Talk:Gas-operated reloading

message: Isn't there supposed to be something here about proposed name change to Gas operation?
:I figured it was non-controversial and didn't need discussion. Apologies. Added now. -Ethan0 19:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more problematic, gas operation suggests to me a secondary recovery procedure in oil and gas extraction, or possibly most any pneumatic device, maybe a jackhammer or dentist's drill or whatever. It's just too cryptic.  Only a few of the Google hits for the phrase "gas operation" deal with firearms.  Gene Nygaard 22:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested "Gas operation" to be consistent with Recoil operation. Seems like if one is changed so should the other, perhaps. Though there are others (Blowback (arms); Gas-delayed blowback) as well that aren't particularly consistent. Seems like these could stand to be updated, along with Firearm action (which doesn't even currently link to the main articles on the systems - I'll work on that). Maybe "Gas action"? -Ethan0 19:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Second Gene Nygaard's suggestion. Gas-operated has far too wide a range of meanings. Rd232 22:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, and to be precise, it should be "Gas-operated reloading", without "Operated" capitalized as it currently is. 24.30.66.41 15:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But there was consensus that the current name of the article isn't what it should be. How would I go about re-opening a requested move discussion? Just newly add it to WP:RM, or what? Ethan0 19:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed name change

message: The current image
labels six components but they are not explained in either the text or the caption.  It's kind of jarring.  I suggest that they be labelled in the caption. -- Mike Wilson 04:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I think it's better. -- Mike Wilson 07:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thx. :) --shotgunlee 08:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image needs legend 

message: I'm not sure I agree with your logic.  First, by the logic you gave, a pump action and a lever action would be the same thing (and in fact, the typical gas operated rifle is just a pump rifle--had Browning been working on pump actions rather than lever actions in the 1880s, he'd have built it that way).  In addition, how would you describe Browning's original prototype?  It was basically a .44 lever action rifle that used the muzzle blast impinging on a plate to actuate the lever.  Is that short stroke or long stroke?  There is no cylinder or piston at all in that case, so the definition breaks down.  I'm not sure in the M1895 if there is a cylinder/piston or not, it may just be a hole and a plate, so again, you get a breakdown in the short stroke/long stroke definition.  Had it been any other firearm, I'd just classify it as an oddity and leave it out, but since it was the first practical gas operated mechanism patented, I think it's important enough to merit a significant description.  scot (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are two unique systems (one with a flapper at the muzzle, the other with a refined flapper operated by a piston perpendicular to the bore axis. Several issues. First, you listed this system at the top though there are only two firearm models I'm aware of, one of which was a prototype.  Second, the operation of the bolt is through a series of levers, but the power provided to the bolt is through a gas piston.  Though it might seem novel, it's simply a Rube Goldberg way of doing the same thing, extraction, ejection, and feeding. Though core to the argument is how to classify this and where to put it.  I'd suggest a discussion on the talk page prior to adding anything back. --I am Asamuel (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: There is some debate about whether Browning was the first to utilize gas operation (though I'm solidly in the Browning camp).  As for where to classify the Browning systems, we would and should explain the systems a bit better.  Essentially, gas systems are classified as short stroke, long stroke, and gas trap based on where they utilize gas, either: high pressure, low pressure, or at the muzzle.  The first Browning gas operated rifle should rightfully be a gas trap system.  The Potato Digger should then fall under the short-stroke section.  It is, indeed, as short stroke though it does not use the more modern linear method of transmitting its energy back to the bolt.  There are numerous methods for operating the action, though, and none of them are truly linear. They either rotate the bolt (thus 'rotating bolt' in the description) or tilt the bolt through a cam or lever. As a more descriptive definition of operation, the M1895 would be gas operated, lever actuated, tilting bolt (maybe... Not sure as I've never disassembled an M1895). --I am Asamuel (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I put up a diagram of the M1895  in the article--it's a tilting bolt.  The mechanism is pretty complex due to the need to feed rimmed cartridges from a non-disintegrating cloth belt.  As for the high, low, and trap classification, I'm not sure if I can think of a truly high pressure system other than the Desert Eagle, which taps right in front of the chamber, and uses a long port drilled into the bottom of the barrel to route the gas up to the cylinder/piston.  The Garand would be the definitive low pressure, with the port an inch back from the muzzle, and just about everything else would be in between.  Then you've got oddball things like the floating chamber of the Colt Ace--is it blowback, or unlocked gas operation, or is there really a difference?  I ran across someone years ago who was considering making an ultralight 10/22 bolt and adding a gas piston that tapped right in front of the chamber, so it would operate (in theory at least) with CB longs.  Two holes in the chamber end of the barrel, a set screw to block one off, and a bit of Al bar stock on the bolt, and you've replicated the Colt Ace in a new form; it works the same, but you can't call it a "floating chamber" any more, so is this "gas assisted blowback" a new thing?  Maybe the sections are too strong, and imply a sharpness of division that is just not there in reality.  Maybe get rid of the sections, define commonly used variants, and note that it's more of a range than set of discrete elements.  scot (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: We're trying to pigeon-hole these things, of course, however the three classifications are generally distinct from a design point of view, however let me clarify what I mean by High Pressure.  High pressure is generally the rear 2/3 of the barrel.  From a design standpoint, ports drilled here require some sort of gas cutoff or vent system to operate properly.  The M1 Carbine is the best example of a port drilled fairly near the chamber.  Been 20 years since I cared enough to examine a Desert Eagle... never had much use for this gimicky gun.  But, I digress.  The distinguishing feature of a short-stroke operation, therefore, is that it vents, cuts off, or stops the piston after a short travel to prevent abuse of the gun.  The M1895 simply vented directly into the atmosphere as does the MINI-14.  Yes, the Garand is the perfect example of a long-stroke system.  The M1895 is really obscure for the general public and as the operating system is essentially a leverage actuated short-stroke piston, maybe this minutia belongs under firearm actions instead?  Rotating bolt, tilting bolt, toggle-locked, roller locked, hmmm.  Not really working out in my head right now what to call it. --I am Asamuel (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gas lever operation

