text:
User talk:Fluzwup/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Barrel lengths
Hello, please review the discussion page on talk:shotgun and lets open a discussion on changing the barrel lengths for the sports you mentioned. RPellessier 19:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More barrel lengths
Hello, again. I like your point about it being an overall weight and balance issue, which I take into consideration, but I'm not sure how seriously the manufacturers do. I like the way my 30" barrelled O/U swings, so I bought 28 inch barrels on my semiauto duck gun. With the additional length of the receiver, the guns measure, feel and swing about as close as two differently actioned guns can. RPellessier 20:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Help with Ruger PC9 GR
Someone called my attention to this article on the Ruger PC9 GR, requesting my assistance as an editor. I've enjoyed collaborating with you on the Shotgun article, and I think you have more pistol experience than I do. Would you care to look at it? RPellessier | (Talk) 05:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is it time to blank the PC9 article and redirect it to Ruger Police Carbine? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I'd do it, but I'm currently busy adding content to the Ruger 10/22 page... scot 18:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Redirect completed. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:17, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Image:10 22s.jpg
Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:10 22s.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:48, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:16, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Patents
All information on U.S. patents, including images, are automatically placed in the public domain. There is an exception, but it's rare, and if the image is copyrighted it will say so clearly on the image. (I've actually never seen an example of this, by I know it's possible.) Anyway, you can just list the source and tag it PD. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:50, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Carbine Page
Hey, yeah, I think it was mainly grammar/spelling that was wrong with it. I'll give it another look over later, kind of tired. Hobbeslover 02:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shotgun slug & 45 acp
"Recommend" -- THEBlunderbuss 05:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's been awhile since I've gone on Wiki, and the day I check my messages, you gave one to me.

It took me awhile to figure out what I meant, but I think it was an underhanded way of correcting your spelling, I'm sorry to say. It appeared in a few of your contributions, and I felt it necessary to stem the tide. I remember its spelling as "commending again" -- "Re-commending." Sorry if I disappointed you. I felt spelling was important for firearm-owners' image. -- THEBlunderbuss 06:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Proa article
I was correcting some links to the Hull disambig page, one of them being for Proa. However, I see you've editted it recently and got rid of the sections and categorisation. Any reason why? Are you planning to re-do the page? I was thinking of reverting the thing. - Hahnchen 03:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Great work on Wildcat cartridge
Just wanted to say thanks for your excellent de-stubbing. Friday (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the cool updates to the mini 14 page

Clyde frogg 09:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

raging bull image
Anything useful here that could be put on the Taurus Raging Bull page? I hate pages with just stock photos on them. I also have a few seconds of footage firing the gun (a full magazine), including the (quite) bright muzzle flash from the ports. However, it's greater than the wikipedia's (mumble) upload limit in size. Avriette 09:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * here'd be the high resolution version of that image. i'd like to link that mpeg of firing the weapon, but i don't know where to host 18mb of mpeg video on my home cable line. worth noting in that photo, there's a glock 21 magazine to the left, and the ".45 auto" ammo is obviously not for the RB. Avriette 02:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

KRATON
Hi, am trying to remove see also from javanese palace - as far as I can tell its better to start a disambig if you have a kraton with a qualifier (polymer), rather than having a see also at the head of an article that has something like 20 further links directly related. Trust you can agree with that, vcxlor 14:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Damascus steel
Hi. Yes, I think that expanding the Damascus steel article with info from the link would be very useful. Thanks, and thanks for adding the link to the Experimental archaeology page as well. --G Rutter 15:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I was looking at the page when you left me your message- I think it's really good now! I made a few very small changes: mainly changing some of the headings and changing a link to swordsmith (which is rubbish, but it's there. I hope that you think these are OK (feel free to change them!). Also, can you explain the term hypereutectoid? Just a few word explaination in brackets would be great, even if you can't be bothered writing the article. Also, if you could find an image or two (I'll have a look as well) I think that it might you trying to put it through peer review and see if you can get it re-featured (I'll help if I can). You might also want to put a couple of references to Damascus steel into sword and sword making if you can. --G Rutter 20:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, the link to eutectoid is fine- I stuck that article in a few categories as well, so hopefully someone will find it and expand it a bit. I'll stand corrected on the bladesmith/swordsmith distinction- yes, it would probably be worth creating an article (although whether you'd want one redirecting to the other and the other as a sub-section I'll leave to people who know more about it than I do!). The pattern welding image I think would be fine for that section, leaving room for perhaps 2 more- one in manufacture (a smith, furnace or something similar; there's a few on Wikimedia commons- search for "smith" and "blacksmith" but I don't know if you think they're suitable) and the lead one, for which it would be great to get one of Verhoeven et. al.'s images (if they'll give it to us). I think it'd be definitely worth a try though. --G Rutter 21:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Good luck with getting the picture! --G Rutter 13:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Pattern welding
That looks really good now! I've proof-read it and made a few minor changes. I've left a couple of hidden comments on the page where I couldn't work out how to correct it- one in the history section and one about the first sentence of the "Conservation of high carbon steel" section. Also, if you can remember which websites or whatever you got the info from and you could reference it like you did in the Damascus steel article that would be really good (people start complaining otherwise!). Again, it's an awful lot better now! --G Rutter 09:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It's looking good! The stuff that Ed Caffery has done is quite incredible! The other thing I wasn't sure about was in the history section, as the second paragraph starts with "However, during the subsequent centuries the technique was slowly lost" and the third paragraph starts with "Pattern welding again fell from use in Europe during the 18th century", but there's nothing in between saying how pattern welding was rediscovered (the bit in between talks about Damascus steel). I'm afraid that I don't know enough about the topic to sort this out! --G Rutter 09:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wildcat cartridge
Hi, I was showing the wildcat cartridge article to a gun-knowledgeable friend and he mentioned that the wording seemed really familiar to something that he had read before in a hardcover book. You wrote most of the text in this edit so I was wondering if you wrote all of it yourself or brought it in from another resource. Thanks, silsor 04:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Nope, wrote it all myself. Back in high school and college, I did a lot of reloading with my father, including a number of wildcat rounds, such as .17 Mach IV, and .30 Herret, plus other special loadings of rifle cartridges for pistol barrels, such as .45-70 Gov't, .30-30 Winchester, .256 Winchester, .223 Remington, and .30 Carbine (and rifle cartridges in short barrels might be worth a mention).  The closest thing to text resource would be the Speer reloading manual, but it's been many months since I've had my copy out, and I was not referencing it during the writing.  By all means, however, add the reference in question if it covers the material well, and verifies what I wrote.  scot 16:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Saturday night special
Yep. It is looking a lot better than it was a few months ago. Thanks for the clean-up! Yaf 21:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Recoil_operation needs work
Could you look at Recoil_operation? Nothing factually wrong, as far as I could tell, but it needs to be whacked with the readability stick. RPellessier | Talk 17:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I can take a swing at it later--although this might be the first time I've ever been accused of writing with any readability. Those who categorize my writing tend to say I write like a hardcore computer geek (I think it's the nested parentheses (which I find really useful) which give it away), which I suppose makes sense as I am.

 * Hey, you're a shotgun guy, do you know anyone who has an Auto-5 or derivative? It would be cool to get some pics of a long recoil action.  Chamber a fired shell, then push back the barrel until the bolt locks, take a pic, then take another as the barrel moves forward, extracting the empty.  I've got a 1911, so I can use that for a short recoil action.

 * Right now there's also a stub of a short recoil article (which is utterly wrong, as it lists a bunch of gas operated actions), and long recoil article that redirects to recoil operation. I think since they are so similar it might be best to put all the content in "recoil operation", with a common intro and separate short and long sections, and put redirects to there.

 * ...and now that I've looked closer, there are factual errors in recoil operation as well--the Kel-Tec designs are all tilting barrel short recoil designs, roller locking is a variant of blow-back, and they've got a bunch of gas actions there as well (like the Garand). Probably best to just scrap the existing articles and start fresh... scot 19:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo of an A-5? No problem. Might photograph a Benelli SBE as well. RPellessier | Talk 19:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This article still doesn't read quite right. It makes it appear that locked breech actions are recoil operated, but that blowback  guns are not recoil operated.   Blowback actions are also recoil-operated.  The main difference is that there just isn't any positive locking between the barrel and the breechblock during the early part of the cycle after firing for blowback firearms, in contrast to locked breech actions.  For blowback actions, the slide immediately disengages upon the bullet leaving the barrel, having been held only by spring tension and slide inertia initially.  For Browning short recoil, the lockup continues until the pressure has dropped enough to avoid splitting the fired brass cartridge casing open, at which time an operation very similiar to that which starts earlier in the cycle for straight blowback occurs. The total distance varies with each gun, but for small caliber pistols, a typical Browning short recoil lockup distance usually involves staying locked (between barrel and breechblock) for a distance of approximately the first 6 mm to 12 mm. Yaf 03:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I'm going to have to stand on my position. Blowbacks are NOT recoil operated; in the case of a blowback, it's the gas pressure in the chamber which pushes the casing out of the chamber, after the Blish effect lets the case relax its grip on the chamber walls.  Recoil has nothing to do with it, as can be proven by fitting a blank adapter--recoil goes to essentially nil, but the firearm still operates because the chamber pressure is high enough.  Getting a recoil operated firearm to work with blanks requires either using an unlocked breech, blowback action, like the Simunitions and most .22 LR conversions, or going with some sort of "recoil enhancement", like the Colt Ace's floating chamber (which is sort of an unlocked chamber gas action, using the floating chamber as a piston).  I've seen some high speed film of a 1911 action cycling, and it's very obvious that the frame and slide recoil as a unit, with no significant energy transferred to the frame until the barrel stops and transfers the recoil energy.  I'm sure if you watched a high speed film of a blowback action, you'd see that the recoil is transmitted to the firearm at the moment of firing, through the chamber walls, and that the bolt hesitates before moving.  Delayed blowback actions just enhance this delay by using priciples other than the Blish effect in the chamber.  If you doubt the strength of the Blish effect in the camber, just read up on the early M-16 problems with ball powder, where the flatter pressure curve meant that the extractor was ripping the rims (or heads!) off of cases due to high residual chamber pressure.  Or look at the high pressure blowbacks, such as the roller "locked" delayed blowback system used by H&K, or the AMT Automag 2 or the Grendel P-30, which all use fluted or ported chambers to "float" the case backwards sooner than the Blish effect would normally allow.  scot 13:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * In principle, you are, of course, largely right; blowbacks in general are not usually consider to be recoil operated. However, retarded blowbacks should by all rights probably be lumped in with short recoil I would think, as there is a portion of their firing cycle that is based on recoil. They are neither fish nor fowl, but a little of both, and should probably be included under short recoil since they do exhibit a limited bit of barrel recoil.  Of course, the ultimate arbitrator should be whether the barrel recoils at all;  it it doesn't recoil at all, then the gun should be labeled as a  true blowback operation, and not discussed under an article on Recoil operation.  If a barrel recoils a little, then recoil operation would seem to be a fair article to include this action description.

