Talk:Gas-operated reloading

Proposed name change

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)

That sounds like a medical procedure to reduce burping to me.

I'd suggest gas-operated reloading instead. Gene Nygaard 22:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

Request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church ^Talk 20:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

It is not a matter of opinion; look up and reference any military manuals on the type of operation their weapons have. Gas-Operated is one of those types. This is why I created this page in the first place. I fail to see what else "Gas-Operated" implies, and how this could lead to confusion with other subjects and have 'far too wide a range of meanings' unless someone is not familiar with fiearms, then in which case it makes it even worse to change a page because of lack of experience and familiarization. "Recoil Operation" should be changed to "Recoil-Operated" and so on and so forth. "Gas-Operated Reloading" is beyond redundant, and action in a firearm is determined by how the bolt is worked. I vote no. 66.47.50.214 08:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Brenden

Gas operation (or gas operated) has only one meaning in relation to firearms. It should be changed. If you want to weasel out by describing it as "Gas operated firearms", fine. But "Gas-operated reloading" is inaccurate, misleading (is it reloading the chamber, or reprovisioning the ammunition supply somehow?), and a term not used by ordnance folks. Geodkyt (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image needs legend

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)

Cool. I think it's better. -- Mike Wilson 07:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thx. :) --shotgunlee 08:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The current image caption is incorrectly referencing the AK-47 as the design pictured. That is so far off, it's not even funny. Get the non-fact-checking idiot reporter mentality out of here. It is most definitely an FN-FAL. That mis-identification is like calling a modern double-action revolver a Colt Peacemaker! ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.248.205 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate Definitions

The definition of short stroke and long stroke gas operation are incorrect, implying that the time duration that the piston is subjected to the gas determines the type of gas operation. This is a revisionist definition that has never been included in any manuals or reference books I'm aware of. In fact, one of the footnotes [3] relies on the bore x stroke of an automotive engine. !! Indeed, the impetus duration or either so-called long or short stroke gas operation is probably about the same, it is whether or not the piston makes the entire journey the bolt carrier group does.

In a firearm application, a long stroke piston is attached to the bolt carrier and makes the complete trip back and forth with the bolt carrier. Examples are AK-47 and BAR M1918;

Short stroke refers to a separate piston that moves only a short distance, imparting a motion to the bolt carrier which continues its work leaving the piston at the end of its travel. M1 Carbine, M14, SVD Dragunov, M60 Machine gun all are examples of short stroke pistons.

The M1 Garand is an archaic example that could almost be called a separate type of operation which I would propose to call "long impetus" gas operated reloading. It is archaic and was abandoned as unnecessarily fussy and complicated; it required special ammunition that operated within a narrow band of pressure to avoid wrecking the system. Even the derivative US Rifle, M14 used the short stroke piston.

Your understanding of the operation of a piston is incorrect as are numerous descriptions in the gun world. Short-stroke and long-stroke pistons operate differently in firearms as they do in internal combustion engines. Due to the fairly small sample size of firearm pistons vs. internal combustion engines, it might seem simple to use arbitrary distinctions to describe short vs. long stroke, however the bottom line is that an AR-18 and AK-47 piston operate IDENTICALLY. Now, what happens AFTER the power stroke differs in the way you described, however this is not the 'stroke' of the piston. Read Hatcher's Notebook before you continue to argue your point.--Asams10 03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

From how I am reading it, Hatcher's Notebook references D.M. Williams as the patented inventor of the short-stroke gas piston, and both Hatcher's and the patent indicate the piston being limited in its travel as the defining characteristic of the short stroke system-

The Short-Stroke Gas Piston (pg 67, Hatcher's Notebook)

"...the short stroke piston principle, patented by Mr. David M. Williams. The gas is taken of near the breech, where the pressure is very high. The piston is completely housed in the cylinder, and is permitted to move through a stroke of only about a tenth of an inch. At the rear of it's stroke, it acts as a valve, and prevents the gas from escaping from the gas cylinder except by going back into the barrel through the port by which it entered the gas cylinder.

The operating slide rests against the projecting end of the piston, which, under the impact of the gas, strikes the operating slide a sharp blow.Even the short piston stroke imparts to the operating slide sufficient energy to cause it to carry through and operate the mechanisim.

It is something like the action of a croquet ball held under the foot and struck a sharp blow with a mallet while another ball rests freely against the far side. The second ball will be driven swiftly away by the elastic impact.

This system has the great advantage of doing away with the long operationg rod..."

U.S. patent 2,090,656 by D.M Williams

"In it's broadest form, applicants invention comprises the combination in a repeating firearm of a barrel member and slide member being reciprocable one with respect to the other to move between approximal and spaced positions, a vibrator [piston assembly] arranged to engage one of said members and initiate movement of the members to spaced postion... As pointed out, the vibrator is mounted for limited reciprocation."3000fps (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're not citing that patent, because you're way off. This is the patent for the Floating Chamber operation, not for the piston. Check your sources better. Short-stroke and long-stroke are determined by the point in the barrel at which the gas is tapped and the time under pressure of the piston head. I'll have to say, you gave it a good college try. Please come again. The Hatcher quote is taken out of context, BTW, but I've had enough already. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am citing the patent. If the patent cited were only for the floating chamber, please explain figure 12a, which clearly shows gas tapped forward of a non-floating chamber and acting upon a piston below? The patent is for the piston, it's part of the system. The floating chamber acts as the piston in that circumstance, figure 12a (page 5) makes that clear. The Hatcher quote is not out of context, it is word-for-word the section titled "The Short-Stroke Gas Piston" of chapter four, Automatic Gun Mechanisms.3000fps (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that you are trolling, so here's some more food. Here's the full quote that you so conveniently didn't place as you thought it'd support your opinion if you took it out of context, "In 1940 the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. submitted for test a 9 1/2 pound Cal. 30 semiautomatic rifle operating on the short stroke piston principle, patented by Mr. David M. Williams." The next paragraph describes WHERE IN THE BARREL the gas is tapped and HOW LOONG the stroke is (1/10th of an inch in this case). The rifle was patented by David M. Williams. The particular tappet-style short-stroke piston devised by David M. Williams was patented. There were at least half a dozen short-stroke rifles on the market at the time Williams was still obsessed with the floating chamber. Williams was a braggart and a brilliant designer, but he did not develop THE short-stroke principle though he developed one of the best. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not trolling at all, just trying to find the truth. Above, you listed Hatcher as a source, so I thought I'd look into it and I'm relaying what I found. The part you've quoted (which I quoted as well, BTW) which describes distance of travel and port placement is a small part of the section, with nothing about bore/stroke or dwell. No, the remainder of the entire section on the short-stroke gas piston is devoted to explaining the piston being limited in its travel (which the 1/10" could be interpreted as supporting) and acting upon a separate operating slide mechanism. The section is devoted to the short-stroke piston, using the M1 carbine as example. If Hatcher is to be used as a source for what a short or long stroke gas system is than wouldn't he have mentioned bore/stroke and dwell, if the definition were correct? Or should we discount Hatcher altogether? Also, if where the barrel is tapped (close to the chamber being considered short-stroke), why is the AK (as well as most other military piston driven rifles) considered short stroke when the barrel is tapped closer to the muzzle than the chamber?3000fps (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hatcher was not defining the short-stroke piston. At the time, most mechanisms (Garand, Bang, BAR, etc) were true long-stroke pistons. The limiting factor was not that gas could not be tapped at the rear of the barrel but that it would beat the shit out of the mechanism if it were. While the BAR mechanism was long stroke, the operating parts were significantly heavy enough to allow gas to be tapped further down the barrel. By tapping gas closer to the bore, it operated cleaner but gave much too much power for a small rifle to operate. This problem was solved with numerous SHORT-STROKE systems. They took several approaches to the problem of how to reliably limit the travel of the piston and time under pressure. Engineers at the time were quite concerned with the kinetics of how the system worked and perfecting them.

While Williams used the approach of having the piston stop after a SHORT STROKE, work on the Garand concentrated on a 'gas cutoff' system where the piston would move and cut the flow of gas off after a SHORT STROKE. Still others used a vent system where there were ports (SKS) or slots (AK-47). If you look at the AK, the gas goes AROUND the piston once it's gone back a short distance. This is no longer the power stroke, the piston is simply along for the ride, unlike the Garand where the piston is under pressure a LONG time.

As I've said before, most 'gun people' don't understand the basic concepts. They see the Garand and assume that long stroke means the piston is attached to the bolt carrier. It's a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. The proper terminology is that the piston is affixed to the bolt carrier and travels with it the whole way. As I've said before, the "STROKE" part of the operating cycle is functionaly equivelant for both the AR-18 (often described as the quintessential short-stroke) and the AK-47. The stroke of the Carbine and SCAR is actually shorter still because these are the 'tappet' variety of short-stroke piston. The tappet design, for me, is the most elegant of various solutions as it allows for a truly short distance from chamber to port and correspondingly cleaner gas system that does not vent into the atmosphere. It's cleaner, lighter, and cheaper, but it is only one of a dozen varieties of short stroke piston. Calling it a 'tappet' system is the best way to describe it. In defense of my position, Hatcher was writing the book as the gas cutoff system was just beind developed and vent systems were known, but not well known in the west. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this whole discussion turns on the use of the mechanical engineering term "stroke". I'm not a mech engineer, but I'll do the best I can. From what I can tell one group (the AK47 = long stroke group) takes stroke in it's standard definition as "the distance the piston travels". This definition is applied normally to engines, but it seems reasonable that designers of autoloading firearms ~60-100 years ago would have used the term in the common way (that is, if they bothered to define stroke at all, much less to differentiate between short and long). The other group (AK47 = short stroke) seems to use the term stroke to mean, more specifically, "power stroke". In an engine the power stroke is the piston's movement under pressure from combustion. I don't know if there are any engine designs that use a short-swift combustion pressure that leaves the rest to momentum (the way an AR-18 does), so I'm not sure if there's ever been a need to define power stroke as either distance of movement under pressure only or distance of movement under pressure and resulting momentum (equivalent to total movement of the piston), as they may be the same thing (distance) in most applications. If engines do not usually/ever have an AR-18 style power stroke, then the AK47 = short stroke group seems to be using the terminology of stroke in a way that is exclusive to firearms. This may very well be the case, too. I don't know the right answer, but I would love to see it demonstrated/explained why one definition or the other is correct, or why firearms use a definition separate from the rest of mechanical engineering.CrunchRiff (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points, but your analogy is flawed. In a long-stroke engine, the length of the stroke is used for things other than power. It is used for exhaust and compression. In a firearm, there is ZERO functional difference in the stroke of an AK-47 and an AR-18. There is a design difference in whether or not the piston is firmly fixed to the bolt carrier, but that is a red herring. It means nothing. When the history of gas-operated weapons is examined, much emphasis was given to the problem of how to deal with 'too much power' being that gas pressure would beat the heck out of the operating mechanism. The first gas-operated weapons had no issues tapping high-pressure gas as this gas was operating a HUGE breechblock (potato digger). Now, when lighter firearms came into use such as the Bang Rifle and Garand, the problem was solved by tapping the gas at or near the muzzle. This resulted in less gas that needed to operate over a long period of time. These systems were unvented and gas operated on the piston the entire length of the stroke. Near the end of the stroke, gas pressure has dropped to near ambient. The problem with these systems is weight and complexity. The solutions involved the tappet (M1 Carbine), expansion and cutoff (M14 Rifle), and venting through holes as in the SKS or through longitudinal slots as on the AK-47. These systems allowed high-pressure gas to act on the piston for shorter periods of time therefore they would not heat the gas parts excessively or provide too much energy to working parts. The gun could be made with a shorter barrel and the gas system parts were lighter and simpler to manufacture. This was all due to limiting the stroke length of the piston and making it shorter. Historically, the term short-stroke was first applied AFAIK to the M-1 Carbine. It's defining characteristic was its short stroke that was looked upon as a breakthrough at the time. The M1 Garand was modified with an M1 Carbine style gas system at one time. This fell out of favor as the 'more advanced' M14 style gas cutoff was thought to deal with Corrosive ammo better. It's notable that the M1 Carbine required non-corrosive ammo whereas the M1 Garand shot corrosive ammo until 1950 I believe.

