Talk:Semi-automatic rifle

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Callie Bigrigg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-Automatic vs Automatic rifles dispute

this is a poorly stated headline. it would be more accurate to say Semi-Automatic vs Full-Automatic, and any reference to automatic be reviewed and changed to full-automatic if the inference is of a weapon capable of firing more than one round per single function of the trigger. Semi and Full classify the function of the trigger mechanism in the firearm while automatic (vs manually operated) classify the operating principle of the gun. citation for the definition of "automatic" can be found here: https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/automatic-weapon/ Colloquial use of the term "automatic" as an operating principal start showing up at the turn of the 20th century in defining firearms such as the 1911, officially designated "automatic pistol, caliber .45, M1911" citing Wikipedia's own page on said gun, which was designed in tandem with the .45 automatic colt pistol cartridge. the Browning Automatic-5, an early semi-automatic shotgun, and the Weably-Fosbery automatic revolver. many more could be cited here, but the intent is to establish the pattern using clearly recognizable weapons that are clearly semi-automatic, but are also clearly labeled just "automatic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.44.21 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

The list on this page needs some serious revision. Submachine guns and assault rifles do not fall under the catagory of semi-automatic rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 4 June 2004

The introduction leans a little too NRA and is not well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.185.50 (talk • contribs) 24 October 2005

Excellent article, though I would argue that select fire weapons do indeed fall under the semi automatic moniker as select fire has an option for semi automatic operation. Also take into account that many of these weapon platforms have been modified to only fire in semi automatic. For example many open bolt Submachine guns have had their receivers replaced by closed bolt semi automatic receivers making them full time semi automatic carbines.

The British version of the select fire main battle rifle FN FAL the “SLR” is a good example as it was modified for semi automatic use only. Many people compete in high power rifle competitions using the AR15 semi automatic rifle which is a doppelganger for the select fire M16 “assault rifle”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grune (talk • contribs) 5 June 2006

Article Image

The picture of the Polish weapons is indeed interesting, but I am not sure if it is wholly appropriate to the article... especially since very few examples of the Kbsp wz.38M were ever produced and that the wz. 39 SMG is not a semi-automatic rifle. I would suggest a picture of an M1 Garand or SVT40. Twalls 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of citation

I'm not sure why a reference was deleted and a 'Citation Needed' tag inserted in its place. Also, copy in the controversy section was replaced by a statement on handguns that is only indirectly relevant to semi-auto rifles. I'll restore the original copy and citation. Twalls 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Can someone take a look at this section, as at the moment it seems to lean towards the viewpoints of the NRA and their criticism of gun control and is badly sourced. It states things as "facts" without providing proper references, and it doesn't go into the motives behind gun control and makes it seem like there is only one reason for the control of fire-arms, and this reasoning is wrong, and therefore gun control is wrong. I am not even sure if this belongs in the article rather than just the Gun Control article. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that 'the motives behind gun control' probably belong in the Gun Control article. The 'Controversy' section in this article covers that insofar as it involves self-loading or semi-auto rifles. The references of course could be improved. I don't see the NRA connection though. Twalls (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is still not fixed even about a year on from this original discussion. There is a decidedly heavy bent against the assault weapons ban in the tagged section. The section weakly portrays the arguments against the ban and is poorly cited. It mostly portrays the arguments of the author. The section is however not completely flawed; the closing section is purely factual and should be retained. Yet the beginning section needs serious revision. I myself might find difficulty in successfully accomplishing this being heavily against the ban myself, but I may attempt it. I feel that it should be more of a community edit. Suggestions? Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted the most egregious editorializing describing a supreme court decision as "fortunate", but this article still needs a lot of work. Perhaps a whole chunk should just be deleted because it's about gun control and not semi-automatic rifles specifically? Joezuntz (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your removal of "fortunate" but I think the Controversy section itself should be retained as semi-automatic rifles squarely fit into the discussion of this issue. That said, the section could use some tightening up. I removed the rest of the Heller decision-related pontificating. I also think the perspective could be expanded beyond the US and Finland as these rifles are popular sporting arms in other countries, to various degrees. Thanks, Twalls (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The article still is very bias and sounds like NRS propaganda. It's very far from an objective point of view 188.25.39.87 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge this page into the Self-loading rifle Page

Rantingmadhare (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC) In my humble opinion, this page needs to be merged with the Self-loading rifles page, thereby deleting this current page. "Semi-automatic rifle" is misleading, since it implies the rifle is capable of being switched to automatic fire. Although many semiautomatic military rifles have been produced as in the SKS, FN49, MAS49, M1 Garand, and so forth, these rifles do not have selector switches and therefore cannot be switched to automatic rates of fire without alteration. Terminology is key here, and the self-loading rifle page has evolved into a fuller and more developed discussion of the actual topic targeted by this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantingmadhare (talk • contribs) 30 December 2008

History

so i am looking for the history section like all the other types and there is not one here. 1st one, popularity etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.242.58 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article definetely needs a history section, but it seems a lot of information can be found in the Semi-automatic firearm article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

picture

I moved the picture of the M16 because it might have been confusing for someone to see it next to the "Recoil Operated" section when it is gas operated. 209.198.84.222 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FN PS90?