 * Any action where the barrel moves back with the bolt would be a reoil operated design; the one questionable action would be one the Army is playing with for use as a grenade launcher--the barrel is mounted on a spring so it can recoil and rebound, but it may be blowback or long recoil, I don't remember. The delayed blowbacks I've see are the roller locked ones, where the movement bolt head is "geared up" to move the bolt body, so the case moves very slowly for the first fraction of an inch of travel, and the gas delays systems, specifically the Steyr GB pistol, which uses a chamber full of powder gas (Gas Brake) to slow the slide after it starts to move.  I agree that barrel movement is required for it to be recoil operated, and I think a bolt locked into the barrel during that movement is going to be implicitly required as well.

 * True blowback action, in general, is inertia opeation (which is another whole section in the article.) I am not real clear why it is included, if retarded blowback is not included as well in an article on Recoil operation.

 * Inertia operation requires the gun to recoil--stick it against a wall and fire it, and it won't work. The gun MUST recoil relative to the bolt body to compress the spring, which then unlocks the bolt and cycles the action.  This makes it a definate variety of recoil operation.

 * Other minor differences and/or points which we probably should consider for inclusion in the article is that for long recoil operation, ejection takes place on counter-recoil, rather than on recoil. Also, doesn't long recoil have to be for a distance equal to slightly greater than the entire unfired cartridge length, and not for just a little over the fired cartridge case length?  Nits, I know, but perhaps these points should be included. Also, I don't doubt Blish effect, but isn't Blish effect usually just called stiction, as in STatic-frICTION, these days in most engineering circles? I recall the discussion in statics and again in dynamics, but "Blish effect" seems to have become largely an historical footnote.  Yaf 18:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I've always heard it as the Blish effect, as he's the one who discovered it--when firing rotating bolt artillery, a heavy load would stay locked, but a light load (less than require to get the "stick") would kick the bolt open. He investigated and found that some metals would generate significant non-linear friction at high pressures--i.e. you double the pressure, you MORE than double the friction.  The principle was used as the "Blish lock" in the first generation Thompson SMGs, but dropped in the military version when it was found to be unneeded (so some Thompsons are blowback, some are delayed blowback, how much impact the Blish lock has is arguable).

 * As for short vs. long, yes, ejection must neccessarily take place after the bolt and barrel separate. Bolt travel may actually be LESS for long recoil actions than short, as all short recoil actions I've seen leave the barrel back until the bolt closes--still have to open the full length of a round to open the new one, plus the distance required to unlock the barrel.  The long recoil doesn't need this extra space, as the barrel is fully in battery before the bolt is released. Now I'm sure you could do a short recoil action that let the barrel move forward before the bolt closed, to make it shorter, but then you'd have to sync the barrel and bolt so that the barrel was in battery before the bolt closed--the compelxity ain't worth the 1/4-1/2" you save in travel.

 * One interesting thing that shows that a blowback is in fact a blowback is the fact that you don't actually need an extractor when shooting one. Since the case pushes the bolt back, the only time you need an extractor is when extracting a loaded round.  H&K brags about this with the P7 series, and the fact that it will shoot without an extractor, and I can believe it, having put several hundred rounds through a Ruger Standard pistol with the extractor missing.  Just don't try to unload it.  Now a recoil operated gun with a broken extrator is a bad thing--it shoots, the slide comes back, and it jams loading, as the fired round is still sitting happily in the chamber, as there was no pressure to puish it out when the slide unlocked. scot 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * You write, "Inertia operation requires the gun to recoil--stick it against a wall and fire it, and it won't work." Not necessarily.  Inertia operation does not always require the entire gun to recoil.  The inertia of the barrel in a straight blowback gun aids the blowback operation in pushing the slide back from the barrel, along with the expanding gasses.  The inertia of the barrel and the expanding gasses work together against the spring that initially holds the bolt and slide and barrel together at the time of firing the gun.  Now, depending on the gun, the percentage of the effect of inertia vs. expanding gasses is obviously going to be different.  Some guns, no doubt, probably get more of their motive force from expanding gasses than from the inertia of the barrel, but both effects work in concert in blowback guns.  Also, you write, that for a blowback gun, "the only time you need an extractor is when extracting a loaded round". I might add, or when extracting a soft strike :-) -- it is arguable whether a Sellier & Bellot hard primer round is effectively  a "loaded round" in a gun that can't hit the primer hard enough :-)  It would be a loaded round in another gun, though, if you can get it out :-)  Yaf 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * According to Benelli, the intertia action reqiures the gun to recoil, and they explicitly say that firing it against a wall will cause it to fail to function. Now if you stick one of those recoil absorbing spring stocks in it, that has an inch or two of give, then you have a conundrum--have you made a new action?  It could be argued that that's now a funky short recoil action, with hints of the roller locking accelerating bolt...  I think that all the "inertia" guns are based on the Benelli patent (I know the Franchi ones are) so I think for now we can stick to the Benelli description.  If someone else comes up with a new design (which has me thinking of how you'd apply it to a recoiling barrel magnum pistol) then we can address that when it arrives.  scot 22:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review my new Inertia_action
Just a little Sunday morning content boost. RPellessier | Talk 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll take a look. As you've picked one of the few action types I've never taken apart, I had to read up on it first.  From the description, it sounds like recoil operation reversed--rather parts of the gun recoiling indpendently from the greater mass, it's the greater mass recoiling independently of some parts.  I do take objection with Benelli's implication ("Simpler is always better") that their design is simplest--a pump is simpler still, and the old Auto-5 is about the same complexity level.  Admittedly, the Benelli inertia design does put a minimum operating recoil level, and anything reasonable above that will work just the same, which can't be said for other mechanisms, but that minimum is pretty significant.  I'll personally stick the Mossberg 500--I've never short stroked one, and it will handle anything from 3" magnums to rubber buckshot without a hitch.  scot 19:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Stuff I need to do
Look at all of these:

Self-loading pistol Self-loading rifle Semi-automatic self-loading pistol Self-loading or semi-automatic Semi-automatic handgun Semi-automatic pistols Semiautomatic pistol Semi-automatic pistol Autopistol SLR

And put them into some sort of order. I'm thinking automatic firearm is a good place to start; semiautomatic is merely a subset of automatic, so combining the articles would get all the information in one place, so it's easier to keep it all consistent. Automatic rifle and automatic pistol are worth keeping separate, as each has their own issues, and semiautomatic shotgun could be moved to automatic shotgun for consistency. All the "semiautomatic", "autoloader", "self loading", etc. terms could redirect to the appropriate "automatic" category. scot 16:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

as if you needed more stuff to do
I've mocked up what I think we could use for the cartridge info we were talking about. Avriette 23:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Template experiment
Here's a 2-part template, that covers basic specs on the top, and ballistics on the bottom. scot 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Added SI units to ballistics info scot 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And yet more stuff for me to do
Use http://www.chuckhawks.com/pressure_measurement.htm as a source for a CUP/LUP article. No need, I think, to make them separate as the technology is the same. Might be able to get additional info from the Speer reloading manual, I think that's where I first learned about CUP/LUP. This will be needed for the above mentioned template.
 * Done, copper units of pressure

 * Wow, kick ass. The only concern that I have is that it's rather, um, large. I know some of the other templates out there, like Template:Aviation lists, are rather large. What's your thinking on placing it? Avriette 01:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hey, no fair peeking, I hadn't put in the SI units yet. It is large, but I think all the information there is useful (doesn't help that I run at 1600x1200 pixels, so it's probably a LOT bigger on the average window).  It might be worth splitting out the top and bottom halves, so we have general info in one template that can go near the top of an article, and then put the ballistics stuff at the bottom.  But hey, if you want a template that's pretty much an article in and of itself, I think this one qualifies :)  scot 01:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Template, take 2
OK, here's the general info section oriented vertically, to sit at the upper right of the article, and the ballstics information horizontally, to sit at the bottom of the article. Not sure how to actually make the ballistics info centered at the bottom, feel free to correct it if I don't track it down first. scot 01:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Another thing to consider is source info. Each load might come from a different source, and the attributions might get kind of messy.  Maybe a section of footnotes at the bottom of the ballistics chart?  Or would it be better to put the source info in comments?  We're not providing reloading information, just general ballistics information.  What we don't want is someone claiming they can push a 300 grain bullet out of their .45 ACP at 3000 fps--if every load is required to have a published source listed, visibly or not, then any load with no source can immediately be removed as unverifiable.  scot 01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts: —wwoods 07:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I think you can get away with abbreviations for "grain, "gram", and "joule"--especially if they're linked. Anyone who wonders what they mean can mouse over them.
 * 2) "Velocity" should be "Speed".
 * 3) "Bullseye" leads to "The bullseye is the center of a target". Then there's a bunch of other links; if you mean Bullseye (shooting competition), then I suggest linking the whole phrase: Bullseye shooting.
 * 4) I don't think you need a separate column for "Sources". A footnote thingie after the type would do: "Bullseye shooting [1]", linking to a footnote, or maybe an external link directly to the source. I think footnotes would be better at the bottom of the page, if you can get a parameterized template to do that. If not, they need a "colspan=9|" (or 7, or howevermany), to keep from stretching the table. (I added them to the table above.) Or, as you say, you can bury the info in comments:.
 * 5) I hope the ".45 Automatic Colt Pistol" article explains why the actual diameter is .451!