Where all the confusion lies is in the similarity in the Garand and AK-47's gas systems. Both pistons are affixed to the operating rods/carriers. This leads to the mistaken assumption that they operate in the same manner. Further confusing the situation is the fact that the original AK-47 (not the AKM) had no vent slots at the end of the power stroke. The Piston merely opened up into a guide tube with corrugated depressions. Gas vents around the piston and back towards the action. There are holes further down the tube to vent the gas and keep it from excessively blowing debris back. You'll note that after firing an AK of the old variety there is a great deal of carbon built up behind the piston on the piston rod. The AKM is much cleaner. Examining the 'quintessential' short-stroke (the AR-18), gas is vented through two holes and the energy of the piston moving is imparted to the bolt carrier through transfer from the tappet rod. But the problem is, that's the same way on the AK-47. The difference is the AK-47 DRAGS the piston and piston rod with it through the rest of the stroke. It doesn't need to. The FAL and SKS demonstrate this. It does this to make the gun simpler, but it doesn't change the BASIC functioning of the stroke. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're indicating that the AK = long stroke group argues their point not from any understanding of engineerings terms (where stroke = length of piston travel), but just because both the AK and the Garand, a known long-stroke design, have pistons attached to carriers regardless of the fact that they operate differently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrunchRiff (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The definitions are clear -- and have been for decades. If the gas piston moves the entire length of the operating stroke of teh bolt carrier, it is a long stroke gas system. If the piston moves LESS THAN the distance of the operating stroke, it is a short stroke. It is irrelevant whether or not the piston is attached -- although the piston of a short stroke system cannot be attached to the carrier. Definitions deriving from internal combustion engines are absolutely irrelevant and inapplicable.

The Kalashnikov action DOES NOT merely "drag" the piston along -- the mass of the piston provides momemtum to carry the action parts back.

If all gas operation systems involving pistons are "short stroke" merely becuase the system vents excess gas, then you have just stated that ALL gas operating systems are, by your definition, "short stroke". You see, the OTHER part of the gas system that provides the other end of teh sealant is THE BULLET -- once it leaves the barrel, the excess pressure vents out the (relatively large) hole in the front called THE MUZZLE. There is still high pressure gas in the AK gas tube when the piston passes the vent holes -- they just reduce it a little, but the pressure drops to near ambient once the bullet leaves the bore. And ALL before the action has unlocked the bolt. It doesn;t matter if it is long-stroke, short-stroke, direct gas impingement, or operates by Pure Friggin' Magic -- once the bullet leaves the bore, the "excess" gas is bled off anyway, and this is ALWAYS before teh action has unlocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geodkyt (talk • contribs) 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So according to your statement, the AK and the Garand piston operations are called the same (long-stroke) despite their differences in design?

I don't remember anyone proposing a definition based purely on the concept of venting. The "AK = Short Stroke" argument is not that it is short stroke simply because the gas is vented. The argument is that once the piston head passes the vent holes, the gas does not continue to exert enough force on the piston to accelerate the operating group. Rather, by that time the gas has already accelerated the action enough that the mass of the moving parts continues to move primarily because of momentum. Though I'm not as familiar with the gas cut-off system found in the M14, it sounds like illustration enough to show the "Short Stroke = AK" club does not arrive at their defintion purely because of venting.

What is the benefit of having vent holes in the AK? You say it reduces pressure "a little". What does this achieve if it doesn't matter until the bullet leaves the barrel? And just so I know ('cause I'm learning this stuff too, hence all these gadfly questions), where do you go to learn how long the bullet is in the barrel vs how long there's high-pressure gas in the gas tube; the change in gas pressure in the gas tube over time; etc... I ask because it sounds like you know.CrunchRiff (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of teh vent holes in the AKM gas piston is actually for the removal of CARBON that the piston head scrapes off the inside of the gas tube. As the piston runs back and forth, it also scours the inside of the gas tube. Once the piston passeds the holes, some of teh gas pressure then seeks it's easiest path out, and escapes through those holes -- carrying carbon fouling with it. This means that Private Ivan doesn't need to scrape the inside of his gas tube, even when using low-grade cruddy ammo. Any additional fouling (such as excess oil) used on teh piston or gas tube will get blown out as well. This has the effect of keeping the gun running under heavy fouling, without significantly changing the cycle time.

The contrasting view that an AKM is a "short stroke" system becuase of thge length of time it is under pressure ignores the fact that the AK47 piston spends MORE time under gas pressure than the M1 Garand due to the positions of the gas ports. Or that the AK47 and AKM gas tubes (interchangeable) somehow change the entire operating system from long stroke to short stroke.

Long stroke is, and has always been, defined as the gas piston traveling the full length of teh rewquired operating stroke. It DOES NOT need to be under full pressure to do so -- and in fact, NO gas piston, not even the M1 Garand, is under full gas pressure for the full stroke of the operating cycle. If they were, the gun would suffer a complete case rupture on each and every round fired, as the BARREL is under full gas pressure until the bullet leaves -- at which point BOTH the barrel and gas system vent to ambient pressure together. The gas piston starts out under gas pressure, but finishes it's cycle via INERTIA.

This yields a long, relatively smooth cycle. Doesn't matter if the piston is attached -- if it is pushing the bolt group the whole way, the whole mass is moving together with the relatively high mass smoothing out the cycle.

Short stroke systems impart a short, sharp smack to the bolt group. It can involve a conventional gas piston that hits a tappet (operating rod) that may or may not be attached to the bolt carrier. For example, the SKS carbine. Or, it may have a short piston like the M1 Carbine tappet. Or, it may have a conventional length gas piston that has a stop that prevents it from cycling the full length of teh bolt group's minimum operating cycle. The piston must impart enough energy via IMPACT, noyt inertia, to carry the whole bolt group through cycle.

It produces a sharp, short, cycle. . . but (in the case of systems without a full length gas piston, like the M1 Carbine), involves less mass cycling -- which can reduce felt recoil or weapon disturbance.

There IS a difference in how these two systems function, and the length of stroke is part of that. It is the physics of inertia, not gas pressure time, that defines short stroke versus long stroke. The definitions AS USED BY ORDNANCE DESIGNERS have been clearly set for over half a century. It was clearly understood that a long-stroke gas system moved the necessary operating stroke, and teh short stroke gas system did not, and that was the difference.

Or at least it was before Internet Experts decided to re-write the definitions on Wikipedia instead of using the actual textbooks on the subject that have stood for decades. But then, given the price and rariety of such basic texts as "Principles of Firearms" by Major Charles Balleisen (used as a primary source by Britannica, used as a textbook for the US Army Ordnance Corps, and later rewritten into an Army Technical Manual) and the five volume "The Machine Gun" series by Colonel George Chinn (written for the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance beginning in 1951 and continued through 1987, entire volumes were classified for decades), it isn't surprising that these fallacies persist. (These, along with the basic mechanical engineering texts, are the books the working military small arms designers reference when they are figuring something out concerning gun actions.) Few people have $1100 or so for those six books. Military small arms design engineering is a rather small field, so most of the good books have been out of print for 30-50 years or so. Instead, we get "experts" quoting from automotive repair manuals and using God-Only-Knows as their sources for these new and mechanically useless "definitions".

Defining short and long stroke systems based on the relative length of the cylinder versus it's width is appropriate for a Buick, but not a Kalashnikov. Trying to claim that an AR18 and an AKM are "exactly the same" and they are both "short stroke" is voodoo engineering not recognized by working ordnance designers.

For example, Eugene Stoner developed rifles with all three major gas systems -- direct impingement (AR15), short stroke gas (AR18), and long stroke gas (Stoner 63). He never had any problems differenciating between the three systems, and agreed that they all were valid (as opposed to saying the long stroke system was obsolete). The Russians have no problem differenciating between "long stroke" and "short stroke" based on whether or not the piston cycles the length of the minimum operating stroke. - - Geodkyt 198.185.182.253 (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you. In listing the sources above you provided exactly what I was hoping to find.

It seems to me now that while these terms used in firearms engineering are more or less standardized (aside from the obvious confusions on this page), that they may differ slightly in use from those in a more general engineering sense. Is it the case that, while in firearms a stroke is generally accepted to be the "distance the piston moves", in other fields stroke means "distance the piston moves under pressure"? Further, can anyone provide a source (outside of firearms) that defines the stroke as the distance the piston moves "under pressure"?

If there are sources supporting the "under pressure" definition, does anyone know when or why it is that firearms diverged from it? If there are not, then where did this internet definition come from?CrunchRiff (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lever operation

This section is under dispute, with the claim that the lever operation is equivalent to a short stroke action:

Lever operation

The earliest successful gas operating mechanism appeared in the M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun, commonly nicknamed the "potato digger" due to the behavior of its unique operating mechanism. Invented by John Moses Browning in 1889, the M1895 was an air cooled, closed bolt, belt fed machine gun. It had a gas port on the bottom of the barrel, roughly six inches from the muzzle, which impinged on a piston attached to a long lever. Upon actuation, the lever would swing in an arc down and back, cycling the action in a manner similar to a lever action. The nickname "potato digger" was the result of the gun's behavior when fired from a prone position; if fired from too low a position, the piston's arc would result in it digging into the ground. The M1895 was made in a number of calibers, and saw service through World War I with US and Russian troops.

Here is the discussion, copied from Asam10's talk page:

Gas lever operation

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)

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)

So here are some discussion points:

• What about the prototype .44 rifle Browning made? It was, from his son's description to Hatcher, a modified lever action rifle, using a lever actuated by muzzle blast--this would make it, but the given definition, a "negative stroke" system, as the gas is vented before it actuates the lever. Both that and the M1895 were covered by the same patent.
• What about direct impingement? Take the M-16 and Mini-14 operating systems; in both cases, gas is directed out the port, down a tube, through a fixed piston and into a cylinder in the bolt carrier/operating rod (which serve the same purpose). The only difference is the length of the tube (under and inch vs. about a foot) and the size and shape of the bolt carrier. And yet the M-16 is a direct impingement and the Mini-14 a short stroke design.

And, perhaps most important:

• Is there a source that calls the M1895 a short stroke action? I haven't been able to turn one up.

In addition to the question of adding lever operation as a separate type is the issue of history. To my knowledge, Browning's 1890 patent was the first for a gas operated mechanism--this is why I put it at the top of the list. The development of the M1895 should be mentioned for historical reasons if nothing else--including the Marlin gun variant, which used a linear piston virtually identical to most modern gas operated machine guns. scot (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Short and long stroke

I don't care who ANYONE here is, and neither should anyone else because it DOES NOT MATTER! If you are "somebody", then you'll have published works to back it up, and then you can quote yourself all you want. If you don't have published works, then your qualifications are completely irrelevant to the argument.

