 (but it probably isn't, because that would mean it was much like the 1893).   The Model 1897 evolved from the Winchester Model 1893, designed by John Browning.... did Browning design the 1893 or the 1897?  Or both?  If both: Browning's design of the Model 1897 evolved from his previously (un?)successful Winchester 1893.  Then explain what was successful about the 1893 (or not) and what changed.
The 1897 itself is classified (by whom?) as a slide action pump shotgun (huh?). It was the first truly successful pump-action shotgun produced. From 1893 until it was discontinued by Winchester in 1957, over a million of the type were produced in various grades and barrel lengths. The model 1897 came in two different chambering. One was the 12 gauge and the other was the 16 gauge.[3]
Variety in sentence structure will make your article more interesting to read.
slide action pump shotgun -- there should be some wikilinks here, or else an explanation of what these terms mean.  Not This means it does xyz.
It was the first truly successful ....etc. The first successful pump action shotgun produced....what about ones that were not truly successful? Untruly successful? Failures? Goofs?  This is a paragraph or two or three unto itself.  What made this one successful? What was wrong with the other ones?  And what is a pump action shot gun, (see my first comment).
Was the 1897 produced in 1893?  When was the 1893 produced?  (I'm confused.  and this sence should also be clearer:  In its years of production, 1893  –  1897, Winchester produced over a million in various grades (of what) and barrel lengths, and with either the 12 and 16 gauge chambers.  I don't get how they come up with the models (I initially thought it was by year).
What on earth does it mean, came in two different chambering?  (should be chamberings, plural).  I figured this out.
Miscellanea
Famous American? Is that like Famous Amos?  Famous does not need a capital.  Spencer?  This needs explanation.

After sitting back and “observing the war for the first three years they realized how brutal trench warfare was and how much you needed close range fire power when you were in a trench”  Surely you can paraphrase this comment more elegantly than whoever said it.
What made it ideal for close warfare?
Reliable sources
What makes the Sangamon County Rifle Association a reliable source?
What makes Anglefire a reliable source? (and you should spell it right, too)
Generally, web aggregate sources are not considered reliable by wikipedia standards. This means that "Never Yet Melted" is not a reliable source, nor is it, for other reasons, an unbiased source. See its own self description: Another Right-Wing Web Aggregator and Purveyor of Unpopular Opinions.  If you are using this source as a way of highlighting the controversy over the weapon, I'd suggest finding more reliable publications (Time Magazine, NYT, etc.).  I'd suggest you follow the link that the author included in his discussion of the problems of the shotgun in WWI, to see what the source is.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll have lots of other comments.  This is a good start. Keep working.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I will give my input, as the editor may not understand what a collaboratrive effort is meant to be.

RubyT made some much-needed improvement over the original article.
The prose is very poorly written, it is non-encyclopedic and not summary-style.  Sentences and paragraphs overrun.  At least the 2nd person usage has been remedied and not reintroduced by thie editor.
The article is rampant with unnecesarry repetition; history and description repeat much of each other as does the "slam-fire" in the Military section.
Inconsistent nomenclature and capitalization errors, Call it Model 1897 or Model 97, but be consistent.  In these instances Model is a proper noun and should not appear as lowercase.
The citations are raggedey as hell and inconsistent.  Too much weight is placed on online sources as opposed to published books.
Excessive unnecesarry quotations that could be summarized in prose.
Never yet melted is a dubious source as it is a Blog; the Angelfire source is a personal webpage and like the Blog it should not be used as this information can be found in plenty of reliable sources.  I have left several on your talk page, Ruby.
I understand this is supposed to be a School project of some sort, but that does not mean you own the article.  Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, please work with other editors rather than reverting to prior versions full of weak pose and uncited sources.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Winchester Model 1897/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Comments:

The references are not complete. Page numbers have to be clear. Please see WP:REF.
Captions which are sentences require a period at the end, see WP:CAPTION.
The Bibliography section requires correct formatting.
The Global Security external link is not specific to the subject and should be removed.
Avoid words like "Picture of" and "Image" in the picture captions as they are stating the obvious.
"The 1897 was in production from 1897 until 1957, the year in which production ceased." The 1897 part can be confusing and the year in which production ceased is stating the obvious. I suggest recasting it as "The Winchester Model 1897 was in production from 1897 until 1957."
The list in the improvements section are both bullet points as well as numbers. Use one or the other, not both. Numbering can be achieved by using "#".
"The Chinese company Norinco has made an effort to reproduce this firearm. The Norinco 97 is an almost exact copy of the Winchester 1897. The grades of Trench and Riot were reproduced by Norinco." - A citation is needed for this.
The article contains several tags - unreliable source? - articles with tags cannot pass GA (under Quick Fail). It needs to be resolved or the sentences removed.
The "See also" in the military use section should be moved to the end in its own section, see WP:SEEALSO.
The prose in the German response section needs to be reworded so that it become encyclopedic.
Summary: Overall, this article still needs a bit of work in order to raise it to GA standards. In particular, there are issues with the referencing. I am unable to check the validity of statements due to this. Specific page numbers from the references must be presented. There are additional issues outlined above. I will put this article On Hold for up to seven days for all these issues to be resoled.