 * .45 ACP being .451 is simple; US cartridge measurements traditionally round off to 1/100th of an inch. Anything between .450 and .455 should be acceptable.  What's confusing is .44 Magnum, which uses a nominal .429 inch bullet, or .38 Special, which uses a .357 inch bullets (see heeled bullet for the reason why).  To add even more confusion, the US measures the groove diameter, and the Brits measure the lands, so the British .303 uses a .311 bullet.  Also, 7.62mm NATO rounds use a .308 inch bore, and 7.62mm Soviet Bloc rounds use the .311 inch bore.  scot 16:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, Scot. I've started doing the scraping, and hope to have some data later today. I gather csv is fine? Avriette 22:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * CSV is perfect. Lets me manipulate it in Excel, export it back out, then write a program to suck in the data and spit out filled templates.  scot 23:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, so the data is ugly. This is the stuff parsed from reloadammo.com. The tool used to grab/format the info is here. If you'd like, I can clean up some of the "load name" columns. Presently, I'm not sure how useful it is. Also, we didn't decide on criteria for picking a "reasonable generalization" load. I can go through some of the other sites you mentioned (hodgdon's for one), but some of them are a lot harder to parse. The HTML is highly irregular, and unpleasant to work with. You can see some of the acrobatics I used in perl to get what we've got thus far. For a taste:

wget -qO - http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/50bmg.php | \ perl -nle 'm!.*?([0-9a-z.]+.php)["#].*! and print $1' | \ sort -u | grep -E '^[0-9]' | \  sed 's;^;http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/;'

 * Not pretty. Let me know what I can do to help. Also, I'd really like to use a template with named arguments rather than coding the table into the articles. That way we can change everything at once, if need be. Avriette 01:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hrm, also, I could include the url's in that csv if you wanted to list it in the table per wwoods' suggestion. Avriette 01:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, please, I would like to have source info; however, if you have a whole set of data from one website, day, Hodgdon.com, then I think the top level URL will be sufficient. As far as templates with named arguments, point me to an example and I'll give converting the above formats a shot.  The potential problem I see is that these tables are going to have variable numbers of fields, especially in things like alternate names, and the number of lines in the ballistics charts (for example, a military cartridge such as the 5.56x45mm should list each different military load, such as the SS109, M855).  The 5.56x45mm is an oddball in another way, too--the max pressure for the military version is higher than that of the .223 Remington, and it has different chamber throat characteristics, so while the cartridge cases are identical in dimension, they are not the same.

 * As far as a generalized load goes, I'd say pick a commercial load and list that--maybe pick the cheap Winchester white box stuff, or some other non-premium branding, not the high price, high performance stuff, though that could work as a "defensive" or "police" load. The goal here is to make a clear deliniation between exotic loads, such as saboted .223 bullets in a .30 caliber rifle, or ultra-light frangible rounds in a pistol, from the run-of-the-mill target, plinking, or hunting load.  I picked the .45 ACP as an example because of the wide range of bullet weights--155 to 260 grains are readily available to the reloader, and 165, 185, 200, and 230 grain bullets are all sold by major makers as defensive rounds.  155 and 260 were picked as the extremes in weight, and the 230 and 185 were picked because they are very common.

 * Looking at the data, one thing I think we need to decide is how to handle multiple "levels" of loading. For example, there were top break loads listed, there are trapdoor, lever action and Mauser/Ruger loads for the .45-70, standard and Ruger loads for .45 Colt, and +P loads for quite a few rounds.  I think that what we'll want to do is sum that up in the "Type" column.  Someone will need to be the arbitator of what loads we're going to keep, cut out everything else, and then come up with a type for each remaining load, at which point we can capture the load qualifiers.  This also means that these loads might have more than one pressure level.  The SAAMI does have established +P pressures, and the Speer manual, for example, sets limits for trapdoor .45-70 loads.  The screen scraping is a great place to start, but I wouldn't worry too much about getting every load perfect, since a person is going to need to sift through the data before it goes to table anyway.  In fact, I think it would be good to have at least 3 people OK the CSV data before we dump it to tables, just to make sure we have a reasonable set of loads, and make sure there are no obvious errors.  scot 21:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Howdy scot, about your message: I'd be glad to help out, but I'm not sure how. If you guys just need those three tables converted into templates, that shouldn't be very hard to pull off. However if you'd like me to work on something else, you're going to have to state the goals of your project a little more clearly, because I'm still a little confused here. - Tronno ( t | c ) 23:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Right now I think the big question is how to format the templates, particularly the ballistics template. Since some calibers may have only one entry, and others may have dozens, the template is going to have to account for this wide variance in rows.  My though tso far is to do 3 templates; a header template, a row template, and a footer template.  The header would contain basic information on each cartridge, and the column names; they row template would just format the data for each row, adn the footer template would close up the box started in the header.  Once the basic templates have been roughed out, then a program can take the ballistics database and generate ballistics tables for each cartrdige using the templates, and those tables can be inserted into the appropriate pages.
 * The first thing I'd like is some advice. Does this approach sound feasable, or is there a better way to do this?  The second is, would you be willing to help me get parameterized templates set up, so I can start generating tables?  The ballistics data right now is set up so it can easily be copied to a text file of comma separated values, and I'll put together some C code that will parse the file and spit out tables, and stick that somewhere in my user space so others can use it.  The C code can also handle the unit conversions, generate muzzle energy calculations, etc.  scot 15:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Condensed load data, take 1
I took Avriette's screen scrapes from Hodgdon's website, used GVIM to massage out the extra commas (the one downside to CSV), imported into Excel, and kept, in most cases, the top loads of the more common bullet weights. If there were two close bullet weights, I'd pick one. If there were obvious reduced loads (.500 S&W, .44 Mag, .45/70) I'd keep one reduced and one full power. I added some space for loads that are needed, such as military loads and FBI loads. To view or edit this list, cut and paste the list to a text file, save as "loads.csv", and import it into Excel or other favorite spreadsheet. Save out as CSV and paste back in. Be sure to source your loads, and add appropriate comments as you see fit (but please, no commas in the comments :) ).

The first column of "*" is just so it formats pretty in Wikipedia; otherwise it runs all the lines together.

Data moved to User:Fluzwup/Ballistics scot 22:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

scot 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Updated with Speer data and stuff from the 'net, particularly this Guns Magazine article by Ayoob. scot 03:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Updated with Federal Cartrdige Co. and Garrett Cartrdige Co. commercial ammo ballistics, split into rifle and handgun sections. scot 20:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Updated with Cor-Bon loads. scot 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Info on templates
Here. Need to work on getting a parameterized version of the above templates. Might need sub-templages to handle variable length tables? scot 22:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Sooooo, what can I do for you? Per request, below is a very simple example of a template with named arguments (I use this on my mediawiki at home):

And it would be used like this:

If you ask me, the css is harder than the wikimarkup for tables. Anyways, I can whip up a script to turn the csv above into actual wikinotation as soon as we settle on a template. I could also probably use WWW::Mechanize to create a small bot to actually go inserting the templates wholesale into cartridge pages. Thoughts? Avriette 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The one thing I haven't figured out is how to handle a template with a variable number of rows in the table. For example, the cartridge info template will need to list aliases of the cartridge, which can range from none for something new like the 5.7x28mm to lots for something like the 9x19mm (9mm Luger, 9mm Parabellum, 9mm NATO, and various variations).  The ballstics tables are slightly less problematic, as they will have at least one entry for any table that exists, but could have lots for very flexible calibers like .38 Special or .44 Magnum.  I suppose we could have, say, 19 different templates for ballistics, with support for 1 to 20 rows of data, but at that point I'm not sure parameterization buys you much.  Maybe if you had a "table header" template, a "table entry" template, and a "table trailer" template, where you used one header, any number of entries, and a trailer?

 * One option that did occur to me is to appoint a "Keeper of Ballistics Information" (maybe more than one person), who is in charge of hosting the ballistics table, and generating a new filled template for a given cartridge when the data changes. No matter what we decide to do as far as templates go, I think it would be good to have a centralized point where the source data is kept, so that all the tables can be kept up to date, and the cartridge lists (cartridges sorted by energy, TKO, IPSC power factor, bullet weight, velocity, etc.) can be kept in sync with the tables.  A note could be placed in each template that if modifications are desired, the source data should be upated, and a new table requested for the cartridge.  Instructions for using the templates could be provided, so that users could do it themsleves if they wished, the keeper would just be tasked with creating tables if requested, and watching for updates to make sure they're correct (and verifiable--I can see someone claiming they get 2000 fps. out of their 115 gr 9mm, which of course will also be armor piercing, expand to 37" in diameter, and penetrate 17 feet into ballistic gelatin).  scot 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

New location for ballistics data
See User:Fluzwup/Ballistics. scot 22:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry for deep slack
Hi scot. I've been away from the wikipedia this week, and been otherwise busy. What can I do to help with the cartridge project? aa v ^ 21:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The rifle cartridge data is still pretty sparse, and the rimfire data is all but non-existant. Feel free to grab the data from User:Fluzwup/Ballistics and add whatever you can dig up.  Edit the page, grab a copy, dump it to a text file, and it should import right into Excel as a CSV file.  Add calibers to a section, sort it, export back to CSV, and paste it back in when you're done.  At some point I'll start experimenting with partial templates and see if I can get that working so we can have parameterized template parts that can be assembled into a variable sized table.  scot 22:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Wow, hadn't heard of the .458 SOCOM before. Showed it to an operator friend of mine, he was impressed. Anyways, you've suggested, "add whatever you can dig up." In order to do this, we'd need a list of cartridges that don't have data. Let me see if I can come up with something like that, and then we can figure out how many are left, and where to get that information. ... aa:talk 21:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, the .458 appears to be an attempt to one-up the .300 Whisper, by going with the biggest, fattest bullet they can fit in an AR-15 with a suppressor. The flat nose limits you to a lower velocity than the pointy .30 caliber bullets, but you still end up with 2.5x the mass, so it more than evens out.  There's another similar round, the .50 Beowulf, that takes the same route.  Me, I figure by that point you're better off just going with a 12 ga. slug.  If you wanted subsonic, I'm sure you could fit a moderately aerodynamic, 2 oz. (875 grain) slug in a 3" case and push it to 900-1000 fps pretty easily.  And when you're talking a projectile over 400 grains, I think full auto is pretty superfluous--you're going to have trouble keeping all rounds of a burst on the broad side of the proverbial barn.  For that matter, I wouldn't be at all suprised if a pump would be just as fast (for aimed fire) as a semi-auto.
 * As for a list of "don't have" cartridges, I think that grabbing a bunch of cartridge lists from various websites would be a place to start--then one of us can take the list, sort it, remove redundancies, and then remove entries we already have. Reloading die makers might be the best place to start--they'll have the most extensive list of calibers.  Another good sorce would be Thompson/Center's caliber list for Encore and G2 barrels.  Anything we can't find ballistics data for we can stick in another list somewhere, and maybe someone will run across it at some point.
 * ...and while you're looking at shooting stuff, John Veit from www.pointshooting.com put a bunch of stuff from his website in the point shooting article. He's got quite a collection of stuff on point shooting, with a lot of reference material to back it up.  I'm working with him right now on cleaning it up and condensing it (I wrapped the additions in HTML comments pending the cleanup).  Right now I'm corresponding with him via e-mail, talking about things that can be added to the article, and how to format it.  His website's a bit disorganized, but I think with some help he can provide enough to really flesh out the article.  If we do have any disagreements it would be good to have a third person to weigh in, so you're invited to have a look.  scot 22:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

.17 rimfire
There was a disambig-cleanup tag, so I tried to clean it up per WP:MOSDAB, but that's just a guideline. If you think it looks better the other way, revert me. :) You could altogether remove the dab tag and just have a list of the cartridges. I'm not sure what's best. It's up to you, I don't feel strongly either way. Gflores Talk 16:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources for caliber lists
http://www.bullberry.com/TCbarrels.html and http://www.bullberry.com/encore.html are probably a bit too extensive...

http://www.midwayusa.com/ has lists of available commercial ammo, which is probably a good place to start...