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and realize that THERE ARE NO FACTS, there are ONLY STATEMENTS BY SOURCES. The only way we're going to get any sort of consensus is to put all the sources on the table, and then, AND ONLY THEN, can we have a reasonable discussion. scot (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusion point 1) the M1 Carbine and its touted "Short-stroke" system. The confusion is more correctly placed in the description of the Carbine as short-stroke with the omission of the term 'tappet'. Though most sources omit that function, this was the patented and revolutionary idea that made Williams' system work. The AK-47 is a short-stroke gas system with the piston firmly affixed to the bolt carrier. The Storke of the AK-47 is IDENTICAL (functionally) to that of the AR-18, but the AR-18, Tokarov, SKS, and others use a 'tappet' to transmit the force of the expanding gas to the bolt carrier. The tappet is defined by wikitonary as "A lever or projection moved by some other piece, as a cam, or intended to tap or touch something else". The tappet may be a piston as in the Carbien or an interlink as in the AR-18 and SKS.

The tappet piston on the M1 Carbine has exactly the same final velocity as the peak velocity of the bolt carrier. It doesn't hit the bolt carrier like a hammer so much as it shoves it rearward. That shove is IDENTICAL to that given the AK-47's bolt carrier, but the AK takes the piston along for the ride for the whole cycle while other short-stroke systems arrest the movement of the this part of the mechanism with a mechanical stop, spring, or both. It's slightly simpler to make the piston (or cylinder as in the Mini-14) fixed. This system gives certain advantages like a greater mass reciprocating and more positive chambering of cartridges (Bigger hammer slugging the rounds into the chamber). BUT THE STROKE IS THE SAME!

Confusion point 2) automotive pistons have short and long stroke definitions that deal with mechanical advantage. Apart from the Potato Digger, there aren't firearms I'm aware of where this is a factor. Firearms engineers, 'experts' and laymen have translated this commone internal-combustion engine terminology into firearms, but it does not apply. Again ignoring the exception, modern firearms impart motion on the bolt through camming surfaces (raceway on the M1 Garand/AK-47 type, simple inclined mating surface on SKS and FAL). --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Once these points are cleared up through reality, there is no point in getting references. Both views have to be given their due in the article. This is an absurd exercise given the Clip vs. Magazine fiasco. Why? The Stroke is the SAME!!! --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point, comparing this to the magazine article. Maybe the solution is the same--forget about terminology, and arbitrary categorizations, and concentrate on the history and evolution of the different systems, and then note somewhere at the end break out the various classifications. Heck, between Browning's prototype gas operated gun (a converted lever action, I'm sure of it), the resulting M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun, and the later "Marlin Gun" derivative of the M1895, you've covered most of the gas operated action types in one development cycle. scot (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nukes keeps insisting that "The stroke is the SAME!!!", when in fact, that is the disagreement at hand. In other words, his assertion is that it's a moot argument becuase he is correct, and those who disagree with him are wrong. This is the fallacy of logic called, "Begging the question". Even if his factual argument were true (in fact, the strokes are not the same -- they have different kinematic effects on the operating cycle), the problem with this form of argument is that he tries to "paper over" the controversy by claiming that everyone is claiming essentially the same thing, which (just happens) to agree with his argument. The current paragraph (with one minor deletion that also "begs the question" of the controversy) offered by , while not fully tehcnically accurate, is in fact, a neutral POV presentation of the disputed definitions -- thus is is a reasonable compromise.

However, the claim in Nuke's edit comment that the edit I had offered was "condescending" is an interesting presentation -- while it disagrees with Nuke's definitions and illustrates the differences between the ones he offered and I offered, it in no way condescended to anyone.

There was, however, no reason to remove the references I offered -- which even NUKE agreed were acceptable references; he just disagreed with my reading of them. Geodkyt (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying the stroke is different? WHAT!? The Piston moves essentially the same distance under pressure, does it not? Is this not the stroke? PLEASE address this question head on... yes or no, is this not the stroke and don't they essentially move the same distance with the piston at essentially the same point in the barrel? Yes? No? Head on... --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuke, it's simple. It's all about inertia. Short stroke systems MUST put all of their energy into the operating cycle in one short, violent whack -- they are disengaged from the rest of the recoiling parts aside from that brief moment. Long stroke systems stay in combination with the recoiling parts throughout the stroke, the momemtum of the piston iteself is used to ensure the bolt group continues moving far enough. It doesn't require as much of a short, violent whack at the beginning, as we aren't throwing away the momentum of the gas piston (like the FAL, SKS, AR18, and M1 Carbine do) and dumping it directly into the reciever as recoil forces. ALL of the mechanical energy imparted into the gas piston is delivered to the bolt group (minus the inevitable friction and heat losses), at least as far as the minimum required stroke in a long stroke system. Even when it's not under significant gas pressure, it's momentum is still PUSHING the action parts back. This is a physical, objective difference that is readily and easily determined, with little or no wiggle room to disagree with. . . which is why it's the working definition. (There are always freak actions -- heck there even combination gas/blowback autocannons, where gas is used to start unlocking and residual blowback is used to open the action.)

Keep in mind that NO gas piston system is under significant pressure during the entire bolt group stroke -- as there is the need to delay the opening of the bolt until the pressure in the breech (and the gas system it is connected to) has dropped to safe levels. Otherwise, the cases have a tendancy to blow out and jam the gun instantly. Even in the vaunted case of the M1 Garand (final iterations), the bullet has left the bore and the gas system effectively depressurized LONG before the bolt group has finished moving back and opening the breech. (Not surprising -- look at the position of teh M1 gas port in relationship to the muzzle; look at the distance the bolt group has to travel before the gun even unlocks, much less cycles, and then figure out how fast the bolt group is moving versus the bullet -- keeping in mind "equal and opposite reactions" mena that the heavy bolt group is NOT moving faster than the light weight bullet.) So, to differenciate the piston systems based on how long they move under pressure, you have to make subjective guesses as to which falls in which category -- as they all only move for a portion of the bolt stroke under significant pressure.

By your definition of long stroke systems, there is no such thing as a long stroke gas piston system -- not in any functional firearms, anyway. Becuase they would all blow up the cases on the first shot, just as if they had no locking system to hold the breech shut in the first place. (What does a locking system do if the breech is going to be opened while the gas system -- and thus the breech -- are still significantly pressurized? Nothing. . . that would be a useless gas piston on a straight blowback gun.)

Now, lets ignore the hyperbole and just use logic here. Are engineers more likely to invent and use meaningless terminology that cannot be used for objective discrimination between two alternatives becuase they only provide a subjective comparison between one group of real systems and another group of imaginary systems that cannot work, or clear cut definitions that actually describe the physical attributes of the systems in question?

Geodkyt (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes, engineers invent meaningless terminology to describe incremental differences, especially when said terms and differences get them, or get them around, a patent. Just look at, say, the Atkinson cycle engine, whose SOLE original purpose was to circumvent the patents on the Otto cycle engine. Granted, if you fiddled with the funky linkages in the Atkinson cycle engine, you could change the intake/compression and power/exhaust stroke lengths independently, which can be quite useful. Useful enough that now, ironically, they fake the Atkinson cycle in the Otto cycle engine by mucking about with the intake valve timing. scot (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So, was that a yes or a no? You're understanding seems a bit flawed. Mechanically speaking, a piston tapping gas from the same point of the barrel will travel the same distance (short) all other things being equal to impart an equivelant velocity to the operating parts. Therefore, you compare the pressure curve to the frontal area of the piston head and the desired velocity and there you have it. Simple. The differences between this distance for all the various short-stroke systems is inconsequentally small -- roughly the same as or shorter smaller than the diameter of the piston when gas is tapped from roughly the center of the barrel and used to drive an assault rifle mechanism. It is the same whether you stop 10-20% of that mass in a tappet system or whether you carry the piston along for the ride, operating parts, desired velocity, pressure, frontal area of the cylinder... mix it up and there you have it. Semantics aside, the stroke is not what is being described by the misnomer, "Long Stroke" as it's being used to describe the AK-47.

Now, PLEASE answer my question about the stroke. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuke, I have answered your questions about the stroke. Repeatedly. Since you refuse to either look up the information in the industry-standard texts (cites provided), here are some relevant comments by the recognized technical experts -- experts whom even you have acknowledged are authoritative.

In no case have I ever seen your definitions used by any recognized technical expert on the subject -- not WHB Smith, Jpseph Smith, Ian Hogg, Peter Kokalis, Edward Ezell, Charles Balleisen, or George Chinn, for instance. Some of these are the authors who write (or wrote) the textbooks used to train automatic gun designers; one of them is a Britannica author on the subject. Two of them wrote their books for the use of the United States government for military gun designers. If these are not the reputable sources, pray tell -- what is?

With the exception of Chinn (which is available online free, except for Volume V), odds are that you will be able to locate these next cited texts through your local library. (I intentionally omitted Balleisen from these quotes for that reason of public availablity -- what academics call "accessability". You won't likely find it outside a professional technical library without laying out $100 or so, so it is not easily verified by Wikipedians.)

I've added comments preceeded with "NOTE --". Some areas are paraphrased, and are not in quotes.

Chinn, G. M, The Machine Gun, Volume IV, USGPO for the Bureau of Ordnance, Department of the Navy, Washington DC, 1955

P.130 “If the gas port remains open after the projectile has passed, the pressure in the gas cylinder will become zero at essentially the same time the residual barrel pressure becomes zero.” NOTE -- this applies to ALL gas operated systems. This includes the achetypical M1 Garand that all parties agree is a long stroke system.

P.130-134 “Since the powder gas pressure exists for such a short time, it is not practical to attempt to use the force on the piston directly for activating the gun mechanism. This is particularly true because the bolt must remain locked for a considerable amount of time during which the powder gas pressures are acting. Therefore, the impulse of the pressure is utilized to impart a velocity to the piston mass and then, by virtue of the kinetic energy thus stored in the piston, the piston can perform the necessary automatic functions even after the powder gas pressure is gone.” NOTE -- even in the M1 Garand (the archetypical long stroke system), it is momentum, NOT constant gas pressure moving the action parts. Even direct gas impingement systems (AR15, Ljungman) fall into this category. Only in White Principle systems (gas cut off, where expanding gasses are trapped and cannot escape back into the bore, like the M14 and M60) can utilize actual gas pressure to drive the system for the full stroke.

Smith, W.H.B. and Smith, J.E., The Book of Rifles, 3rd Edition, The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg PA, 1963

P.89 “There are several marked differences in the design of gas operated action. One is the long-stroke piston which usually takes off its operating charge of gas at relatively low pressures through a port near the muzzle or even through a muzzle cap. The operating rod is fastened to the piston stem and extends clear back to the receiver where it engages the breechblock or bolt. With this arrangement the head of the piston obviously has the same length of stroke as the operating rod must make in order to operate the action.

“Another basic type is the short-stroke piston or tappet. With this type the operating charge of gas is usually taken off through a gas port only a few inches forward of the chamber. The operating rod is not attached to the short stemmed piston (tappet) but is mounted just behind it so that as the piston is driven sharply to the rear the short piston stem delivers a powerful blow on the forward end of the operating rod. The force of this blow drives the operating rod to the rear and so operates the action through the same general type of mechanical hookup as may be found in the long-stroke piston or other repeating action.”