message: Nuke, do not delete my source reference cites, just becuase you do not like how they are formatted.  Feel free to make them pretty if they offend your sensibilities, but the simple fact is that utilizing them inline would make those two paragraphs illegible ofr all the repeated references to each reference for each statement.  The cites (including page numbers and quoted passages) are available here on teh discussion page.  But five pages of hand written notes to reference thirteen sentances does not lend itself to inline cites -- it does lend itself to section cites.
I'm still waiting to see ANY reliable source cites supporting your asserted definition, however. Geodkyt (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, they are improperly inserted as a list at the beginning of a section.  Do some reading and find out how to do it right.  I'm not going to do your work for you.  I'll clean it up, but you haven't even attempted to do it right.  Also, I never said I had sources.  You have continually gone off half-cocked not reading what I said and assuming way too much about what you think I MEAN.  Back off, cool down, and do a little work on making inline citations.  Look at the other ones in the article, please.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I have to say that this is precious, "Length of stroke under pressure is irrelevant." I'd venture to guess that you're just saying that for the sake of argument and you don't really believe it.  What is a 'stroke' if it isn't the length that hte piston travels under pressure?  Heck, I can take that piston out of the gun and send it on a world tour.  That'd make it a 'really long stroke' piston then, right?  How about shooting it into orbit?  Say, an 'orbital stroke' piston?  I'm not trying to ridicule what you're saying, only to illustrate that the term 'long-stroke' is a misnomer and that it needs to be explained that way in the text. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, then.  Sir, you went to a different engineering class than I did. Yes, the peak velocity of the bolt carrier is important, but it's not an impact that does that, it's a shove.  This is not Croquet we're playing here.  I really shouldn't have to explain it, but the sources you're reading deal in laymans terms.  In real terms.  The velocity that the miniscule piston on the Carbine would have to attain to give the bolt carrier its velocity in one strike would be monumental.  It's a shove, not a strike.  Once again, these basic facts that elude you are tedious.  It's a time/pressure curve.  You figure the mass of the operating parts plus the piston, figure in the frontal area of the piston then place that on the pressure/time curve to arrive at the desired velocity.  Not uber-simple, but still not rocket science.  You can do it by trial and error, too, but you're end result has still got to place somewhere in the sweet spot on the graphs.  Vary length of travel, port location, port diameter, diameter of the piston, piston mass, operating part mass, etc.  Heck, as the TCC found out, you can even vary the pressure curve of the ammunition. But the end result has all got to be the same. Where the heck did you get the idea that it's an impact?  What's your source for that one? At no critical point is the gas piston out of contact with the bolt carrier.  It has a tiny oftentimes, but that jump is about .1% of the energy it imparts to the bolt carrier.  It doesn't strike it like a billiard ball.  This is simple stuff, how else am I to explain this? As I said on the talk page, you're not far off, but you also seem to lack a simple understanding of what is going on.  That the stroke is the same, for instance, you have SAID, but you don't seem to be connecting that to my points.  I did spend some time altering the article this time as I think I'm spinning my wheels with this discussion.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inapproriate deletions 