Handgun: 5.7x28mm FN      .25 ACP 7.62x25mm Tokarev .30 Luger .32 ACP .32 S&W .32 S&W Long .380 ACP 9mm Luger 9mm Shotshell 9x23mm Winchester .38 Super .357 Sig .38 Long Colt .38 Special .357 Magnum .38 S&W 9mm Makarov .375 JDJ .40 S&W 10mm Auto .41 Remington Magnum .44-40 WCF .44 Russian .44 Special .44 Remington Magnum .44 Colt .45 GAP .45 ACP .45 Super .45 Colt (Long Colt) .454 Casull .460 S&W Magnum .45 Schofield .475 Linebaugh .480 Ruger .50 Action Express .500 S&W Magnum .500 Linebaugh

Rifle: .17 Remington .204 Ruger 5.45x39mm .22 Hornet .218 Bee .221 Fireball .222 Remington .223 Remington .224 Weatherby Magnum .22-250 Remington .223 Winchester Super Short Magnum .220 Swift .243 Winchester .243 Winchester Super Short Magnum 6mm Remington .240 Weatherby Magnum .257 Roberts .25-06 Remington .25 Winchester Super Short Magnum .257 Weatherby Magnum 6.5 Grendel .260 Remington 6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser 6.5mm-06 A-Square 6.5mm Remington Magnum .264 Winchester Magnum 6.8mm Remington SPC .270 Weatherby Magnum .270 Winchester .270 Winchester Short Magnum 7-30 Waters 7mm-08 Remington 7x57mm Mauser (7mm Mauser) .280 Remington 7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum 7mm Remington Magnum 7mm Weatherby Magnum 7mm STW 7mm Remington Ultra Magnum 7mm Winchester Short Magnum .30 M1 Carbine .30-30 Winchester .300 Savage .308 Winchester 7.5x55mm Schmidt-Rubin (Swiss) .30-06 Springfield .300 Winchester Short Magnum .300 Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum .308 Norma Magnum .300 H&H Magnum .300 Winchester Magnum .300 Weatherby Magnum .300 Remington Ultra Magnum .30-378 Weatherby Magnum .300 Pegasus 7.62x39mm Russian 7.62x54mm Rimmed Russian .32-20 WCF .303 British .32 Winchester Special 8x57mm Mauser (8mm Mauser) .325 Winchester Short Magnum (WSM) 8mm Remington Magnum .338-06 A-Square .338 Winchester Magnum .340 Weatherby Magnum .338 Remington Ultra Magnum .338 Lapua Magnum .338-378 Weatherby Magnum .338 Excalibur .348 Winchester .35 Remington .35 Whelen .350 Remington Magnum .358 Norma Magnum .358 Shooting Times Alaskan 9.3x62mm Mauser 9.3x74mm Rimmed 9.3x64mm Brenneke .375 H&H Magnum .375 Weatherby Magnum .375 Remington Ultra Magnum .378 Weatherby Magnum .376 Steyr .38-55 WCF .38-40 WCF .450-400 Nitro Express .400 A-Square (400 Pondoro) .405 Winchester .416 Taylor .416 Remington Magnum .416 Weatherby Magnum .416 Rigby .404 Jeffery .44-40 WCF .444 Marlin .45-70 Government .450 Marlin .45-90 WCF .458 Winchester Magnum .458 Lott .450 Ackley Magnum .450 Assegai .460 Short A-Square .450 Number 2 Nitro Express .450 Nitro Express .460 Weatherby Magnum .500-465 Nitro Express .470 Capstick .470 Nitro Express .475 Number 2 Jeffery Nitro Express .475 Number 2 Nitro Express .50 Beowulf .495 A-Square .500 Nitro Express 3"      .500 A-Square       .50 BMG       .50 Alaskan

Mossberg 500 on french wikipedia
Well, I read your message on [fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Mossberg_500] and I will try to answer.

According to french wiki', the magazine capacities of Mossbergs are : Mossberg 500 : 7 shots Mossberg 590 : 9 shots (12-gauge / 18,5x70mm) or 8 shots (12-gauge Magnum / 18,5x76mm), 7 shots or less for shortened variants. Is it always 5 shots for shortened variants of 500 and 590 ? And has the Mossberg 500 ATP6 a 5-shot magazine + one in chamber, and the ATP8 a 7-shot + one in chamber ?

 * The main difference between the 500 and the 590 is how the barrel attaches to the magazine; in the 500, the barrel screws into the end of the magazine, while in the 590 it slips around the magazine. In the short models, the capacity is always 5, the extended 500 magazine holds 7, the extended 590 holds 8; this is all in 70mm rounds, with a reduction of 1 round for the 76mm magnum rounds.

For french use of Mossbergs : Mossberg 500 is in limited numbers in service in french army (Special Forces, units in French Guiana). The GSPR (Groupe de Sécurité de la Présidence de la République) uses Mossberg 500 Cruiser. The Maverick M88 was sold at low prices in France in 1980s and 1990s, so french Armée de l'Air (Air Force) uses M88 for guardianship of his air bases. Lot of french money conveyance and guardianship companies also use M88.

Well, it is what french wiki says. But I'm not sure of all this. About GSPR, see [], there are photographs of GSPR weapons, including two shotguns. I suppose these are a Benelli M3T and a short Mossberg 590 (and not a "Mossberg 870" as written in the page, probably a mistake with Remington 870.) because of the heat shield and the design of the trigger guard. About the GSPR, there is also a website with an english version ([gspr.free.fr/anglais/index2.htm]) but it is very little. And a photograph (on the forum [forum.gign.org]) shows that the GIGN tested a Model 500 ATP6 "Bullpup 12".

 * The bullpup was made for a number of years; it's basically a plastic stock that wraps the 500 action and makes it into a bullpup. An interesting concept, but it never really caught on so it was discontinued.

Some french wikipedists are surprised by "Mossberg claims that the Model 500 is the only shotgun to pass the US Army's Mil-Spec 3443E test, "a brutal and unforgiving torture test with 3,000 rounds of full power 12 gauge buckshot". ". According to them, lot of shotguns are better than the Mossberg. Is it possible that the Mil-Spec 3443E also precise a maximum price, who forbid better shotguns to pass the tests ? Rob1bureau 20:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * No, that's doesn't appear to be the case. First, the Remington and Winchester entry level guns are priced about the same as the Mossberg, so price shouldn't be a factor.  Milspec 3443E does specifies structural strength requirements and functional requirements (both reliability and patterning/accuracy), plus rough handling requirements.  Milspec 3443G eliminates the model 500 because of the plastic trigger guard, but the 590 is acceptable as it has a metal guard.  While the 3443 spec is considered obsolete (being replaced by the semi-auto Benelli) pumps are still being acquired from Mossberg (as of 2004, the last pump shotgun contract I found), and there is nothing to prevent any other maker from submitting a sample for testing.

 * I think the key is defining "better". The 3443 spec is pretty brutal, and it wouldn't suprise me if many more expensive guns would fail it.  It is also necessary in some cases to supply a specialized model, since one variant requires an M7 bayonet lug (part of the heat sheild on the Mossberg military models).  As long as a shotgun meets the minimum requirements, then "better" doesn't matter, it's down to an issue of price.  The fact that Remington has the bulk of the police market here, and they do market models to the military, but Mossberg gets the military contracts says that either it is in fact the only gun to meet the requirements, or that it's significantly cheaper than any of the competition.  My guess is that Mossberg is in fact the only shotgun to meet the requirements, otherwise Remington and Winchester almost certainly would have made Mossberg stop saying so.  That isn't to say that Mossberg is the only shotgun that could, just that it was the only one that both tried and succeeded. scot 22:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Flechette correction
Took me some time to work out how to get back to you as a newcomer - but just wanted to say thanks for correction on the flechette page and suggestion of better way to post company and link to it. poshpic 13:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Accurize
Kudos and a big thumbs up for your amazing contributions. Tronno ( t | c ) 01:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ruger Mini 14 Discussion
Hello fluzwup! I received your message about the Ruger Mini 14 discussion. I do now know how to send messages "directly", so I will post one here.

 * I think the issue over the magazine ban should be moved to another article, maybe one on Bill Ruger, or on the company--the issue isn't specific to the Mini-14.

Actually, the issue is very specific to the Mini 14. Much of Bill Rugers opinions came from aftermarket manufacturers making magazines for the Mini 14 that were of a capacity that Bill Ruger chose not to sell to the public via his factory magazines. This flew directly in the face of his beliefs that "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds..."

Furthermore, the Ruger Mini 14 specifically had become the choice of a number of extremist groups, in addition to being the weapon used in a number of EXTREMELY high profile shootings during this time (The infamous Miami Shootout, the worst mass shooting in Canadas history in December of 1989; The University of Montreal shooting where Marc Lepine used a Mini 14 to shoot a number of students, and on and on...)

Ruger sells 15 round magazines for it's P series pistols '''but not 20 for the Mini 14 rilfle. ''' Furthermore, Ruger also never sold the rare factory 10 round Mini 14 magazines to the public, even when there were no laws or even local ordnances prohibiting them from doing so.

 * Also, the section may not be neutral; the statments made by Ruger were made at a time when there was a push to ban all semi-automatic firearms; many foreign rifles had already been banned from import outright.

Quotes by Bill Ruger about a Ruger product that ultimately led to legislation is probably the most pertinent thing I can think of. This isn't someone from the outside expressing an opinion about Bill Ruger. It's the very things Bill Ruger himself said. I do find it amusing that you would suggest that Bill Rugers own words about a Ruger product is somehow not germane to the discussion.

 * Also, the phrase "continues to mark them "Law Enforcement Only" even though there is no requirement to do so." is not entirely correct; that label is still required in many areas.

Actually, that's incorrect. There is no Federal Requirement for companies to modify their entire operation to consort with a few local laws. Ruger isn't continuing to mark their 20 Round Mini 14 magazines "Law Enforcement Only" to comply with a handful of local ordinances; they're doing so because they don't believe they public should own them, If you don't believe me, call up Ruger and try to order one from the factory. They'll sell you all the 5 round magazines you want, but not a 20.

 * The also neglects to mention that Ruger does sell high capacity magazines--15 round P series magazines may be purchased from Ruger's website--so the lack of civilian targeted 20 round magazines is not related to a desire not to sell high capacity magazines; they may just not be economically feasible in a market saturated with 3rd party makers of high capacity magazines with far lower price points.