NOTE -- this is a description, which is why it includes the descriptive phrases using the word "usually". "Usually" mans "Not Always". But the invariable differences between the two systems as outlined by the authors is whether the piston runs with teh bolt group, or merely strikes it a blow. Also note that the authors have grouped the Bang type muzzle gas trap system with long recoil -- whereas most authorities would say it is sufficiently different from either system to merit it's own category.

P. 67 Describes the Model 1900 Mannlicher as being a “short stroke piston” which is described as not even affecting the bolt while under pressure nor continuing with the bolt after the initial impact to the bolt.

P.467 Description of the M1 Garand rifle’s operation where the operating rod only moves about 5/16” before the bullet has left the bore and the pressure drops.

P.481 Description and operation of M1 Carbine “It operates on the short-stroke or “tappet” principle instead of the long-stroke or “piston” principle employed in the Garand.”

NOTE -- Throughout the text, “piston”, “conventional piston”, and “long stroke” are universally used as synonyms, contrasted with “short stroke” and “tappet” operation. In all cases where a differentiation is detailed in a description of various arms as to which form of gas operation it uses, the pieces are identified as having long-stroke, short-stroke, direct gas impingement, or Bang (muzzle cap) principle exactly in accordance with the delineations I laid out.

Ezell, E.C., Small Arms of the World, 12th Edition, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg PA, 1983

NOTE -- Same delineations used UNIVERSALLY throughout the text as described above, where any differentiation as to which form of gas operation is made. For example:

P.50 Stoner 63 described as a “long stroke piston system” and AR70 identified as using “conventional gas piston”.

P.161 “Unlike the AK and PK weapons, the Dragunov does not use a long stroke piston system. . . In the Dragunov, the designer employed a short stroke piston system.”

NOTE -- My personal favorite, with the insistance that the AK is somehow a short stroke system.

P.278 FN Minimi (US M249 SAW) described as “conventional gas piston type”.

P.777 Description of the M1 Garand, detailing how this archetypical long stroke gas system doesn’t even begin unlocking the action until the operating rod has moved 5/16” before the bullet has left the bore and the pressure has dropped to safe levels.

Geodkyt (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, I have provided specific cites from the relevant texts to support my position, and falsify your position completely. Your assertion that the AR18 and the AK47 are both short stroke gas systems because the AK doesn't have gas pressure pushing the piston the whole opertaing stroke, while teh M1 Garand is a long stroke because it does is a fallacy. NONE of these systems are driven all the way through the stroke via gas pressure -- the Garand only moves about a QUARTER INCH under gas pressure before the pressure is vented back to the bore afetr the bullet leaves the muzzle. The recognized technical experts consistantly use the terminology to delinieate short stroke and long strok gas systems along the lines I provided.

Where are the specific counter citations?

Geodkyt (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just answer the question, please? Does the piston travel essentially the same distance? We're talking about the piston and its stroke here. Quote all you want, I've conceded that many sources are wrong. You refuse to address this logic because it disagrees with your opinion, supported or not. What is the stroke? You misrepresent my point about long stroke vs. short stroke. The Garand taps low-pressure gas and the Carbine, AK, and AR-18 all use high pressure gas. Wherever your citing 'short-stroke' above, substitute 'tappet' and see if it works. It doesn't work the other way around when you substitute tappet for short stroke. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that you're going out of your way to support a mistake and ignoring the fact that short-stroke and tappet are not interchangeable. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion boils down to the claim that these sources must be mistaken because they disagree with you? What sources WOULD you regard as authoritative, if not the ones written specifically for official use by government engineers (that would be Balleisen and Chinn) or those used as the primary references for working gun design engineers (that would be Smith, Smith, & Ezell, in addition to Chinn and Balleisen)?

First you claimed that I was misreading Chinn, WHB Smith, JE Smith, Balleisen, and Ezell (actually, you accused me of not reading Chinn, Hatcher, or Ezell), and that they actually supported your assertions. Now when provided the relevant quotes (include page number cites) from those same references that reject your assertion, you claim that the sources are mistaken.

Again, please show me a quote with cite from a recognized authority on small arms design that supports your argument.

Your asserted definitions are incorrect and technically flawed. Your allegations as to the definitions are without citation as to a reliable source. You have been offered the citations with quotes -- yet you ignore them and isist that everyone who disagrees with you is worng.

By the way, by your own definition, the AK does NOT use high pressure gas -- the gas port is in the last 1/4 of the barrel (it's less than 4" from the end of a roughly 16" barrel). That's right smack dab in the middle of the usual range of typical long stroke systems (last 1/2 of barrel). Easily confirmed with a ruler.

Geodkyt (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a contributor here who keeps using unsourced, uncited material to support his position in the face of being offered actual cites from industry standard authorities in the field. Interestingly enough, it's not me. . .

Geodkyt (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm done. You keep outright ignoring my direct question. I'll answer it. The stroke is the same. Was that so difficult? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just checked the Brassey's (A brassey's reference was given to support Nuke's position). Interstingly enough, the actual article quoted is 180 degrees different from what he claimed:

Shalaby, Samir H., "Automatic Weapon", Brassey's Encyclopedia of Land Forces and Warfare, 2000 Edition, Brassey's, ISBN 9781574880878.

Long-stroke piston operation In this system the piston is connected directly to teh breechblockand controls the position of teh block at all times. This type of arrangement is found in by far the greatest number of modern machine guns. The piston tends to be long and heavy, and the resultant recoiling mass is considerable.

Short-stroke piston operation Here the piston moves back a distance that can be as short as a milimeter or two, but it imparts its energy to an opewrating rod that forces the breechblock to the rear.

How about it, Nuke? STill want to claim that references you previous thought were "good" are now "mistaken" becuase someone actually called the bluff and fact-checked the cite? You've moved beyond a reasonable disagreement about a matter of opinion, and into the field of vandalism.

You ought to be done -- you've misrepresented citations, made personal attacks (not just on me, but against gun designers you;ve never even met), and continued in a POINTLESS attempt to force a falsehood on Wikipedia.

Geodkyt (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to answer my question? Is the stroke the same or not? And how do you know whether or not I've met Kalashnikov? Are you him? What source did I provide? Where's my personal attack? BTW, check what I actually claimed, or have you forgotten? Check my edit history of this article and see what I changed? How about this change, that agrees with what you say... eh? How about this one: [1]? That was my only edit. You're the one that was adding info disregarding the discussion and then attacking me, evading the discussion. I've been trying to keep you from gumming up the article with your condescending tone. Strange, you've spent alot of time debating this. I must conclude that if my positon (that I never espoused in the article) was without merit, you'd have no reason to debate. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I debate this is that you are pushing a technical definition that is false, and utterly without support of reliable authorities.

As for for your arguments, let's start with your first post on the discussion page in reply to me:

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. IF you've read Chinn and Hatcher, please explain to me how the AK-47 is a long stroke.

I'll note that you dismissed the automotive analogy out of hand, but that is where the terms came from and THAT is why they are misapplied to firearms... there was and is a BASIC misunderstanding about the way the system worked.

You're half-armed in this argument and, frankly, I doubt you have read Chinn, Hatcher, or Ed Ezell's works. If you have, you seem to lack a clear understanding of the subject matter. BTW, if you're concerned that I'm not being civil, remember that you're attacking my arguments and I'm commenting on your qualifications to make statements as you're misinterpreting your citations... grossly in my opinion. In the absense of clearly referenced arguments, you are making an apeal to authroities... or you. What are your qualifications? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Brassey's doesn't agree with you. Hatcher doesn't agree with you (I just checked the 1962 Hatcher's Notebook, the only mention of short stroke operation in the section where he describes gas operation systems is the section entitled "The Short Stroke Piston Principle" -- which he describes as purely the tappet system), Chinn doesn't agree with you, Belleisen doesn't agree with you, Ezell doesn't agree with you, and neither WHB nor JE Smith agrees with you -- in short NONE of the technical authorities that you or anyone here has provided agree with your assertion. (And these are basically most of the technical authorities considered to be "reliable" in this field. . . some would add Hogg and Kokalis to the list -- but that's a different debate; besides, THEY don't agree with you either.) They all have a REMARKABLY consistant delinieation of short stroke versus long stroke that states that when the gas piston moves through teh operating stroke, it's a "long stroke" (AKA "conventional gas piston") system, and when the stroke does not follow the full operating stroke, it's called a "short stroke" (AKA "tappet" -- and clearly identified as synonymous with "tappet") system.

The AR18 gas piston DOES NOT follow the full operating stroke of the bolt group. The AK DOES. The AR18 gas piston has it's travel limited by a return spring and the shoulder to hold that spring. Any clear cutaway drawing will illustrate the situation -- if you take the handguards off the piece and manually retract the gas piston to it's FULLEST possible travel, it only moves the bolt about half-way through the operating stroke. That is not far enough to RELIABLY cycle the rifle under service conditions -- the extra travel distance the bolt group requires is provided by ITS momentum alone without the momentum of the piston added. All of the AR18's operating energy is transmitted from the piston to the bolt group in one, biref, violent slap.

You can keep ignoring my repeated answer to your question. NO, the stroke of the AR18 and teh AK47 is not "the same". No matter how many times you type it, it isn't true. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the AR18 design to follow the same stroke path relative to the bolt group that the AK does, because it is PHYSICALLY (and intentionally) blocked from doing so.

The gas piston of the AR18 is MECHANICALLY the same as an M1 Carbine, with a return spring added. It is merely a very long tappet. It doesn't impart it's full momemtum to the bolt group -- much of it's momemtum is transmitted directly to the receiver when the piston hits it's mechanical stops, and some of it into teh spring (which turns some of that into heat, and returns an equal share of the remaining absorbed energy to teh receiver and piston during return).

Here's what Hatcher said when describing the short stroke piston, which he defined exclusively in terms of a "tappet" arrangement.

Hatcher, Julian S., Hatcher's Notebook, The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg PA, 1962, ISBN 0811707954 Chapter 4, "Automatic Gun Mechanisms", Section "The Short Stroke Piston Principle", P.67

"It is something like the action of a croquet ball held under the foot and struck a sharp blow with a mallet while another ball rests freely against the far side. The second ball will be driven swiftly away by the elastic impact."

NOTE -- Which is what all the other technical authorities descibe the short stroke system as, if not in such vivid imagery.

"This system has the great advantage of doing away with the long operating rod; moreover, the power of the gas impact on the piston is so great there is little or no danger of having the piston stick from fouling or other cause."

Geodkyt (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

IS THE STROKE THE SAME? You say no? You did make a disingenuous effort to say that the length of travel is different, then you go on to mininterpret what I've said over and over. The length of travel UNDER PRESSURE is the same (functionally). You addressed that by saying, well, it's the same as the M1 Garand! Yeah, I'll give you that one for the sake of this argument. Please answer the KEY QUESTION now... IS THE STROKE (UNDER PRESSURE) FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME FOR the AR-18 and the AK-47? BTW, your long-winded answers beg for a TLDR and I'm giving you one this time. Ask yourself this question, "Why do I feel the need to dodge the key question here." I think I know the answer. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have answered the question. You are just engaging in vandalism.