The FN PS90 is semi-automatic, but is not a rifle. Why is it on the list?74.79.239.198 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The PS90 is regarded as a rifle since it has a longer barrel to comply with the NFA. This makes it legally a short-barreled rifle Snoowastaken (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting merge into Action (firearms)

Suggesting of this page into Action (firearms) as it is redundant and should be a subsection of Action (firearms)Digitallymade (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. While you are correct that semi-auto is indeed a subset of actions, semi-autos are certainly independently meeting WP:GNG, and even if they weren't there is enough content here to meet WP:SIZESPLIT. Especially when taking into account your plethora of other merge suggestions, it would be an incredibly unwieldy article. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So you like having duplicated incomplete pages of poor content? That's what this is. And it will result in people looking for a good page subsequently getting a bad one. That's on YOUR head. Digitallymade (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, it requires a section at Action (firearms) but rates its own article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Benelli M4 Super 90

There is no mention about the aforementioned Benelli M4 Super 90. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scimiot (talk • contribs) 09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Supporting Materials

This is an excellent resource for both the technical and historical facets of this topic: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/F-Working-papers/SAS-WP25-Self-loading-rifles.pdf. Recommend its key points be incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.227.249 (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AR15A2 Carbine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages

Honestly that is a pretty poor addition imho. No problem with the section, or it's placement, but:

• "Based on a discussion in WikiProject Firearms" to me implies more than one short post by you on the same day.
• Why is that first para there?
• The second para is quite confusing, mixing too many things together.
• The third could be better summarised along the lines of "they often have stricter tolerances, and don't work well with poor or dirty ammo"
• The fourth I would trim to: "High capacity magazines increase the weight of the rifle, and typically reduce reliability due to the varying spring tension from full to a nearly empty magazine. Detachable magazines in general are usually less durable than integral magazines".

-Snori (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Previous comments have suggested alternative means of presenting the information contained in this article. Imho semi-automatic rifle seems ambiguous in comparison to self-loading rifle which is presently a disambiguation page. Whatever information grouping is used, coverage will be improved by avoiding assumed knowledge. What are the important differences between self-loading rifles and other firearms?

• My first paragraph was intended to compare rifles and handguns. Rifle has a separate article, but neither that article nor the Handgun article compares the hit probability difference between rifles and handguns, so I suggest including that comparison in this article describing firearms whose theoretical advantage lies in their increased hit probability.
• My second paragraph was intended to compare self-loading rifles to manually-loaded rifles in terms of the advantages of reduced recoil and increased number of hits per unit of time and disadvantages of increased weight and increased costs.
• My third paragraph was intended to explain reasons for the difficulties achieving the theoretical hit probability increases of self-loading rifles. The suggested simplification would rely upon assumed knowledge of readers who may be confused by misleading portrayals in popular entertainment.
• Proposed simplification of the my fourth paragraph would eliminate reasons why gun control proposals focused on detachable magazines and their capacity may be less effective than might be assumed on the basis of simple numbers.

- But my edit was simply an attempt at a background framework to address a perceived ambiguity about first self-loading rifles in comparison to first effective self-loading rifles to satisfactorily achieve the theoretical advantages of the concept. I encourage other editors to use or modify such parts as may useful to address this ambiguity. Thewellman (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Bias

This entire article is heavily biased. Everything beyond the beginning needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Biased pro-gun source "ammoland.com" used in reference 90. Not credible.

Yes agreed, this is full of pro-gun propaganda. "Semi-automatic rifles are an excellent option for self-defense" could be from a NRA press release. A Wikipedia article should not be recommending what guns to use for self-defense. It should be describing how guns are actually used. In the case of this article, that would include saying that in most of the world, and in parts of the USA, semi-automatic rifles are illegal for self-defense purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.80.181 (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The only thing resembling "pro gun propaganda" is the one sentence you mentioned, which was added, and then removed, in under 24 hours. The article already has a competently detailed history of the semi-auto rifle, and its usage by military and civilian shooters.Loafiewa (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, police routinely carry semi-automatic rifles when responding to active shooter situations; and this is presumably to defend themselves and bystanders as they attempt to defuze the situation and arrest offenders. Thewellman (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Should the charlton be considered a semi auto?

I saw from the article of the Charlton that it is also an LMG, so will it be not a good example of a semi-automatic rifle? The Charlton is currently replaced by the M1907 SL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.168.214.47 (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Adoption of intermediate power cartridges for military service rifles

I don't dispute that military forces have moved to less powerful cartridges for service rifles. I simply suggest that move was specifically motivated by the adoption of self-loading service rifles. Modern non-self-loading military rifles for sniper use have retained older cartridges or adopted even more powerful cartridges because of their greater range and anti-vehicle advantages. I suggest it is misleading to imply the swing toward cartridges of intermediate power was motivated by anything other than infantryman mobility with weapons reliably firing the largest practical number of cartridges in a short period of time. I will withdraw my objection if examples can be provided of modern infantry forces using non-self-loading service rifles chambered for cartridges of intermediate power similar to the 5.56×45mm NATO or 7.62×39mm. Thewellman (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe the change was motivated by anything else, but what implication are you suggesting? I'm afraid I don't quite see how the text suggests that the change was for any other reason. Loafiewa (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The wording I find misleading is: not unique to semi-automatic rifles. Aside from this historical demonstration of the technical difficulties in producing reliable self-loading mechanisms for powerful cartridges in lightweight firearms, I would suggest breaking out the military aspects into a parallel Military uses for semi-automatic rifles section. Thewellman (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Patrol rifle" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Patrol rifle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27 § Patrol rifle until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 16:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Patent from Hiram Maxim

So I am trying to look for the patent for as mentioned in the first sentence of the History section, but I am having bad luck finding it. The website that is used as a source there isn't really correct, so I wanted to fix it. I found a scan of the patent, but a random scan from someone on Reddit isn't really a great source. Here is the scan if anyone wants to look at it. Anyways, if anyone could help find the actual patent that would be amazing. Thanks! Snoowastaken (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The images are different, but Maxim cites US319595A as the US version of the UK patent in your link. I took the liberty of adding it to the article. I hope you find what you need. Stochastioscopy (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)