This is such a far-out rationalization that I literally belly-laughed. Entirely incorrect.

Your position holds that Ruger isn't selling 20 round magazines to the public because there are cheaper aftermarket units... Then why does Ruger continue to make them but turn away people with ready cash who want to buy them? There are large numbers of people who would purchase factory Mini 14 20 rounders this instant, but Ruger REFUSES to sell them to anyone but Law Enforcement and FFL dealers (Thankfully, FFL dealers are no longer bound by any laws prohibiting them from selling the magazines to whomever they choose, so it's become a non-issue). The "aftermarket" magazines are of an immensely lower quality than the factory units. While Ruger will sell a 15 round pistol magazine to anyone (even though there are a wide array of aftermarket Ruger pistol magazines available), they refuse to sell a 20 round rifle magazine to anyone but FFL holders and Law Enforcement Agencies.

I am sorry, but this position about Ruger turning away paying customers because cheaper aftermarket magazines exist is laughably incorrect.

It has nothing to do with a "business decision" but rather a philosophical belief that "people don't need over 10 rounds in a Rifle". Bill Ruger himself said this in no uncertain terms, thus, you cannot continue to deny it.

The fact is (whether we like it or not) is that Ruger is a very controversial company due to these beliefs. There are a large number of Ruger owners, users and enthusiasts who act as apologists for these actions, but at the end of the day, it would be dishonest for these facts to be "hidden" about the company. Let them be known and let people conclude accordingly.

Please keep in mind… I say this as someone who not only owns a couple Mini 14 ranch rifles, but a transferable AC556 machinegun (In addition to about a half-dozen Ruger revolvers and a couple P90’s) Vilsk

Re: Code monkey question
I chose the first, because it was in full colour and contained additional elements (such as the code backdrop and the computer monitor). But it doesn't have to be one or the other. I see three other options:

What do you think should be done? I would prefer an answer on my user talk page. Seahen 03:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The article could use both images, despite their similarities.
 * 2) I could rework [[Image:Code Monkey.jpg|50px]] (the license allows derivs), colouring it and adding some code similar to what's in [[Image:Code Monkey colour.jpg|50px]].
 * 3) We could use a different image altogether, but we'd probably have to settle for fair use.

Flobert Bosquette
I was looking at the image you added to the English Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimfire_ammunition and I was wondering what you could tell me about the 9 mm rimfire cartridges pictured? 9 mm rimfires are virtually non-existant in the United States, and the only references I can find refer to a cartridge called a "9 mm Flobert", and I was wondering if that was the same as the "9 mm Grenaille", which translates as close as I can determine to "9 mm granulated". I'm not sure how to translate "9 mm Bosquette", Babelfish just leaves it the same. Also, the second cartridge from the right in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Munit05.jpg looks like a .22 Short or .22 CB Short; the case is too short to be a Long Rifle. scot 70.168.238.243 9 mai 2006 à 15:56 (CEST)

 * Hi Scot. Happy to discuss with you.

Yes indeed the 9 mm Grenaille is a 9 mm type “Flobert” that means a 9mm cartridge Rimfire but with very little “leads” (I don’t know the exact word on English for the little bullets of lead that are in a hunting cartridge ). These little “leads” are named “Grenaille” on French and that’s why I used this word but the real name is Flobert. The two on the picture are quite old but they still work.

9 mm Bosquette is a name with use for small charged cartridge. In fact there is to type of 9 mm Bosquette 9 m/m Bosquette and 9 m/m Bosquette Ogivale. For example you have on the picture from the right to the left : N°2 = .22LR Bosquette = Like a 22LR but low charge (you are right the real name sould be .22 Short but we improperly call it like that) N°3 =.22LR with little “leads” like for “Flobert” N°4 =.22LR Classic (but here we have several types with for example an hole at the top to expand) N°5=an other .22LR with little “leads” like for “Flobert”

You can find a lot of information about the French Rimfine cartridge’s types here : but on French (open the document and make a research with LES CARTOUCHES A PERCUSSION ANNULAIRE) you will go to the good paragraph.

Feel free to change my picture if you think it does not fit with US models. Or cancel it if you prefer. I can also change the texts of the image myself if you want (just send me the texts you would like to read).

You can also use the pictures I have added to Commons and that you can see here =

Where are you from in the US ?

Best regards Lax_en 17:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Lax

Chine log construction
Article notes:
 * http://www.maritimetrails.org/notes/fall2005/archives/001591.asp Claims chine log construction originated with scow schooners.
 * http://www.cas.sc.edu/sciaa/staff/amerc/Riverinewatercraft.htm "Chine girder" construction, flat bottomed boats and coastal schooners
 * http://www.cas.sc.edu/sciaa/staff/amerc/Waccamaw.htm Rice barge river wreck, 1700-1800 time period, exhibiting chine log construction
 * http://www.robbwhite.com/story.model.bow.skiff.html Hard chined boats with thick planking, no chine logs
 * http://www.mailbag.com/users/wuaa/WUAAmar05.pdf Wreck of the scow schooner Dan Hayes, detailing chine log construction.
 * http://www.nwpl.new-westminster.bc.ca/nwheritage.org/heritagesite/orgs/samson/Tech%20info%20page.htm chine log construction in steamboat
 * http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/moa/docs/sa0198.htm Chine logs in cross-planked V bottom Chesapeake Bay boats
 * http://www.pdracer.com/hullcstr/page1.htm Chine log PD Racer construction

I was wondering if you could help me out with something
You look like you're well educated on the subject, so I thought I would give it a shot and ask if you ever have the time can you look at my question in the discussion section for the 5.45x39 round page? It shouldn't take more than a couple minutes, and I would be most appreciative if you took a look. Thanks in advance. --Skyler Streng 22:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Atkinson cycle
Wow.. You really knocked yourself out in response to my half-baked comment. I'll take my time reading it. Mackerm 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I work as a consultant to the motor racing industry. My speciality is computer simulation of vehicle dynamics. I have research several new concept engine designs as part of my work. The rotary Atkinson cycle engine is only one of many rotary designs that utilise the Atkinson cycle. This particular engine design however encompasses most of the thermodynamic qualities of the original Atkinson layout. The entry heading in Wikipedia is “Atkinson cycle” and it is not necessarily about the engines that derive from use of this cycle. Perhaps it would be a good Idea just to concentrate on the principles rather than the applications. I included the rotary application as I thought it best explained the Atkinson cycle thermodynamic principles. I have corresponded with the inventor of this engine and other inventors of Atkinson cycle engines. If it is of interest, I can send you some details on what I have.Sowilo 16:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link for more information on the rotary Atkinson cycle engine. www.white-smoke.wetpaint.com/page/rotary+engine I have plenty of information on the Wankel geometry. Please tell me what is of particularly interest to you. A lot of comparisons with the Wankel engine are contained on the site mentioned above. Sowilo 17:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hull Speed
I am not sure how am I to provide a reference that that says something doesn't exist when the references that I have don't even acknowledge the term?

Please see the Hull Speed discussion for a description of the references that I have checked for the term.

I am not going to enter into an "editting war" over this. I leave it to you to replace the text as I have entered it if you feel it is the right thing to do. I cannot add a reference to the term Hull Speed as I have none other than magazines and other popular literature.

It is my intention to clarify a few terms dealing specifically with Naval Architecture. If anyone has a reference that is in conflict with what I have changed or added, I would be very interested in reviewing it ... I'm sure the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers would be as well.

Jmvolc 15:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This should be interesting
Problem Bear JJ1. RPellessier | Talk 07:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, they wanted to reintroduce bears to parts of Europe...apparently they succeeded a bit too well. Kind of ironic though, an Italian bear invading Germany...  scot 12:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the jerky article
I think the source seems credible enough. Thanks for finding that information; I was too lazy to get it myself =p.--Crazysunshine 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bas Jan Ader
For the record, Otis was never called "Otis Art College." When he was there, it was called "Otis Art Institute." I'm the Librarian at Otis and I know. I changed it back so that the link would work. Thanks for adding the new books. I haven't really had time to work much on his entry. --Sue Maberry 03:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to help you track down more info on him, but the Otis archives are in bad shape. We have a couple of his artists' books and he's, of course, discussed in other books and articles. But I don't have the inside track on anything else. I'll keep my eyes open for you though. --Sue Maberry 02:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Monolithic dome
I think the article looks very very much better. Thanks for doing such a wonderful cleanup. Joyous! | Talk 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely! Great job! Your idea of extending the concrete dome article into concrete shells sounds good too. Best, FreplySpang 11:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

cars 1900-1950
Hi there, I'm doing a Masters dissertaiton on cars between 1900-1950 and i came across this page you'd contributed to on "Ford Model T". I've been having so much trouble trying to locate reliable data from this period. I'm interested in your source for the fuel economy of this car as you've stated that it is 25-30 miles per gallon. I've also been looking at Ford Model A, Citroen Traction Avant, and Moris Minor -all these also have mpg figures.

Can you remember where exactly you got your figure from (book/website/personal hobby...) ?? I do trust these figures totally, but the problem is i'm not allowed to reference Wikipedia in my dissertation..

Jana Jcb302 20:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please critique Surplus killing
Have a look at one of my few original contributions and critique it heavily before some less objective person does so. See: Surplus killing.

RPellessier | Talk 14:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Political Correctness
You might find the discussion on Political Correctness interesting. Later. Yaf 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Recoil
Have gone through a clean-up of the article, mostly in working with the physics concepts. Take a look and see what you think. Conservation of Momentum is definitely an important point in the article, I believe. Have attempted to work this concept into the text better. (And, yes, I do use physics daily in my work :-) Yaf 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Holster
Excellent job! I think that's plenty. If you wanted to go further, you could try linking specific sections via tags, but I think there's definitely enough there now for the "original research" tag to be removed. Thanks, it was a pleasure working with you. :) --Elonka 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, if you get a chance, could you please take a look at the Kydex article? I recently reworked it to look less like an ad, but it's not really my field, so I'd appreciate the review of an editor who's more experienced in firearms.  :) --Elonka 19:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hull speed and racing shell
You said:

You edited both of these articles to say that racing shells are semi-displacement hulls and not limited by hull speed. Do you have any sources to back that up? I'm not sure that racing shells approach wave propogation speed, and if so, whether or not they move into semi-displacement mode at that point is moot, as they'll always be operating in the displacement mode. I'm going to do some research and see if I can find stats on LWL and speed of racing shells to see what sort of speed/length ratios they operate in. Ditto for racing canoes and kayaks. scot 20:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right in that racing shells are not semi-displacement hulls. Need to make that clearer. Thanks for catching that.