message: Again, this is becoming quite tedious.  Please, before you reference these things, take a gander at how others do it.  You don't use fifteen different references for the same point.  Further, you don't list the entire reference fifteen different places in the article.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: INLINE REFERENCE. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overreferencing 

message: The FAL has a gas piston that acts directly on th ebolt carrier.  The AR-18 has a connecting rod that transfers the energy to the bolt carriers.  These are BASIC facts of the systems.  Please stop reverting my corrections.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Put a fact tag after it then.  Do you think it's dubious that a heavier bolt carrier provides more momentum for the operation of the action? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAL and AR-18 

message: Here we go Nuke -- more of those pesky ACTUAL REFERENCES you don;t actually like to address. . . 
Balleisen, C.E. (1945).Principles of Firearms.  John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York NY
P49 Short stroke system
“In this system, the piston is not attached to the operating rod, nor the mechanism.  Instead, the piston strikes the operating rod a sharp blow and the remainder of the action is performed by the momentum exchanged at that instant.”
Smith, J.E.; Smith, W.H.B. (1960), Small Arms of the World, 6th Edition, Stackpole Company, Harrisburg PA
P249 FN Model 1949
“Tappet driving back through hole in receiver above line of barrel strikes bolt housing. . . “
P253 FAL
“The piston, acting on the tappet principle. . . It strikes the breechblock slide (or carrier) and pushes it to the rear.”
(NOTE – does use “push” after “strike”.)
P343 Czech Model 52
“The gases cause the actuator to strike the bolt carrier.  Momentum of the bolt carrier unlocks the action and carries the bolt. . . “
P432 G43/K43
“. . . driving back the short piston violently.
“This piston, acting on the tappet principle, strikes the operating rod. . . “
P587 SKS
“The piston, together with the piston rod, pushes the bolt a distance of 20mm.”
(NOTE – does use “push”, but is describing a movement of less than an inch.  That is less than the length of the fired case, and less than half the length of  a loaded cartridge.  Definitely describes a violent whack rather than a shove.)
Smith, W.H.B.; Smith, J.E. (1963), Book of Rifles, 3rd Edition, The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg PA
P68 Cei-Rigotti
The word “hit” is used to describe how the system transmits its operating force to the bolt group.
P89 Short-stroke system
“. . . driven sharply to the rear. . .”
“. . . piston stem delivers a powerful blow on the forward end of the operating rod.  The force of this blow drives the operating rod. . . “
P120 FN Model 1949
“In moving back, the rear of the tappet slides through a hole in the toip of the receiver, striking the face of the bolt carrier. . . “
P124 FAL
“In moving back, the rear of the tappet slides through a hole in the top of the receiver, striking the face of the bolt carrier. . . “
P148 Czech Model 58
“. . . move the piston to the rear against the pressure of its spring, and it strikes the top front of the bolt carrier. . . “
P151 Czech Model 52 & 52/57
“The sleeve transmits this blow to the sheet steel piston which in turn passes it on to spring loaded tappets. . . These tappets strike the bolt carrier. . . “
P404 SKS
“In moving back, the tappet rod slides through a hole in the rear sight base and a corresponding one in the top of the receiver to strike the bolt carrier.”
P410 Tokarev Models 1938 & 1940
“In the meantime the operating rod has forced the bolt carrier sharply rearward for a distance equal to about half the full travel distance of the carrier and bolt.”
Pp482-483 M1 Carbine
“The piston is driven sharply back about .140 inch. . . The piston hits the front face of the operating slide body, which has been resting against it, a very sharp blow.”
Smith, W.H.B.; Ezell, E. C. (1983), Small Arms of the World, 12th Edition, Stackpole Company, Harrisburg PA
P249 FAL
“The piston, acting on the tappet principle, is driven to the rear. . . It strikes the bolt carrier and pushes it to the rear.”
(NOTE – does use “push” after “strike”.)
P249 FAL
“After the piston tappet strikes the bolt carrier and imparts the necessary impetus to it. . . “
P263 FN49
“Tappet driving back through hole in receiver above line of barrel strikes bolt carrier and starts it to rear. . . “
P381 Vz58
“. . . it moves the gas piston to the rear at high speed; the rear end of the spring loaded piston protrudes through the rear sight base and strikes the top front of the bolt carrier.”
P386 Vz52
“. . . The rear end of the sleeve acts as a tappet imparting a blow to the bolt carrier.”
Just a short collection of quotes to belie your assertions.
Geodkyt (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, you're ignoring the FACT that these are laymans descriptions.  You said you were, what, a firearms engineer?  Well, work out what velocity the piston on a Carbine has to be going at to impart the velocity necessary to work the action from a single strike. I don't have to, you do.  Answer me that.  Pull out the computer of whatever you guys use and do it.  Why don't I have to, because I know that it doesn't impart its energy in a single blow. Prove that it does, first, then feel free to speak with me. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I mistyped.  Sue me. I've got a reference that says the bolt carrier moves 1/2" prior to contacting the cam.  Further, you're backpedaling.  The pressure builds and drops prior to the bolt carrier moving to strike the bolt lug in a curve, yes, but it is still under pressure during the stroke.  With the early White rifles, the issue was this time under pressure caused significant heat buildup.   So much so, in fact, that it caused the mainspring to lose temper.  The Garand solves this by using much lower pressure and having a very long piston. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've referenced the patent.  Nowhere in there does it say, "smack" "slam" "slap" "Bitch-slap" "hornswaggle" "strike" "swat" "tap" "Shanghai" "hit" "knock" "rock" or any such silly laymans terms.  It does use the odd word "vibrator" to describe the piston, but let's not go there. It also clearly states that the piston is in contact with the bolt carrier through the 'stroke'.  That is, unless David Marshall Williams was wrong. BTW, isn't this exactly what I'd said in the first place?  Must have been about fifteen years or so, but my copy is still underlined and highlighted from the first few times I read it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: You know, it's REALLY difficult to debate when you do not have a FUNDAMENTAL or BASIC understanding of the systems of which you speak... I'll quote you, "May I suggest you look at the gas system - specifically where the vent is in relation to the piston - used in the FAL rifle before you make this bold claim?  The FAL is already exhausting excess gas BEFORE it even gets to the gas piston -- that's how the "exaust regulator" works."  Listen, you don't know what you're talking about here.  Examine your gas tube more closely.  See anything strange about an inch further down the tube? The 'regulator' you speak of allows you to adjust the pressure in the system.  It is not where the system 'vents.'  Also, note how far the piston will go until it hits a stop... notice anything strange?  How far did it go? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Strike" versus "push" 

