Talk:Breechblock

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

message: Pls see Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Talk:Breechblock Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that a consensus has been reached. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for close 

message: @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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion of edits by [[User:AnnaGoFast ]] 

message: Hi , 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 ,  and .  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)
replies: text: Assertions about popularity are inherently editorialising.  It ?  It wasn't improved as much as adapted to a semiautomatic application.   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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: Hi , 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)
thread_title: [[Mannlicher M1886]]