Primary resistance for racing shells is just drag, not wave drag, which is why hull speed is not a big issue (unless your design is f..ed up). Racing shells are narrow enough that they make minimal waves which is cause of hull speed limits. With World class rowers, they will achieve hull speeds of 1.2 to 1.6. You can fairly accurately predict on water performance based on power output and straight drag resistance (i.e. it varies with the square of speed, not exponentially as you'd expect with wave drag). E.g., for the Men's single scull, the World Record is ~6:35 for 2000m, the boat is 8 meters in length, and has an effective waterline of ~7.6m. And these atheletes can go 1:30 for 500m which would get you up to 1.67 over hull speed!!

 * Kayaks and canoes, in my admittedly limited experience, tend to have fairly broad, shallow V bottoms, and this feature will contribute significantly to the ability of the hull to plane. The way to see if a boat is planing is to watch the waterline of the hull--if the boat lifts out of the water, lowering the waterline, then it is beginning to generate dynamic lift and therefore beginning to plane.

I used to have the cites when I was a competive rower and also an engineer specializing in hydraulics (and before my house burned down), but that was years ago. You will note, however, that the citation in the Hull Speed article http://www.frontrower.com/hullspeedchart.htm says that "the hull speed formula does not apply to needle-like hulls" Swlenz 21:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Hull speed is, as the article should state, just a rule of thumb. The issue of speed/length ratio and wave propogation speed, however, are proven physics, and all hulls are going to be impacted by them to some degree.  Since "needle-like hulls" have such a huge skin area for their frontal surface area, it merely means that you can push a lot further up the exponential wave drag curve before things become significant.  The problem with dealing with wave drag is that you go from rules of thumb like hull speed straight into towing tanks and finite element analysis of the fluid flow--there's almost no middle ground information.  I'm also having a hard time nailing down just what a "semi-displacement" or "semi-planing" hull is--so far I'm getting the impression that it's just a non-planing hull that is driven fast enough to generate lift.

You said:

OK, found some info on racing shells. Vespoli shows their 8-shells running 56' to 58' OAL, which works out to a hull speed of 10 to 10.2 knots, assuming the LWL is not significantly shorter. This paper puts 8-shells speeds at about 5.5 m/s. That's 10.7 knots, so while wave drag may be less than 20% of the drag (based on the fact that skin drag is 80% according to the paper cited) it sounds like the hull may well be limited by hull speed--else why bother making it 56' long? Additional length just adds more surface area to create more skin drag. scot 20:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points. You have skin surface drag AND you have drag based on cross-sectional area which is why you want your boats narrow. Also, making boats pencil-like avoid a signficant amount of wave drag which is where hull speed limits comes from. I've read the paper you cited before. Note: it confirms that resistance varies with the square.

Yes, there is some wave drag, but if you are above the hull speed and wave drag is only 20%, I'd opine that you have avoid hull speed limitations.

 * Not so much avoid as minimize, but I think that might explain the "not limited by hull speed" statement above--it's just not a significant design consideration when compared to other sources of drag.

56' long? Figure 9 bodies occupying 4 ft each or 36'. The rest is just tapering the ends to avoid drag. If wave drag/hull speed were a big issue, you could easily make an eight man boat longer. Compare it to a single which is 25 feet long for just one person. Also, you need some bouancy in the bow and the stern because the center of mass of the boat shifts with each stroke (It shifts about 3 ft. with each stroke) and that shift wastes energy that can be used to power the boat. Swlenz 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One last thought, a racing shell is inherently unstable. It needs to be actively balanced. It is not like a normal boat. It has different design characteristics. Swlenz 22:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Question for you: In reading the Hull Speed article, I noted that it states that catamerans are semi-displacement. Is that right? Not that much of a Sailor myself, but I do know that they are faster than most comparable boats. I just assumed that it was because they had a narrower beam (like a rowing shell). Also, I would think that making the hull of a catameran semi-displacement would be the choice of the designer, and not an inherent property of the boat. Also, I assumed with some of the big commercial catatmerans that there was a lot of displacement under the water thereby avoiding wave drag.

 * I have sources stating that catamarans are generally displacement hulls. One of the first western boats to really blow past the hull speed barrier was Munroe's  proa, which was 29 feet long and hit speeds of 18 knots over a measured course.  Of course, it was also about 2.5' in beam, flat bottomed, and carried well over 200 sq. ft. of sail.  The original Micronesian proas used very deep V hulls, and so would not be inclined to plane (pardon the pun) but they were still capable of out-sailing anything the Europeans had.  Unfortunately the only people doing any research on proas are ameteurs from the AYRS and the like, so getting hard data on how they behave at S/L ratios over 1.34 isn't easy.  I do have a scanned copy of an old AYRS paper with towing tank results on various long, thin catamaran hull shapes (up to 12:1 length/beam ratio), maybe a closer look at that will turn something up.

Should the statement read 'planing boats, semi-displacement boat and boats with long narrow hulls such as rowing shells, catermarans, etc. Swlenz 23:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thought. I just looked at flatwater racing kayacks. They are 5.2 meters long. At the most recent World Championships, the winning man recorded a 3:40 for 1000m. This would be 1.8 times hull speed!!

 * Do you have any source of pictures for that? Looking at the attitude of the hull might be enlightening.  When you hit the wave propagation speed, the stern starts to settle, as it outruns the wave that was previously supporting it, and you're in effect pushing the hull up the hill of it's bow wave.  If the bow wave is tiny enough, there's going to be almost no slope, and thus almost no wave resistance.  Even better would be to take one of these boats, hook up a 50 lb thrust trolling motor, GPS with speed measuring ability, and an amp meter, and chart speed vs. power requirements.  If it's a steady exponential curve, then the hull is operating in displacment mode.  If there's an inflection point just over the S/L ratio of 1.34, then the boat is moving into the semi-displacement realm.  See Wave making resistance and the cited paper for a graph of resistance vs. S/L ratio for various hull types.  scot 14:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scot:

When I said "look," it was a metaphore -- no pictures. However, this is a picture of the finish line for the Olympic men's single in 2000. You may see a slight wave kicked up for lanes 3 and 4 -- they are completing their strokes and their weight is in the bow, but no waves for lane 3 which is at the beginning of his stroke. That ripple comes from rocking the boat forward and back. As you can see (1) the wave generated is tiny and (2) the narrowness of the boat cuts through the wave.

My understanding is that racing shells and kayaks are not fast enough, given their length and their engine, to plane. With a racing shell, you can't tell if it would plane or semi-displace because the bow goes up every time your body weight goes to stern. I haven't done too much with racing kayaks. I have rowed them a few times (lucky not to have flipped), and rowed against them with me in a single. Never notice any lift in their bow.

The following is an article I found which deals with wave resistance and racing shells:. They use something called "Mitchell's intergral" to calculate wave resistance, and it is not until a Froude # of 3.25 that it has a significant effect, and even then, it is only 25% of the the coefficient of drag.

A couple of years ago, I did a mock up comparing various boats (singles through eights), rowers (male, female, open and lightweights), and erg Indoor rowing scores (which can be converted to Watts). It all fits nicely if drag resistance is the dominating force (i.e. square). I've recently seen someone publish the same results.

There was a nice article in yesterday's NYTimes related to drag, et al.:

Back in 1984, a friend of mine built a platform for the TV crew to film the Olympics. He used two eights to make a catamaran. It could go pretty quick with just a small motor and made little wake. (Any wake can cause a boat to mess up and would hinder the competitors unfairly.) I think though that it has long ago been relegated to the junk pile. Can't measure a real boat because it would be too unstable for a motor. Also, the weight of the motor might cause some problems. You'd also have to be sure that it is a no wind day. Air resitance with no wind, is about 10% of the drag. Never even thought about a GPS system -- I've been out of the loop too long!!

The Proas seems to be built a lot like a racing shell. I've also read a little about fine entry, and about Catamarans since we started this discussion. (I've learned a lot, Thanks). These boats all have a very large length to beam ration and slice through the water like a knife and all are noted for not producing much wake. Best Regards. Swlenz 20:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:.45 ACP
This is just a note to let you know another editor was concerned about this edit. I reviewed it and did not find any wrongdoing, but I did notice you did not sign each of your comments individually. This was confusing to the other editor. In the future, for clarity's sake, it's a good idea to sign each comment individually. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks! --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

apologies
I was just leaving a message for woods and noticed one of our earlier discussions (no, I don't have a 1600x1200 screen, I use a 12" iBook!). I realized after seeing it that I had totally abandoned the two of you and the project, which seemed to have a good deal of potential. While I've been sort of lurking around the last couple weeks, I'm knee deep in writing, and work is also taking its toll. Excuses, I know. Did you ever get anywhere? ... aa:talk 10:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I've still got all the data lying around (see User:Fluzwup/Ballistics), but I haven't done anything more on the templates or written any code to parse the data tables. Things are busy for me as well, starting a new project at work, fixing bugs in the last release, and getting ready to move in December, which means lots of cosmetic work on the house to prep it to sell.  I could probably put together the template and generate a whole bunch of tables, but then we'd need a 'bot of some sort to put it all in place.  The 'bot I'm clueless about, I haven't even used one much less looked into writing one.  I've also got tables for calibers with no data yet, a few in handguns and a bunch in rifles, that could be filled out.
 * I'm not involved any any major edits right now (until someone weighs in one way or the other on the physics discussion on Talk:recoil) so I might take a look at the templates again and see what it would take to parameterize them, which would get us one step closer to being able to execute on the ballistics tables. scot 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps
You can help me with this. What does the term in cartridges "32.20" or "44.40" mean? Is there a similarity in the term "30.30"? Ive been told that 44 would be the calibre and 40 would be the weight of the black powder. Ive seen that a 44.40 has a longer shell than a 32.20 etc. Ive spoken to several gun freaks but get different answers. Please reply (if you will) on my talk page. randazzo56 21:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Foil (fluid mechanics)
I failed to notice that the article had a history; the tags I added were relevant to the vandalized version which I saw, with bulk of the actual article missing. It's all fine now, thanks for fixing it and letting me know. GregorB 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For your quick and informative response. randazzo56 00:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gun violence in the United States
Not sure if you have seen this one yet, Scot, but it is a wheel warring nightmare. It does show some serious improvement recently. Later... Yaf 04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jerky (food) article dispute
Hello. If you get a chance, could you please stop by the Jerky article and help resolve a dispute regarding proper WP:External links. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Jerky (food), and I am seeking third party opinions since another user and I seem to be at an impasse. I am sending this to all editors who have recently edited the article or its talk page. Thanks so much for your time, Satori Son 17:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Beretta Cx4 Storm
Scot, could use your help in helping resolve a dispute with the Beretta Cx4 Storm article. Thanks Yaf 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Great approach, and very well thought out, as always. Thanks!  Yaf 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment.
Could you comment on my request for adminship? --Asams10 16:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Riot gun ammunition
See User talk:Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Spencer
From Usertalk:Roundeyesamurai

I just did some work on the Spencer rifle page, cleaning up some off-topic stuff (rimfire vs. centerfire) and adding reference material. Take a look and let me know what you think. scot 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work! Roundeyesamurai 00:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Recoil
Good afternoon Flozwup/scot. I backed off of the recoil article for the last month or so to let things settle. I have spent sometime learning more about communicating within Wikipedia. I hope you will allow me to post a question to you here in your talk area.