The length of stroke UNDER PRESSURE is irrelevant when discussing FIREARMS. Provide a source, ANY reliable source to support your assertions.

Geodkyt (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, here's the very specific answer I gave on 12 September 2008:

You can keep ignoring my repeated answer to your question. NO, the stroke of the AR18 and teh AK47 is not "the same". No matter how many times you type it, it isn't true. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the AR18 design to follow the same stroke path relative to the bolt group that the AK does, because it is PHYSICALLY (and intentionally) blocked from doing so.

The gas piston of the AR18 is MECHANICALLY the same as an M1 Carbine, with a return spring added. It is merely a very long tappet. It doesn't impart it's full momemtum to the bolt group -- much of it's momemtum is transmitted directly to the receiver when the piston hits it's mechanical stops, and some of it into teh spring (which turns some of that into heat, and returns an equal share of the remaining absorbed energy to teh receiver and piston during return).

Geodkyt (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, You are IGNORING the question. I read your dodging of the answer. The AR-18, M1 Carbine, and AK-47 have functionally identical stroke lengths. If you continue IGNORING the reality, your arguments are all disingenuous. The Stroke is the same and that's what we're talking about. All you're doing is perpetuating the misnomer of describing identical strokes with different terminology. It's ignorance that calls the misinformed to refer to the Tappet system as short stroke. Widespread ignorance, yes, but you can't say that You're right just because somebody else wrote it. You're calling what I do vandalism and, yet, you don't have a clue how to inline reference this information, sign your posts, or answer a simple question. You ignored my edit summaries on the article... TRY to read them. You're wrong, the strokes under pressure are the same. You're also arguing with the WRONG PERSON! What edit have I done to the article that's said anything. I've been discussing it here and beign lambasted and ignored, but I wasn't doing anything in the article. Your edits are still unreferenced. Not sure how difficult that must be for you, but you are becoming tedious. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep insisting that the AR18, AK47, and M1 Carbine have "functionally identical stroke lengths".

They do not. Length of stroke under pressure is irrelevant, since even the M1 Garand only moves about 5/16" UNDER PRESSURE before teh bullet leaves the bore and teh pressure drops to mechanically meaningless levels.

The functional difference between the AR18 & M1 and the AK47 is that the AK uses the momemtum of teh gas piston assembly for more efficient use of teh energy derived from teh gas -- which is exactly why the AK is (in your words) "overpowered" -- the momemtum of teh heavy gas piston is ADDED to the bolt cycle, not wasted (as much of it is in the AR18 and M1 Carbine). This is why short stroke systems can tap off the gas from the breech -- they are LESS efficient at translating the piston's energy into bolt group energy.

You keep challenging my source cites. Please indicate exactly where I misrepresented them, and then please provide source cites that support your asserted definition.

You complain about me "going to third parties". Actually, Scot came to ME, and I responded to him. Look at the top of this page -- the very first comment here (other than the auto-Wiki one) is the one I responded to. [AUTHOR NOTE -- These lines actually belong on my talk page. I had both talk pages open at the same time and was responding to the same person's comments on each. Paragraph retained to preserve the record "as written". Geodkyt 18 Sep 2008]

I call what you do vandalism, because you obstinantly ignore contrary sources, make personal attacks, and continually hit just about every violation in listed in the Wiki essays on "What not to do".

At this point, it isn;t ignorance causing you to make these errors. It's willfull promulgation of false material.

As teh Wiki guidleines say, if your position has any founding, it should be relatively easy for you to provide solid, reliable sources. Your deafening failure to do so is an indication of the strength of your arguments.

[egregious comment deleted by author]

ALL gas piston designs move some or all of their travel under inertia, rather than gas pressure, with the exception of some VERY short tappets, like the M1 Carbine (the tappet of teh M1 Carbine is one of teh few which is under significant gas pressure at the end of it's stroke) and guns running under teh White principle (gas cut-off, like the M14 and M60, which cature the still-expanding gas and then seal it off so it cannot return to teh bore until teh operating stroke is finished).

I'm sorry that physical reality, as described by the leading technical authorities in this field, doesn't correspond to the neat image you have in your head of what these phrases means.

Geodkyt (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Inapproriate deletions

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)

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)

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)

1. If you do not have sources supoporting you assertion, then your assertion has no foundation to be represented. Basic Wikipedia policy on "reliable sources". This isn't a discusssion about your opinion, it is a discussion of what a particular pair of technical definitions mean.

2. I would be happy to insert the individual reference cites in each sentance as needed. HOWEVER, since effectively each reference applies eqaully (or nearly so) to each sentance in those two paragraphs, I fear the result will be less legible than the option of simply appending each referewnce cite to teh section title. But I'll try it your way, and we'll see how it works.

3. Your disapproval as to the beuty of my wirting is NOT a justifiable reason to delete reference cites. However ugly the citation, it is critical to allow other editors to evaluate the references themselves and see how they relate to the sections in question. Deleting those cites simply opens up the edits to being classed as "unsourced".

4. Yes, "length of stroke under pressure is irrelevant". The very brief time the gas pressure is available to do work is so short, that with the highly unusual cases such as the M1 Carbine (port extremely close to the breech, tappet has extremely short stroke, operating rod has sufficient free travel to provided needed delay to action), neither short or long stroke systems show much difference in the length of time the piston is being pushed by the gas. Even with the AR18 (described by earlier editors as the "quintessential" short stroke system, and by you as definitively a short stroke system) and the M1 Garand (generally accepted -- even by the "length of time under pressure" crowd) as the archtypical long stroke system, the gas pressure has dropped off before the gas pistons have even started unlocking the action.

It's not "length of time under pressure". It's how the gas piston's energy is transmitted to the action parts -- in one violent impact, or by using the gas piston's momentum to add even more energy to the cycle.

Geodkyt (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

In line cites as added as requested. I feel that the tight cluster of repetitive cites detracts from the legibility of the passages, which is why I used cites at the section heading, but here is the passages with appropriate cites in line. I'd have gone to simple author/year cites on the repeats, but am afraid that if someone edits out the first mention of a particular reference, the follow on author/date cites will become meaningless. Geodkyt (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Overreferencing

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)

Nuke, That's why I referenced them all to the section header -- because, they pretty much apply straight through to most sentances of those two paragraphs.

You complain that I didn't reference in line . I explained that it would hurt the legibility of the article if I did it, as everything was was pretty much drawn from the whole collection of references.

I followed your request, and guess what? Now you're complaining that what I said would result has resulted.

I'll revert them back to sectional references, then.

How long before you insist that they need to be changed back to in-line cites?

Geodkyt (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, when are you planning on providing ANY references that support your assertions?

Especially this one:

The primary advantage of a short-stroke system is the combined weight of moving parts is less than other systems. This disrupts the point of aim in automatic weapons and reduces felt recoil.

The first sentence is OK, but how does reducing the combined weight of the moving parts DISRUPT the point of aim? In fact (go back to the references I listed in the sentece that deals with this in the previous version), it REDUCES the disruption.

Less mass moving = less disruption. If less mass = more disruption, that would be a DISadvantage. That's why the SVD, although looking outwardly like a Kalashnikov system, uses a short stroke system -- to reduce the disruption. That's why direct gas impingement is considered to have some practicale accuracy advantages over piston systems -- no piston rod moving back and forth, so it's only the movement of the bolt group that shifts the balance back and forth.

Geodkyt (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

INLINE REFERENCE. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FAL and AR-18

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)

The sections in question do not reference EITHER rifle, now, and now use other examples.

So, it isn't necessary to use either the AR18 nor the FAL as an example, and therefor neither the AR18 nor the FAL can be described inaccurately if they are not described at all. How is that a problem?

Other than the fact that someone dared edit your work?

Still waiting on you to provide any references that support your assertions about how each system works and what the advantages and disadvantages are. . .

Geodkyt (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Not sure what comment you're replying to here -- are you referring to my objection to the lines, "The primary advantage of a short-stroke system is the combined weight of moving parts is less than other systems. This disrupts the point of aim in automatic weapons and reduces felt recoil."? (From the previous discussion section -- if you clicked the wrong 'edit' tag by mistake, that would account for it.)

What you wrote in those two sentances implies that the REDUCED weight of the recoiling parts produces MORE disruption. That's backwards.

By the way (and I completely forgot to acknowledge this yesterday), you are entirely correct that the AR18 has a seperate gas piston and a long operating rod/tappet, whilst the FAL has a single long gas piston that functions as the tappet. (Stupid mistake -- I've got a pair FALs in the closet I put together from parts after detail stripping to degrease and refinish.) I completely mixed those two up in my head, and it was a boneheaded error. The action stroke of the AR18's tappet is still too restricted to function the weapon reliably without energy from a full speed tappet impact, and the design of the tappet (the return spring and the flange that it pushes against the tappet with) precludes it from adding its full momentum to the bolt group, which is why it's a short stroke. I just wanted to acknowledge the correction ASAP.

Geodkyt (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Compromise Wording

I've gone through and scrubbed the section including everything spoken about and agreed on here. I made it clear that the piston does not 'strike' the bolt carrier and I eliminated lots of fluff words that didn't add anything to the article. I made a good attempt not to remove anything that isn't already said. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Much of the changes you made were either factually unobjectionable, or need only some cleaning for easier reading. There were, however, some changes that are simply not supportable by any provided resource. I'll go over some of the "pushing commas" type changes first.

I tied the direct impingement section together better. While factually true, we need a specific source (if only in this discussion page) for the heat effects specific to direct impingement.

We still need a way to make it apparant that the references listed are associated back with the sections on long and short stroke piston systems, else it appears that none of the assertions are resourced. In-line results in illegibility, and simply dropping them into the reference section at the end, without attributing them to "piston" paragraphs is too vague. Suggestions from anyone?

Pushed the line, "This gas is of extremely high pressure and has sufficient force to destroy a firearm unless it is regulated somehow," back to before any delinieation of piston types -- it is true regardless of where the gas comes from that it is pretty brisk stuff, not just short stroke systems. Even the "low pressure" gas of the M1 Garand at the port is plenty destructive -- the peak gas port pressure is about 10,000 PSI, with a 6,000 PSI average port pressure. (That's port pressure, not "gas system pressure" -- the size of the gas port is one of the regulating features, which is why in guns with adjustable gas ports the mechanism adjusting it is often called the "gas regulator". The Garand has regulated it's high gas pressure by tapping down near the muzzle and using a specifically sized hole to restrict gas flow.)

Reinserted the line about gas pressure dropping once the bullet has left the bore, which is before the piston moves any considerable distance. It is NOT self-evident (for example, you missed that point at first -- not a slam, it's a common mistake), and by underscoring that point, it emphacizes the extremely short period of time the gas pressure actually does any significant work in any form of gas piston system.

"Strike" is not synonymous with "push", even where the same total amount of energy is imparted. The phenomenon is better and more accurately described so as to reflect it's brief, violent nature -- as the reliable technical authorities generally do.

Not sure why you felt the need to remove non-contentious examples of the various systems, but I stuck in the FAL (short stroke where the gas piston is the tappet), SKS (short stroke with seperate gas piston and tappet), and FN Minimi/M249 SAW (long stroke system). Each system now has specific examples of both older and newer firearms, all of which have pretty decent Wikipedia pages for people who wish to go look them up. (Which is also why I ommitted oddities like the Cei-Rigotti short stroke rifle of 1900, which became the gas system of the Tokarev, G43, and later was morphed into the basic idea behind the AR18. It has a Wikipedia article, but not a very detailed one.)