message: Can someone articulate the disadvantages of the gas trap system?  I believe the M1A is a gas trap system and it would help readers (i.e. me) understand what disadvantages are referred to. 
Thanks, Wprovenzan001 (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas Trap 

message: If "many experts agree that short-stroke piston design almost completely eliminates traditional reliability issues with direct impingement systems such as the M16, AR-15 or M4 type assault rifles, especially during sustained suppressive fire. Service life increases up to 100% over direct gas impingement systems would not be considered unusual" then why is there no citation to said experts who make such a contention? 66.166.59.147 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert citations needed 

message: There are hundreds of thousands of firearm patents, most have never gone into production, will never go into production, or were only produced as proto-types. We simply don’t have room to discuss every single one. We should only discuss those systems that have gone into mass production. --71.22.156.40 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should only discuss those systems that have gone into mass production. 

message: The Dual-Mode DI/Piston system represents a new type of operating system that is particularly relevant to the AR market (where piston retrofit kits and piston-driven ARs are very popular).  Therefore, I respectfully request that it be referenced on the Gas-operated reloading page, where I believe that readers will find it both informative and timely.  Best regards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master Makarov (talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual-Mode DI/Piston information 

message: This article should be under Action (firearms)Digitallymade (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't. --Winged Brick (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting merge into Action (firearms) 

message: Since Hiram Stevens Maxim developed the gas operation for firearms which was subsequently first used by John Moses Browning why is there no history here? Digitallymade (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no History section here.