I want you to know that I (if you were referring to me) am not, “bound and determined to remove conservation of momentum from the concept of recoil...” I just believe you are mixing up the principle of recoil (the word recoil used as a noun) with the measurement of recoil (the word recoil used as a verb). I think that recoil as a principle should be separate from recoil the measurement. As a reader of the article I am lead to believe that recoil is the measurement of force or energy a gun or bullet imparts.

The sentence near the top of the article says in italics, “This article is about backward force produced in firearms when fired.” Then in the second sentence of the article it refers to recoil as conservation of momentum. As I understand it: force is the measurement known as the newton (pound force in non-SI); the recoil of a small arm (not gun/shooter system) and its measurement is known as the joule (foot-pound force in non-SI)and the principle of a recoiling small arm (the thermodynamic system) is conservation of momentum.

Can you help me understand what you or the editors of the article are conveying; recoil the principal or recoil the measurement?Greg Glover 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the article should cover both the phenomenon of recoil--what is it, how is it produced, what laws of physics it conforms to--and the methods used for quantifying it. Having an article on just the measurement of recoil is meaningless.  For example, I can say "Flooplegoppers are cubes made of 99.4% or greater purity aluminum 27.4 +/- .01 centimeters on an edge".  That is a perfectly correct definition of flooplegopper (I get to say this because I just invented it) but it is also perfectly worthless, since it doesn't cover why a flooplegopper is what it is.  Likewise, if I say "Flooplegoppers are used in the sport of flooplegopper hurling", I've provided a somewhat more useful definition, but still not a satisfyingly complete one, since the reader has no idea whether a distance of 1 meter or 100 meters is more appropriate.  I think that in the case of the article on recoil, first the physics must be defined, then the reasons recoil is important, then methods of calculating and measuring recoil.  Since "the reason recoil is important" has primarily to do with shooter comfort, I think it's perfectly acceptable to say "some shooters perceive slow, heavy bullets as providing a softer recoil than a light, fast bullet with the same recoil energy", providing a reference can be provided.  It is an opinion, and may not be mathematically quantifiable, but that doesn't make it any less valid when discussing human perception.  Opinions are perfectly valid here, as long as they are notable and verifiable.

 * As for units, there is no "right" or "wrong" unit for measuring recoil. Kinetic energy is the most common unit used, and certainly it should be mentioned; however, it is not the most portable unit for describing recoil, as it has an additional variable that the momentum measure lacks, namely the ratio of firearm mass to cartridge ejecta mass (make a note of the term "ejecta", I think that should go into the article where "projectile" is currently, since "ejecta" covers bullet, powder, sabot, wad, etc. in one simple word).  Certainly the math is more straightforward for a momentum measure, as that is the root phenomena that is being described.  I've seen recoil measured in energy, momentum (also called impulse), and firearm velocity.  And of course the Marcus Inch, but I'm pretty sure Marcus and I are the only ones who use that one.  That and he's put on weight the past decade or so, so it's not very reproducable...

 * As to which measure people tend to use, that depends on which measure they think best describes how they feel recoil. This guy concentrates on recoil velocity; Chuck Hawks lists both in this article, but generally relies on recoil energy figures other places.  Neither measure is complete, because neither one explains how two-part damped shotgun stocks lower perceived recoil, since these work by increasing the time interval over which the energy is transferred, and this factor is not covered in recoil velocity, energy, or momentum.

 * Now that I've rambled a bit, back to the first question you asked. Force is certainly involved in recoil--it's the force produced by the high pressure gas that causes things to move around.  Maybe if we say recoil is the result of the force operating on the firearm?  That says qualifies it, saying what it is.  Conservation of momentum is a quantitative way of describing it; that's the root equation that defines how much recoil is generated in a given situation.

 * I've got to head out now, so I'll leave it at that for now. Based on the thinking I did writing this, I think that a section covering methods of recoil reduction might be a good thing to add to the article, since it can point out the postive and negative factors of various units used to quantify recoil.  By examining things that make a gun feel like it kicks less, that should give the reader a lot of insight into what measures might be best to describe felt recoil.  scot 22:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hello Again,
 * Thank you for that very quick response. I see where we disagree. First I would like to say, “I am not interested in who’s right or who’s wrong. I am only interested in clarity.”

 * Actually we don’t disagree at all. What I get from your response is, you do not understand what I am conveying. I never said that a measurement of recoil should be its own article. Nor do I believe that I implied such a thing. There is a perfectly good subheading called “Recoil verses Energy” already with the Recoil article. Also, if that area were cleaned up a bit, most of my concerns would be pacified.

 * As for there being no right or wrong units of measure for recoil, I am very perplexed. I have never heard any engineer or scientist use anything other then the joule, newton metre or foot-pound force when expressing small arms recoil. That includes my father who was a highly respected aerospace engineer for Hughes Aircraft. I know that bullet-impact energy has been express in many a different way. But that has always been an argument of lethality not straight physics. I guess this is another example of us not understanding each other.

 * I looked over Chuck Hawks’ article. I feel his article is vastly superior to the recoil article in Wikipedia; from a literary and informational standpoint. Chuck’s article is concrete, specific and stays on topic. It also mentions some physics but the language of that physics seems to be on a common level, something a little more understandable. I think because so many hands have been in the proverbial soup, the Wikipedia article on recoil may have started out as “Carol Shelby chili” but reads more like Hobo stew.

 * Since you seem to be the purveyor of all things small arms within Wikipedia, I would humble request one change to the article. Can the word force in the first sentence be changed to: motion or momentum? If so, maybe we can come to some common ground on other issues.Greg Glover 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

 * See, now you leave me wondering if we're ever gonna see eye to eye--I'm a Wick Fowler fan myself, though I use crushed tomatoes instead of sauce, and beer instead of water. That and some good homemade pork tamales...now you're makin' me hungry.

 * While I'm not the purveyor of all things small arms, I will admit that I'm probably the most argumentative. Go ahead and change the "force" to momentum or maybe impulse, depending on which article you think fits best.  I'm going to be offline for most of the next week moving, if you want to do some work on the article go ahead and do so, and I'll take a look after the first of the year.

 * As for units, I provided some links inline to show various people using various measures, and I still contend that all are lacking when measuring perceived recoil, as none function to explain the effects of the shock absorbing shotgun stocks. "The map is not the territory", and recoil is a dynamic phenomenon that seems as though it cannot be summed up in a single number...  scot 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Roller furling image
I'm afraid I'm boatless at the moment and cannot take the photo you request. Would love to! There are plenty on Google Images, but I don't know the etiquette or method of requesting permission to use any of them. Dstookey 18:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject firearms
Since you are interested in and contribute to the firearms articles, I was wondering if you would be interested in joining the wikipedia:WikiProject:Firearms. It mainly focuses on civilian firearms, but also includes military firearms. But in the case of military firearms we defer to WP:WEAPON.--LWF 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for joining. I would put some fancy greeting thing here, but I don't have one. If you could find people who would be interested in joining, I would really appreciate it.--LWF 01:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Obturating ring
Hi Fluzwup. The content at Obturating ring looks good, but from the edit history I don't quite see how we got there. Did you start it from scratch? Tom Harrison Talk 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Elvra's sculture
Sorry for my horrible english, but I think that to remove Carceleros de Guantanamo image may be a censorship action.

Zósimo

 * To be an act of censorship, the image in question would have to be expressing an artistic opinion, and if it's expressing an artistic opinion, it by definition does not belong in an encyclopedia article. If the image in question represents a concrete, verifiable event, then document what that is.  What's the prisoner's name?  Who are his captors?  What circumstances caused him to be considered an unlawful combatant?  scot 16:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Me and many people more think that a sculture is an object only, the performer of that sculture is a opinion. Zósimo

3% Carbon steel
I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I should have responded on my own talk page.

Regarding 3% carbon steel: look up ZDP-189, which has exactly 3% carbon content. Admittedly, it's one of those "hot new" steels that came out only within the past couple of years. CPM S60V, CPM S90V and CPM 10V have 2.15%, 2.40% and 2.45% carbon content respectively. They've been around for at least a decade.

The above are stainless steels, of course. Carbon steels contain no more than 1.2% carbon or so. However, I think that saying that Japanese swords "contained 1% carbon, as much as the hardest modern steels" (I paraphrase) is misleading. Tullie 02:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Steel
I'd suggest moderating the comment to something like "the Japanese steels had up to 1% carbon content, on par with quality modern steels", since there are steels that have substantially more carbon.

While I agree with your point that "stainless" or high-alloy steels are a very different critter from "carbon" or low-alloy steels, both metallurgically and in terms of the way they are produced, they are both known as "steels" by the professionals that work with them (I'm an amateur knife-maker so I interact with both professional knife-makers and metallurgists). Wikipedia, of course, prefers to use the most commonly-used terms, rather than the most technically correct ones.

Hope this helps things. Tullie 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki help
Hey Fluzwap, I'm Brain40, I'm an administrator (second to Jocke pirat) on the Gun Wiki, and I'm trying to expand it, and as I was looking around I noticed your award and contributions, and wanted to ask: Would you be willing to help out on the Gun Wiki? Brain40
 * Sure, I'm interested. Brain40
 * Thanks man. When I make articles about that stuff, I'll reference you and give the links. Thanks! Brain40
 * Thanks for the links! And, I just need an opinion: Could you check out my contributions log, and rate my vandalism reverts on a scale of 1-10? I'm just curious to see if I need to do more to become a decent anti-vandalism user (CVU member). Brain40

Speed of Sound & Suppressors
''Air pressure has no effect at all in an ideal gas approximation. This is because pressure and density both contribute to sound velocity equally, and in an ideal gas the two effects cancel out, leaving only the effect of temperature.''