Your assertions about "energetic and abrupt stops at the beginning and end of bolt carrier travel" in long stroke systems and the lack thereof in short stroke systems are without sourced foundation. How hard or how abrupt the action parts stop at the beginning or end of the operating stroke is not controlled by the type of gas system -- it is primarily controlled by such things as the length of the receiver vs. length of stroke, stiffness of springs, etc. There is nothing keeping the designer of a long stroke weapon from using a longer receiver (possibly with with stiffer springs) so that the bolt group never "bottoms out" against the rear of the receiver (or does so at a much lower amount of energy as comprable guns), nor any inherent feature of the long stroke system that prevents him from reducing his return springs so that the bolt doesn't slam into teh breech with excessive (i.e. wasted) energy. Nor vice-versa -- a short stroke designer may well choose a shorter than optimal receiver to reduce overall length and employ a very stiff return spring to ensure reliability under extremely adverse conditions. Many short stroke systems (all that have the piston or tappet mechanically stopped by a hard metal-metal interference, as opposed to those where these parts are stopped purely by spring action) have an extra "sudden and energetic stop" in tehir cycle -- the piston or tappet slamming against it's stop.

The extra disruption to point of aim in a long stroke system is due to the greater amount shifting balance due to greater mass of the reciprocating parts over a longer distance -- not "energetic and abrubt stops".

Your assertion that a short stroke system "relies more heavily on spring pressure rather than kinetic energy to chamber a round and lock the breech," is without sourced foundation. The spring pressure they rely on is the same type of spring pressure ANY "self-powered" (as opposed to extrenally powered like Gatlings or chain guns) autoloader uses -- the return spring. The return spring is compressed by the recoil of the action parts in the same manner regardless of whether short stroke gas, long stroke gas, direct gas, blowback, or recoil is used to thrust the bolt group back. How the action parts are driven has no effect. The actual disadvantages of teh short stroke systemare a slightly higher level of complexity, and the loss of the full momentum energy that a fixed piston would provide to the bolt group.

Geodkyt (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting your edits. At no point does any of the systems you mention 'strike' the bolt carrier to impart energy. You're incorrect. You're inventing things here. Yes, the "tap" in "tappet" and some laymans' explainations might give you the impression, but this is NOT what is happening and CAN'T happen as I've explained before. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You reverted ALL of the changes, becuase you disagreed with ONE WORD, even though you have still failed to provide source cites to support your position.

Here's a compromise -- instead of "strike" or "push", we use "move" (verb) and "impulse" (noun) -- neutral terms that emcompass the meanings of both the disputed words.

I reverted the rest of your changes, as much of it is inaccurate and without source. (I did keep the reference cite to the White system.)

You have NEVER explained anything with sources in this disagreement. If your closely held opinions are the technically correct explanations and descriptions, you should have no problem providing sources.

I have provided sources.

Geodkyt (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, Nuke. "rv: edits lack a fundamental understanding of what is going on in the firearm" is not a source.

I'm more than willing to discuss the relative merits of sources that disagree. If you wish to counter my sources with ones of your own, I'm quite willing to do so in a civil manner -- but you haven't provided your sources, only your opinions.

Geodkyt (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'll use the word fundamental. You appear to lack a fundamental understanding of the way these systems operate and yet you seem well-read in that you've read many of the academic secondary sources, but you are coming at it from a differnt angle, therefore. Secondary sources tend to be written in layman's term. You're working from secondary sources to write this stuff but you're missing the whole picture. Unfortunately for me, I work from primary sources such as patents and the actual firearms. That's how I learned. In fact, I tend to argue with the sources you quote more than I agree with them. By 'fundamental' I mean this. I have personal experience with the majority of firearms you are listing here. The M14 operates under pressure for a significant distance, as does the M1. The White patent lists what you would define as a 'long recoil' piston, but as modified by Harvey and accepted on the M14 rifle, it is a short-recoil (your definition) piston in that it is not rigidly attached to the piston. Problem being, of course, that the stroke is the same and it is, by definition, VERY long. The Garand moves half an inch under pressure before the lug strikes the camway and is under pressure (though diminishing) the entire rearward stroke. Your interpretation of your sources is tainted by your misunderstanding of such basic principles.

Your compromise wording is not enough. Please take a minute to read my wording as I read and corrected yours. Though I'm not providing sources, I've either experienced this and/or read it in numerous places in my career. Though I can't cite me, I can certainly say that the edits I made were in good faith and factual. You might not give a shit about fact, but I do. The more you refuse to compromise and revert my edits wholesale, the less you're going to get accomplished. I've already read and edited your edits once, then you reverted me completely. Give me half the courtesy I've given you and patience for your misunderstandings and the incongruity of your sources with reality. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuke, you challenged my professional qualifications, which I provided -- but it was decided that personal credentials were irrelevant. Now, YOU are attempting to argue "by authority", but without providing sources that back you up. I have switched to relatively accessable sources (with the exception of Brassey's, which someone else initially provided, these are primary and secondary sources at worst) -- the "reliable source" standard of Wikipedia.

These are not "laymen's references" by any means -- Both Chinn and Bellesien are used as primary references for the United States government for firearms engineers. (Chinn was written BY the US Governemnt for government use, Bellesisen was adopted as a textbook for training Ordnance personnel on design.) Hatcher, Ezell, and both Smiths are considered among the first references reached for.

It's interesting that you first insisted I didn't read Chinn, Ezell, etc. -- as what I was saying didn't agree with them. So I provided quoted passages from them that contradicted you.

Then you insisted that I was reading them inaccurately, but without offering any examples where I had misquoted them.

Now you insist that these references are slanted too much for the layman to be of any use, but without offering any actual reference cites that are more "reliable".

You are either unwilling to provide relible sources of your own, other than your naked word, or you are unable to.

The fact that you can slap patent links up from a free site that do not support your contentions is not "sourcing". It simply reflects the fact that you know how to use Google.

More in a seperate section. . .

Geodkyt (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Geo, the 'patent' site that Wikipedia directs you to is part of this template: Template:US patent. Inasmuch as you think it is not proper to source a patent, uh, what is proper then? I didn't "Slap" anything up there, you mentioned the White patent so you opened that up wide open. I had the Patent in my desk drawer, pulled it out and actually posted a quote in case you didn't read it. The White patent is the archetypal reference for all things dealing with short or long recoil. As modified by Harvey and used on the M14, it is at the same time both a short stroke and long stroke as you've described them and shows just how imprecise and irrelevant your definition is. Repeated or not. I've got a few references up my sleeve for the various edits I've made such as heat drying out parts of the AR-15 system, however the books I have all predate the common usage of the term "long stroke" to describe such mechanisms as the AK-47. Frankly, there is nothing new under the sun and since I've been doing this for decades, I wasn't aware that the definitions had gotten that screwed up in that time.

Naked word? What the hell does that mean? I provided a patent and you shot that down as 'slapping a free patent site' up there. Well, sir, if you can't reference patents, what do you reference? BTW, you have NO idea who you're arguing with, do you. Pity. I'll keep it that way. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't slap down the patent itself as invalid -- if you'll note, I KEPT your cite of the White patent in my edits. Keep swing at those strawmen, though. . .

My point was that being able to throw a link up for a patent (which does not, in fact, support all your assertions)does not translate into a proper amount of sourcing for your claims. I'll note that you didn;t bring up teh White patent until AFTER I mentioned it

Funny how you refer to the White system as "the archetypal reference for all things dealing with short or long recoil ", and that's not the first time you've made that BASIC error. It isn't a RECOIL system, it's a GAS system. Nor is it "the archetypical reference" for anything EXCEPT the White system.

But I'll play your game (as I have actually READ the White Patent):

White, J. C.(1931), Automatic Gun, USPO #1,907,163 (1933)

P3, Lines 101 - 105 "The gas is utilized expansively rather than by way of a violent initial impulse or hammer-like blow characteristic of known gas systems employing a free or continuusly open port."

P3, Lines 120-126 ". . . I avoid the chief objections of the usual open-port system, the violent and premature breech-opening effort or teh necessity of heavy reciprocating parts to store enough energy from a violent initial gas impulse to complete the full stroke after the pressure has dropped."

So, the White Patent DOES NOT support your assertions nor contradict mine. Nor does it even DISCUSS other gas systems, except in these contrasting passages. If you're going to bluff with references, please remember -- other people can read, too.

Lastly, I'll note your attempt to assert your authority -- "BTW, you have NO idea who you're arguing with, do you."

Answer -- no, I don't. Nor do I care. Provide some actual reference cites that support your claims, and we can discuss the relative value of references. Belligerent and inaccurate declarations will get you nowhere. I don't bluff, and I don;t respond to bluffs.

Geodkyt (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Strike" versus "push"

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)

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)

Chinn and Belleisen are "layman's references"?

As for the Carbine, it only moves about 0.14 inches before it is PHYSICALLY stopped from moving any farther. The operating slide hasn't even BEGUN to unlock the action at that point, it is still in free travel for about twice that distance before the cam even hits the bolt.

You counter "layman's references" (which two weeks ago were good enough -- you just insisted I hadn't actually read them) with "your personal experience". You believe "I know. . . " is a valid source tpo counter actual books.

In another comment you say, "the books I have all predate the common usage of the term "long stroke" to describe such mechanisms as the AK-47". Hmmph -- that's humorous, considering that Belleisen was wirtten before teh AK47 was invented, and both Smiths started their work before the AK47 was invented (these given editions generally being updates of those earlier works), etc.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten the rest of us as to WHAT YOUR SOURCES ARE?!?

Geodkyt (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

More comments on innacuracies Nuke has attributed to me. . .

"Please take a minute to read my wording as I read and corrected yours." I did -- which is why I left the White link intact. It was accurate, proper, and relevant. Studying the history of the edits and what was actually changed each time, Methinks you doth protest too much.

"The White patent lists what you would define as a 'long recoil' piston, but as modified by Harvey and accepted on the M14 rifle, it is a short-recoil (your definition) piston in that it is not rigidly attached to the piston. Problem being, of course, that the stroke is the same and it is, by definition, VERY long. The Garand moves half an inch under pressure before the lug strikes the camway and is under pressure (though diminishing) the entire rearward stroke. "

Actually, I wouldn't describe it as "long recoil" -- that's a different operating system (strangely enough, part of the "recoil operated" family) altogether. Nor did I describe the White system as "short stroke". It is, in fact, an completely different gas system, closely related to the long stroke piston system. But, other than the M14 and M60, where else has it been used in any great numbers? It's a freak personal favorite of the late 1940s & 1950s in the Army ordnance community at the national Armories, and other than that it is about as relevant as the St Eitienne modification of the Hotchkiss LMG, which was primarily to change the Hotchkiss for the sake of changing it. As for the Garand, it is NOT under significant pressure during the whole stroke -- NOTE I said "significant". . . before it has moved 5/16" (NOT "half an inch"), the gas system pressure has dropped to insignifcant levels becuase the other end of teh gas sylinder is vented thorugh teh gas port and out the muzzle. . . read Chinn again) short stroke systems are (all things being equal) MORE likely to have their gas pistons under significant gas pressure the entire piston stroke. . . the M1 Carbine is the epitome of this (the gas pressure to the system is cut off by the piston moving to its mechanical stop). When you tap gas from nearer to the breech, you are using the high pressure gas for LONGER, because the gas port is pressurized until teh bullet leaves the bore.