### Peer Review
I know you have had many reviews already, but none were listed from class. I thought the article was very informative considering I know nothing about guns of any kind. You clearly did your research and have a good grasp of the material. I will say that sometimes you state facts or figures and do not cite them. Maybe this is because you might consider them to be common knowledge, but I felt like they should have been cited. You also mentioned barrel length and guage of the shotgun. These are popular terms, but what is the benefit of having a gun with a longer/shorter barrel? It may be good to add a sentence or two for the readers, like me, who do not know these things. Also you mentioned a man named Robert Lansing you can link his name because I believe that article is about the same man you mention. Other than a couple citations and additional information the article is good. The guys above gave you a lot to work with and I know if you work on making just a couple changes it will drastically improve and article that is already good. I know you can make it great. Trod17 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

trod is correct.  When you include "facts and figures" that you think are common knowledge, they should still be cited to a reliable source.  If you explain why the short/long barrels are good in different circumstances, this should also be cited to a reliable source. Keep working on it.  Trod, you might give them an assist on the editing-guys, you can ask him for an assist on the editing, also.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


### Final summary
Thank you for all the hard work in making this a better article. It has changed considerably since the review started and I am pleased that all issues have now been resolved. I am confident that it now meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to pass it. Well done! - S Masters (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


### Brush Gun
Didn't the brush gun have a shorter stock rather than a shorter magazine as the article states or am I mistaken?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.9.77 (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 

"American soldiers who were skilled at trap shooting were armed with these guns and stationed where they could fire at enemy hand grenades in midair."
This seems rather far-fetched, i dont know how reliable the source is but quick googling doesnt give anything on the subject. 84.251.1.46 (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea of soldiers firing at grenades seems more plausible than official assignment of individuals to such duty. There would be limited possibility of seeing grenades at night or during attacks covered by smoke screens; and soldiers stationed for good visibility would be vulnerable to enemy fire. The relatively few pellets in a buckshot cartridge and the absence of barrel choke would make hit probability on a grenade-sized target unlikely at anything but the closest range. The results of a hit would be problematical at such close range. Random deflection of the grenade by buckshot might cause the grenade to land in a more or less damaging location than its original trajectory. The buckshot would be unlikely to detonate the grenade, but causing air detonation of the grenade at close range would probably increase the effectiveness of the grenade.Thewellman (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Winchester Model 1897's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Czech":
From Hotchkiss Mle 1914 machine gun: "Francouzský těžký kulomet Hotchkiss Mle. 1914" [French heavy machine gun Hotchkiss Mle. 1914]. vhu.cz (in Czech). Vojenský historický ústav Praha.
From Chauchat: "Čs. letecký kulomet vz. L/28" [Czech aircraft machine gun vz. L/28]. vhu.cz (in Czech). Vojenský historický ústav Praha.

Reference named "Bishop":
From M1 Garand: Bishop, Chris (2002). The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II. Sterling Publishing. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-58663-762-0.
From Winchester Model 1895: Bishop, Chris: The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, p. 239. Sterling Publishing, 2002.

Reference named "Congo":
From Vickers machine gun: Byrne, Ciaran (July 27, 2016). "The True Story of the Heroic Battle That Inspired the New Netflix Film The Siege of Jadotville". Time.com.
From M3 submachine gun: Sicard, Jacques (November 1982). "Les armes de Kolwezi". La Gazette des armes (in French). No. 111. pp. 25–30.

Reference named "Capie":
From Vickers machine gun: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 66–69. ISBN 978-0864734532.
From Winchester Model 1895: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 66–67. ISBN 978-0864734532.

Reference named "Jones":
From Pakistan: Adam Jones (2004). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge. p. 420. ISBN 978-0-415-35384-7.
From M1911 pistol: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010. Jane's Information Group. pp. 896, 897, 899. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
From Malta: Jones, Huw R. (1973). "Modern emigration from Malta". Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 60 (60): 101–119. doi:10.2307/621508. JSTOR 621508.
From M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle: Jones, Richard; Ness, Leland S., eds. (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010. Jane's Information Group. pp. 893–901. ISBN 978-0710628695.
From .38 Special: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010. Jane's Information Group. p. 621. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

We all know the meme. Certainly some American newspapers made a claim that there was a protest. The New York Sun ran one such story. But sources are scarce. There are two sources cited in the article, which I cannot view and which I suspect cite American newspapers as the originating sources. This is a matter of government, of public domain, there should be no shortage of sources from the judges and diplomats on public record responding to the supposed protest on the American side alone, let alone the German side. When you dig into this meme, you get a whole lot of hearsay about a diplomatic game of telephone with a verbal message passed on to the Spanish Embassy in Berlin, and to the Swiss, and then to the Americans. Shotguns are cited as being very effective in human wave attacks where "the greater their surprise, the greater they would clump together, and the deadlier the effect." This is not where the strength of shotguns lies. While there may be some value to enfilading fire down the length of a trench with buckshot, you first have to carry your short range shotgun through no-man's land without the ability to do any effective firing as you could with a bolt-action rifle. Further, if you reach the opposing trench in great enough force to actually be able to aim down the length of it for a flanking shot, then you already have a thousand other men able to do the same. The whole story seems like a meme made up by the American press and I cannot find even one source for official historical documentation such as judicial opinions or diplomatic records. --24.178.25.124 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute United States Department of State - PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1918, SUPPLEMENT 2, THE WORLD WAR - Document 911 - File No. 763.72116/588 - The Swiss Chargé ( Oederlin) to the Secretary of State:
The German Government protests against the use of shotguns by the American Army and calls attention to the fact that according to the law of war (Kriegsrecht) every prisoner found to have in his possession such guns or ammunition belonging thereto forfeits his life... 
Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The US Government's reply is here, dated Sept. 28, 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
"Despite protesting them, Germans did not listen to Ludendorff and decided to use and unofficially adopt the M1897 for their own use with modifications and named it "trench mauser" and mainly place them with stormtroopers." So, what is the source for these fairy tales? I checked Parkes' work and there is not the slightest mention of it.

Seems this article buys into a bit too much of the myth surrounding the gun in WWI. Suggest a re-edit making more use of recent scholarship. e.g. https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-truth-about-trench-guns/ Fangz (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)