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)

You have insisted that teh fact that the gas system in most short stroke systems vents excess pressure after a short travel is relevant to classifying them. 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. I would also recommend you look at the various versions of the RPD gas system -- there is an actual, easily seen, GAP between the gas regulator and the "gas tube"; the piston gets all its energy from the gas WHILE it is being dissipated to atmosphere.

Geodkyt (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

And here (for anyone who hasn't read the patent) are the actual words of the patent (WIlliams, D.W., U.S. Patent 2,090,656 Page 7, column 2, lines 5-23 ):

"The vibrator is formed to receive the rotary bolt and threaded with teh usual vibratory threads adapted to cooperate with the threads of the receiver. The vibrator has teh usual piston adapted to work in a corresponding recess in barrel. When a cartridge is fired, the gases expand against the face of piston, driving the same with great violence the distance allowed by teh thread relationship. The vibrator movement is predetermined by having the distance between threads greater than the width of the vibrator threads. The bolt carrier attains the speed set up by the vibrator by virtue of the fact that it rests directly against the rear face of teh vibrator, the bolt carrier having imparted thereto momentum necessary to properly function the gun."

Of course this patent (and specifically, this section of the patent) is the FLOATING CHAMBER patent (with threads in most applications described), but the basic concept was modified (as described later in the patent, alnong with every other variation of short stroke system he could think of -- he even claimed applications that had already been built by others decades before) into the short stroke system used in the M1 Carbine (Of course, the Cei-Rigotti and Mannlicher 1900 short stroke gas piston systems PRE-DATE this patent by about 30 years. . . so this isn't even teh archetypical "short stroke" patent, merely one of it's variants.

The floating chamber variants deal with a gas delayed system. . . Look at Page 10, Column 2 Lines 56-62 (he is discussing advantages in using his invention in machine rifles):

"1. There is an elimination of the usual gas tubes, gas regulators, and the gas operated system in general. "2. There is a better balance and therefor a corresponding reduction in weight and size. "3. The mechanism fucntions with great reliability due to the vibrator's violent movement."

Page 14, Column 1, Lines 21 - 33

It's not until he starts discussing Figure 23 (starts on Page 8, Column 2, Line 19, and continues through Page 9, Column 2, Line 57. . . although it stops discussing the gas sytem at around Page 9, Column 1, Line 45) that we start to see the M1 Carbine short stroke system being described. . . "This movement is of great violence. . . "

In advantages of using it in machineguns, he says (Page 11, Coloumn 1, Lines 15-18):

"3. The mechanicsm operates with greater speed due to the vibrator's violent movement and the great reduction of the weight of the recoiling parts."

Even David Williams described the action of his invention as a violent movement.

Geodkyt (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Flawed Classification System

Let me propose this. The current classification system has some gaping holes in it. Apparently, Long and Short just don't cut it from a reality based point of view. The fact is, there are different ways of classifying a gas system generally. Let me propose the following categories in place of the 'catchall' crap that is currently there:

• Piston systems
  • Long Stroke
    • Regulated (AK-47, Sig 550)
    • Unregulated (M1 Garand)
  • Short Stroke (regulated by definition)
    • Tappet (mechanical stop cutoff)
    • Vented (open to atmosphere cutoff)
  • Gas Trap
  • Gas expansion and cutoff
  • Direct Impingement
  • Floating Chamber
  • Muzzle Booster

This system incorporates those distinctions made by Hatcher's Notebook along with the current layman's terms like "Long Stroke" and the incorporation of systems other than the Carbine system under the imprecise blanket of 'short stroke.' The preface to these systems should explain that unless gas pressure is of a low pressure (as in tapped at or near the muzzle) or the operating parts are massive, some sort of 'regulation' must be in place. I'll be happy to provide references for the term 'regulate' as applied to gas systems, specifically with the developments after the adoption of the M1 Garand and prior to the M14. I'd also like a cattle call vote on these prior to any further changes to the aritcle:

Please state if you are For or Against adopting the above classifications below:

• For: As stated above. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Against: You're making up your own categories without providing actual reference cites. Wh8ich might not be so bad, excepot there ARE reference cites that disagree with your breakdown.

Where? So, you can cite something that says the AK is unregulated? That a 'tappet' system doesn't define the Carbine? That high-pressure gas doesn't need to be regulated? Provide them! --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the provided cites with better ones, go ahead -- it would yield a lively discussion that would almost certainly benefit the article.

But to throw out and ignore the definitions you don't like with no foundation is inapproriate.

WTF does this 'throw out' or 'ignore?' --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Even from a semantics POV, your definitions are flawed -- the word "tappet" has a specific meaning, and it isn't whether or not the driving force is vented. Look up the etymology in any good dictionary -- word dates to about 1735 or 1745, and was constructed from the word "tap". Likewise, even teh M1 Garand is "regulated". Read Chinn -- deciding the vairbales of toal part mas, gas port size, free travel of parts to induce delay, and gas port postion are how gun designers regulate their designs. The Garand can even have its regulation changed -- you just use a different gas plug (as people working with alternative loadings often do).

Have you LOOKED at the Garand? Have you seen one? It is unregulated. Gas goes in to the piston and the only thing that REGULATES it is the operating rod being stopped by the camway when the bolt stops. The word, "tappet" comes after the fact, not within anything Carbine wrote in his patent. WTF are you talking ETYMOLOGY here for when you won't even agree about the stroke length of a piston? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The current classification system works well, and has worked well for decades. Yes, there are oddballs (like Huispano-Suiza autocannon, that are gas-operated for unlocking, and blowback for opening the action). There are oddballs in any classification scheme.

But at least this one is supported by sources. Geodkyt (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuke, I never claimed the AK was an unregulated system. ALL GAS SYSTEMS ARE REGULATED. Some are user-adjustable without changing parts (like the FAL), but every design decision in the gas system is "regulation". The location and size of the gas port is a method of regulation, the mass of the recoiling parts is a method of regulation.

I never claimed that an M1 Carbine wasn't a tappet system.

I never claimed high pressure gas doesn't need to be regulated.

In fact -- what I said directly opposite of what you have publicly accused me of. Now you're just telling falsehoods about what I have actually written -- while editing WITHIN my remarks to hide the actual timeline of comments.

What I assert is that there is no foundation for breaking long stroke designs into "regulated" or "unregulated" systems, nor breaking down short stroke systems into "tappet" versus "vented to atmosphere". What I assert is that there is an existing system of categorizing gas piston oeprating systems that is supported by resources, versus this original synthesis, wholly made up by you variant you are trying to implement.

"Carbine" Williams didnt; use the word "tappet" in his patent, but then, Williams never built the M1 Carbine, either. The terminology was already in use for existing gas operated firearms designs (such as the Cei-Rigotti) when the Williams patent was written. being an inventor doesn;t require you to have the largest vocabulary in the world.

Geodkyt (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

On comment about your edit note. Starting a poll is NOT an acceptable way to shut down editing of your unsourced claims, nor is it necessary to discuss this until you get a consensus you like. You have been offered literally dozens of opportunities to provide sources for your claims.

In that time, the closest you have come to citing a source is to cut and paste someone else's cite (to the wrong section of a document already cited here) from ONE SOURCE to support the use of ONE WORD. (And that, not without question as to the authority of the author, in the face of all other sourced material.)

You are unwilling (or unable) to actually provide sourced foundation for the majority of your assertions, and spend your time reverting SOURCED statements to replace them with your personal opinions,originial synthesis, and other unsourced statements.

How long are we supposed to wait before acknowledging that you can't "make your case" with reliable sources before moving on to acknowledge the statements that have citation support?

As I have sadi repeatedly, if you have sources to support your assertions, bring them on -- I want to see them. Let's have an open discussion about which sources are most reliable in this matter. (If you actually produce sources more reliable than the ones I have provided, I truly want to know -- so I can add them to my library for future use. I don't challenge your material becuase it is somehow heretical to The Truth; I do so becuase it has no reliable foundation, and flies against what reliable foundation I am aware of. If you have better foundation -- SHARE IT, and we can all build a stronger understanding.)

Geodkyt (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a clue how the guns you are speaking about operate and you have shown it on numerous occasions. I provide references and you say, "well, my references are better." I feel I'm arguing with a troll. In the absence of any other people commenting on this, your incorrect and misinterpreted quotes aren't going to fly. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Against: While offering to standardize the terminology relating to gas operated reloading of firearms is certainly a noble pursuit, and certainly one I'd be interested in seeing borne out and discussed constructively, it does not fall within the scope of this article. This is a Wikipedia article and therefore all material in the article must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Please see this section: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria) and the pages it links to (specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) for more information about what is, and what is not considered to be valid information for this article.

Nukes, Ad Hominem argumentation such as "You don't have a clue..." and "edits lack a fundamental understanding of what is going on in the firearm" do not constitute sources or sufficient cause to edit another's sourced information. I'm making no statements against your knowledge of or experience with these firearms. I'm simply asking that all involved adhere to the standards of scholarly discussion; in this case, specifically those set forth by Wikipedia.

In reponse to your statement: "I provide references and you say, 'well, my references are better.' ", It's my understanding on reading this thus far that Geo did not say that his references were better, but that you were citing what references you have given so far out of context, as though looking for text to support your position as opposed to your position being informed beforehand by said text.

As has been stated before, if you have sources that can be accurately used to contribute to this article, either for or against the statements of anyone in this discussion page, please bring them to light so that we can all benefit by them. I have learned a great deal from this discussion and I thank all involved thus far. I for one would love to see all the sources that support the position that the AK features short-stroke operation. I would love to know how widely they are respected and used in the design side of the industry. I would even love to see your own published works or patents if you have any (just a guess from your statements regarding your experience in the field).

However, there must be no more inclusion of original material in this article. If you have positions that you believe to be well informed, but have no published sources to support these positions, then Wikipedia is not the right place for those positions. You may be 100% completely right, but Wikipedia is not the place for those positions.

If it is the case that there are no available sources, may I suggest that we take this discussion to another site such as a forum (perhaps of your website, or that of your product's site, Nukes). I am still interested in hearing WHY you hold the positions you hold.CrunchRiff (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I referenced primary sources. You're against my definitions and yet you, as an editor, changed the Robinson XCR article to read "Short-Stroke". Have you now found the error of your ways? For the last time, though, the stroke of the AK piston is identical to that of other 'short stroke' pistons and much shorter than 'long-stroke' designs like the FAL based on the current definitions. Be they seriously flawed as they are, you're still against clarification of the systems? Did you actually read my suggested changes or are you just lost in this debate? The suggestion was not to change the definition to Asamuel's suggestions, but to add break down the different short and long stroke pistons to their respective subcategories such as 'tappet' and 'gas expansion and cutoff.' Further, you're citing "No Original Research" without noting that I am adding NOTHING that is original research and have NEVER annything that is OR. If you actually take the time to read my proposal rather than attacking other people's edits and the entire discussion, you'd see that I'm not adding anything that's unreferenced. Still further, you've made edits to three articles and now you're an expert on all of this stuff? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have in fact found the error of BOTH my ways. My edit was one in a long string of back and forth that happened on the XCR page. I felt at the time that the XCR = short stroke position seemed to be the better explained, so I was merely trying to support that side of the discussion. But, at that time I had not yet seen any sources cited on the issue at all. Therefore I was in the wrong to have made any edits at all, because I was unable to contribute from sources. Had I been aware of the sources I've now seen, I would not have supported the XCR = short stroke position at all.

The discussion on that page is what prompted me to ask the question I've asked on this discussion page. I wanted the facts laid out so an agreement could be reached and all this back and forth can stop. Around that time I posted similar questions to the XCRForum in hopes that I could get Alex Robinson to chime in himself. Might not be of much use here, but it would certainly have helped MY understanding of the discussion.

I mention Original Research because you have several times put forth your own position as a refutation of another's independent of any sources to corroborate your position. For example:

"At no point does any of the systems you mention 'strike' the bolt carrier to impart energy. You're incorrect. You're inventing things here. Yes, the "tap" in "tappet" and some laymans' explainations might give you the impression, but this is NOT what is happening and CAN'T happen as I've explained before."

Yes, and referenced with the Williams patent. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Secondary sources tend to be written in layman's term. You're working from secondary sources to write this stuff but you're missing the whole picture. Unfortunately for me, I work from primary sources such as patents and the actual firearms. That's how I learned. In fact, I tend to argue with the sources you quote more than I agree with them."

This last one you very clearly qualified by this statement:

"Though I'm not providing sources, I've either experienced this and/or read it in numerous places in my career. Though I can't cite me, I can certainly say that the edits I made were in good faith and factual. You might not give a shit about fact, but I do."

...and there we have it. This sort of discussion is appropriate in another forum or over a beer, but not presentable in Wikipedia.

Again, I'm not even saying you're wrong. I think it would be inappropriate for me to do so as you seem to have been at this much longer than I have. I'm saying that for Wikipedia's purposes the correctness of your claims can and will only be held up when you have presented from sources information that can be agreed upon by the community.

The problem here is that the secondary sources are extremely limited and don't generally differentiate between the different types of what are now called 'long-stroke' pistons and 'short-stroke' pistons. Much like the assult weapons ban, they are using terminology that is functionally minor when compared to the other factors. For instance, the M1 Carbine tappet piston is not at all like the 'short stroke' piston on the FAL, though both seem to be lumped into a single category due to a faulty and somewhat freshman categorizing system. Think of this metaphor. "A Chevrolet Camero operates through the disk brake system." Well, yeah, it does have disk brakes, but that is hardly a defining characteristic. Might it be more appropriate to state that it uses an internal combustion engine with 8 cylinders, 32 valves, and a dual overhead cam? It's like saying what type of exhaust the car has without noting if it's carburated or fuel injection. Whether or not it's a tappet or gas expansion and cutoff system is much more important than if the piston head is physically attached to the bolt carrier. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Has there been anything published recently regarding these systems that might have addressed this or attempted to make the terminology more precise/useful?CrunchRiff (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Still further, you've made edits to three articles and now you're an expert on all of this stuff?" What does this have to do with anything? It would have been much better for us all if I'd become an expert on all this stuff before posting my first edit to an article. I learned the hard way, but two wrongs don't make a right.CrunchRiff (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was sock puppet hunting. Since your edits were interspersed with TheWatcherREME or whatever his name was, I have a good reason to believe that a brand new account opened around the time he was banned might very well be a sock puppet. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I remember that. He called your removal of the ARX-160 link from the XCR page "vandalism". I guess "produced since 2004" is good enough to call "related" in his mind. Can't say we'll miss that kind of contribution. Anywho, off topic...CrunchRiff (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Gas Trap

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)

Expert citations needed

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)

We should only discuss those systems that have gone into mass production.

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)

Dual-Mode DI/Piston information

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)

The dual-mode system is not in production…not even as a retrofit kit. As stated above…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. Therefore, I have removed said information. Also, the information provided could be considered self-promotion or marketing which is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bolt temps, temper of metal, bad info.

Article shows PEAK chamber and bolt face temps at around 140F, nowhere near enough to cause damage from heat. http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/05/10/does-nickel-boron-reduce-heat/ Spensah.v2 (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The 'BLOG' you are quoting is not a peer-reviewed article. It does not even mention whether this is Celsius or Fahrenheit. Nor is the data the least bit scientific. What was the instrument used? I suspect it was a laser-pointer guided thermometer designed for home use. I dare you to hold an M16 bolt carrier after I dump three mags through the gun. --Winged Brick (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Still better than *no source at all* for that info. Thought unsourced material was frowned upon. Spensah.v2 (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Found a second source http://books.google.com/books?id=Q4pv0YLUjxIC&pg=PA127

Not good enough either? Spensah.v2 (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Published blog where they use a laser-guided IR thermometer designed for the HVAC industry. You gonna grab my bolt carrier or not? You didn't even address that. I can tell you the result: instant blister and dropped carrier. 140 degrees does not flash vaporize water like an M16 bolt carrier does after a few mag dumps. 140F does not pass the stress test. When an objective person reads the blog and 'published blog' using non-scientific methods, this objective person sees the BS meter pegging. CLP doesn't burn off at 140 degrees, yet it does on my BCG's. Your BLOG sources are no better than my anecdotes. You are removing info that has been there for a while based on an unreliable reference.--Winged Brick (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you object to changing the wording to reflect these quotes from the Ehrhart article already sourced in the article.

"In the case of the AR15, that residue and higher temperature combustion moves from the gas port in the barrel to the bolt carrier, to cycle the action. This high heat burns off any lubrication, and combined with powder residue, increases the rate of malfunctions."

"One of the most critical areas to lubricate is the bolt and cam pin. If the weapon has been fired continuously, the heat inherent in the operating mechanism will evaporate the oil."

At what temperature does CLP burn off? --Winged Brick (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Book of AR-15 is not a 'blog'. Bring me your bolt carrier, sure. Bet I won't burn myself. Second, that source doesn't mention a specific substance, only 'oil' and 'lubrication', pretty vague. Lastly, CLP has a boiling point of 140F, and a FLASH POINT of only 200F http://hazard.com/msds/f2/bph/bphwh.html

I've now posted three pieces of information that support the removal of that **unsourced** claim that heat can change the temper of the bolt and associated parts.

Are the bolt and carrier heated by gas? Yes. Enough to damage the parts purely by heat? Extremely doubtful, hence the removal. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Rewording to reflect those quotes would be fine, my only problem with the section was the unsourced and honestly, ridiculous claim of altering/ruining the temper of parts. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your background is, but heating of parts, especially springs, can change their temper and performance. You seem to be under the impression "Because you read it on the internet" is good enough for you. Well, I read on the internet that heating a bolt carrier enough to burn off the CLP causes issues. What temperature would you believe that to be? There are 'proper' studies done that explain this, I'm just not sure one is on the internet. Holding the "Book of the AR-15" up as a scholarly source implies that there was a scientific method. In fact, I read that article and noted he used the same "bubba" techniques to get a result that agreed with his premise. I'm not buying it because I have experience that laughs in the face of their results. Just because it says on the internet that we faked the moon landing does not make it so. I've looked and I can't find a credible source that records bolt carrier heat with scientific instruments. Feel free to find one and post it.

Not sure where you think you've posted "sources" that say that the bolt on an M16 rifle does not reach temperatures that will cause temper changes in the metal... at the very least the springs. You posted some dudes with HVAC thermometers and watches. --Winged Brick (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So wait a second, now instead of needing to cite sources to make claims, we have to cite sources to REMOVE them? I'm pretty experienced in metalworking, guess I don't know much about metals and tempering. You're pretty blockheaded about this, even though I've shown evidence (even if its 'not science', its better than making claims with NO SOURCE) to the contrary. Find some proof, anywhere. Scan it, go to the library, google it, whatever you have to do. I've seen absolutely nothing to support this kind of heat on a BCG. There is no citable source, it should be removed. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you're resorting to calling me a Blockhead? I offered a compromise position and you glossed over that. You 'cite' people who took HVAC equipment (not going to address their methods at all, eh?) and pointed them at parts of their guns. I'm not sure you are standing on as good a leg as you think you are. --Winged Brick (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't gloss over anything, guess again.

>>>"Rewording to reflect those quotes would be fine, my only problem with the section was the unsourced and honestly, ridiculous claim of altering/ruining the temper of parts. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)"

Oh, more 'HVAC' equipment http://www.pof-usa.net/articles/P416Torture.pdf

I don't have to resort to calling you names, it was just an observation of your behavior. You don't have a leg to stand on. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

HA! You say you don't have to resort to name calling... but you did. Please explain in detail how "You're pretty blockheaded about this" is not name calling. You seem to ignore the fact that a laser-pointer on a $30 infrared thermometer designed for the ducts in your house is NOT appropriate for pin-point measuring. You assert that a random, unknown temperature will not temper metal. Well, sir, if you can find anywhere anything that says that an unknown temperature won't change the temper of metal. I'll come right out and say why I'm debating this. You come off as an apologist for the Direct Impingement method of operation. Probably own a DI gun yourself and don't really understand the scientific methods used by proper engineers (not you or I) to measure temperature at various points on a firearm. Your assertion that the bolt only heats up to 140F is not only ridiculous, it's LAUGHABLE! --Winged Brick (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy with the edit. That's all. I'm no apologist, every system has pros and Cons.

Fact is, even the pof test shows temps around 140. If anyone would want to play up the whole heat in the receiver angle, it'd be a company that makes piston ARs. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Shotguns

The word "Shotgun" doesn't even appear on this page. What type of gas system does a shotgun use? I assume it counts as a long-stroke gas system, but I'm not sure. It has a ring-shaped piston that wraps around the magazine tube, and fits into a cylinder of slightly larger dimensions. It wouldn't be clear to a person looking at one that it was a form of gas operation when looking at the images that are shown on this page. AnnaGoFast (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This page appears to be dominated by military rifle oriented editors. Search 1 Oct 2021 for "shotgun" yields no returns. Gas-operated shotguns with tube magazines present different design parameters than largely box magazine rifles.

AnnaGpFast describes a Long-stroke gas system automatic shotgun where the gas piston travels the full length of recoil with the bolt.

I have a Model 1000 gas operated shotgun made by Howa for Mossberg (and S&W). The gas piston moves a short distance and stops after imparting momentum to the sleeve, action bars, bolt base assembly that unlocks the bolt (sleeve, bars, base and bolt travel as one assembled unit). I'd call it short stroke since the gas piston pushes the bolt carrier, rather than a tappet system where a very light piston impacts the bolt carrier.

Automatic shotguns were recoil operated with moving barrels until the Winchester Model 50 of 1954, based on David Marshall Williams' "Inertia Operated Bolt Lock" that used a floating chamber within the barrel acting under gas pressure as a piston to unlock then impart momentum to the bolt, the first automatic shotgun with barrel fixed to the receiver.

Gas operated shotguns are neglected in Gas-operated reloading. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting merge into Action (firearms)

This article should be under Action (firearms)Digitallymade (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. --Winged Brick (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree, as gas operation is notable in itself; but there is definitely a link between the topics. For example, I don't feel that semiauto is an appropriate article for the "autoloading" link in the lead section. While technically true, it's misleading, especically as there are fully automatic rifles that use gas operated actions to load themselves. Indeed, coverage of "autoloading firearms" could perhaps be added to or expanded inside Action (firearms) and the repeating action section; or maybe even form a distinct page if there are enough sources to provide notability. Techhead7890 (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is there no History section here.

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)