I suggest as a compromise to simply insert: At sea level, at a temperature of 21 °C (70 °F) and under normal atmospheric conditions, the speed of sound is 344 m/s (770 mph or 1240km/h). Nobody can argue with that. Nabokov 20:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; would you like to put in the change or shall I? scot 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and put in the change. Thanks. Nabokov 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Woodgasgenerator.jpg

 * Any chance you could provide a translation of the text in that photograph? I realize that's a pretty difficult thing to do on something so technical (not to mention the fact that I'm not sure it's Dutch)

I took that photograph while on a SAAB Owners Convention in Finland. The wood gas generator was on the back of a Saab 99 and it was built by its owner from Finland. The text is in Finnish, which is not one of my languages...

http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/10.shtml is a Swedish page but the text on the pic is in English so you could copy that. MH 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms userbox
A discussion on the WikiProject Firearms userbox is currently underway on the project talk page. Samples of various proposed userboxes can be found here and here. As a member, your input is valuable and appreciated. If you would like to contribute to the discussion or vote on your favorite, please visit the Userbox section of the talk page. Thanks! —Thernlund (Talk 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Overpressure ammo
I like it! This is where issues of +P vs high velocity loads, and the science of gunpowder SHOULD be discussed so the reader can cut through the deceptions of the ammo makers and understand at a deeper level what is causing this seeming contradiction where pressure-safe loads are generating very high velocities. I think it would be much more fruitful for ammo makers like CorBon, DoubleTap, and Buffalo to create a category called PSHV (pressure-safe, high velocity) so they can sell ammo that is pressure-safe and have people understand it as being so. --Solidpoint 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. Nice work Scot. —Thernlund (Talk 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Scot, a couple of things to mention here. First, the source you cite as offering +P ammo states clearly that it is, in fact, low pressure ammo. This is just flat out stupid on the part of the mfg, as it is a contradiction, and if the users get the idea that +P ammo is safe in their guns then in the future they may load their .40 or other caliber gun with real +P ammo and blow the thing up.

 * Second, I think if you go back and read what I wrote on the .40 page it provides the user with a great thumbnail of the science of internal ballistics, in two short sentences, instead of making a value judgment about the utility of high pressure loads - which if they follow the link - prove NOT to be high pressure. Characterizations are never preferable to facts in an encyclopedia. I think what I wrote provided a deeper understanding of the issues, resolved the contradiction between mfg claims and reality in the reader's mind in a superior way, and did so in about the same amount of space. I think we should go back to my language AND provide an internal link to your Overpressure ammo page as an amplification of my brief explanation.

 * The degree to which gunpowder is engineered to create different effects is almost completely unknown to the shooting public. Outside of experienced hand-loaders this dominant internal ballistics variable is almost completely unknown. Even many hand-loaders don't really understand powder and internal ballistics well. My goal in adding that blurb about powder on the .40 S&W page was to open for the reader a whole new realm of understanding that powder is very elastic in its behavior, not a commodity with immutable properties.

 * RE: the latest addition to the Overpressure page. I have a feeling, based on the quality, that you are out of your depth here. Would you mind if I rewrote it? It is a good departure point as it is, but doesn't at all sound authoritative.

 * Sorry I am coming off so critical. I actually think we are making tremendous progress. BTW, I added a bio to my user-page. We have a lot in common. I was a huge SiFi reader in my youth and Heinlein was always my favorite. I love that quote about the responsibility of a man to be a master of many domains. That is something I still strive for, as my user-page may reflect.

Solidpoint 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bas Jan Ader
I read the questions you posted on my page, so I sent an email to the Alumni Director at Otis to see what we have on him. Unfortunately it may be minimal. Records for that period are sketchy. I think the changes are being added by a fan and/or collector. As soon as I have time, I'll take a closer look at the entry and see what I can verify. Sue Maberry 16:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Silencers
The company you're thinking of is in New Zealand- silencers are illegal in all States and Territories of Australia, but are completely unrestricted in New Zealand. They are marketed under the name "Hush" or something similar- I'd recommend a Google search for them (or keywords like "Silencer Manufacturer New Zealand"). There used to be a link to their website from the Suppressor page, but it's since vanished. --Commander Zulu 01:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the "Hushpower Suppressor". CeeWhy2 03:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your comments on my talk page about Virginia Tech massacre
I disagree, it's the essence of original research (So he went in a mental institution, but this law says people who went there aren't allowed to own guns therefore... - you're making conclusions out of two separate pieces of information you see?) and until a reliable source appears about that exact topic it shouldn't appear in the article. For the record, many people voluntarily check into mental institutions, for example, so I think what you say may be potentially inaccurate as well -Halo 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Original research can still use sourced facts (such as, well, any academic paper ever), and drawing up conclusions based on multiple sources is original research is (how do you think historians conclude things?). The fact you can't find another news source covering it certainly implies it too. If you disagree and want a second opinion, take it up on the talk page and get wider consensus. -Halo 22:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Try here, which provides more detail too -Halo 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, rereading it, it implies that he was forced to undergo a mental evaluation where he was shown to be normal. I presume that doesn't really "count". -Halo 22:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More discussion at Talk:Virginia_Tech_massacre with a reliable source stating why he wasn't detained -Halo 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointshooting Article
Hi Scot, wondering if you can help me avoid a rather childish edit war on the pointshooting page. A user by the name of "thumperward" is repeatedly removing a single line from the article. I don't have any vested interest in the line staying in and of itself, but an editor editing the article so that it reads the way *he* wants it to read irks the hell out of me. Roundeyesamurai 04:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Insurgency weapon
Hi. I had a quick look, and it looks good to me. Feel free to remove the tag. —Michael Z. 2007-05-02 18:21 Z

A query
Saw this discussion, and I'm wondering if anyone ever proposed anything like it for official policy or guideline. There is a current discussion (to put it lightly) going on here and here, culminating in an unofficial mediation request. If you can offer anything additional it would of course be appreciated, but I am looking for specific policies to cite. (Please respond here) - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 20:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Drive for the Firearms Wikiproject
Hello Fluzwup. The Firearms Wikiproject is having an infobox drive. The purpose of this is to ensure that most (if not all) of the articles within our scope have the relevant infoboxes. The start date will be May 28th. If you choose to participate, go to our project page and pick an article under the To-do list's Infobox section or look for firearm articles that need an infobox. Before you start editing an article, please cross it out on the list so that we don't have editor's work clashing. The drive will last for five days. If you are interested, please RSVP to LWF. Thank you, the Firearms Wikiproject. --Seed 2.0 09:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

British Patents
Sorry for the delay in the reply! Been tied up with work and cleaning up some of the Firearms pages... :-P I have to confess my area of expertise is British Military firearms, primarily the Lee-Enfield rifles and the Webley revolvers. I'm not really up on civilian shotguns and the like, but I would agree that a 130 year old Patent application should be well and truly Public Domain by now. --Commander Zulu 15:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:1900alma.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1900alma.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hunting weapons
Could use an outside set of eyes and a fresh approach to resolving a discussion involving Hunting weapons. scot, if you have some time, would appreciate your proven input and wisdom on helping improve this article. Thanks. Yaf 18:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh jeez, sorry.
Oh jeez, I did not realize my undo was wrong. I was just flying through the RC so wasn't that careful. Thanks for catching that.-Randalllin 15:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sunfish (sailboat)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sunfish (sailboat), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sunfish (sailboat) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: '''Page needs to be moved here. This page was a redirect''' To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sunfish (sailboat), please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Sunfish (sailboat) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sunfish
Thank you for that clarification. Thedjatclubrock :) 13:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon
Hi, I've offered to mediate this dispute. If you'd still like to take part in the process could drop round to the talkpage and respond to a couple of initial issues there? Cheers, WjBscribe 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the talkpage? Standard practice before we move forward is that the parties sign to say whether they accept the mediator and whether they would prefer private mediation or not... WjBscribe 17:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Parell Beads
I'm interested in your description of their use with a spinnaker, but I can't visualise it from your explanation in the article. All my own foredeck work's been with hanked luff foresails, lowered when the spinnaker's flown. Is there a chance of a fuller description? Fiddle Faddle 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Here are some quick references and pictures:

 * http://www.cncphotoalbum.com/doityourself/spinnaker/spinnaker.htm A description and diagram of using parrel beads with an asymmetric over a furled headsail.
 * http://sailingsource.com/neilpryde/store/beads.htm Retailer of parrel beads for spinnaker use.
 * http://www.atninc.com/tacker.html The ATN tacker, a solid plastic slider used in the same manner, intended to distribute the spinnaker load over a wider area and reduce wear on the furled sail.

 * Pick the one you think is best and I'll stick a reference in the article. I've also got a copy of The Gaff Rig Handbook at home, I intend to use it as a reference for the gaff rig use of parrel beads.  scot 20:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think the first is the best of the three. #2 is less clear and #3 shows a proprietary product.  I know you're an exerienced editor so I assume you'll use cite web and cite book when you cite them. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Delisle Carbine
I think there's a diagram in Poulsen's book. It took about 1 hr per drawing, including the research and uploading it with proper notes and source info; I just ran out of time last night to do more. I was thinking that the Sten gun Mk 2 suppressor from WW2 was another good one to include, but the Delisle carbine is another good choice. Also, Poulsen vol 2 (more focused on tactical rifle and sniper rifle) has yet more... which I haven't had time to pull down off the shelf and start referencing. Georgewilliamherbert 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Handloading
Two things: I wanted to congratulate you on your great work on the Handloading article. It's very clear and informative. Second, I wanted to ask you whether you own the books listed at the end of the article. If yes, could you please source the different statements in the article to the correct source? This is a primary requirement for the GA status, and I would love to see that article keep it. Regards, --SidiLemine 09:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see how that could take time. What you could do is to add the ref at the end of each paragraph that was "taken" from there, and a little note on the talk page. This way it would be way easier to understand.--SidiLemine 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for your informative reply on the air gun page today, cheers. Also I see your a scout, odd as I was just musing the other day about brushing up on my field craft skills by trying to light a fire, using the fireplow technique. Ryan4314 23:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Handloading kudos
Thanks for fixing my crimping words :-) (I knew better, of course, but was thinking just of center fire cartridges, and you are correct, of course, that rimfire autoloaders don't headspace on the case mouth!)  Thanks!  Yaf 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

5.56mm
I agree with your comments about 5.56mm NATO and I think you may have misunderstood my intent. I am not advocating the use of either 5.56mm NATO or 5.56x45mm in any particular context. With respect to the Mini-14, you're pefectly correct that 5.56x45mm is more correct as it is not limited to M855. However, my point is that the name "5.56x45mm NATO" is a bogus term made up by a couple of contributors who are slavishly following a naming convention. Use one or the other, as appropriate, but you can't combine them and be technically accurate.--Ana Nim (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Proa
I'm actually very surprised by and appreciative of the rapidity of the response, and thank you for it. Generally, for a B class article, the lead should be at least two paragraphs, and hopefully contain at least a clause or sentence relating to each of the main sections. You could probably break at the "The proa is found in various forms..." as the start of a second paragraph. It might be useful to add a little regarding the apparent history of the design. On that basis, Maybe adding something to the effect of "The design seems to have originated in Micronesia, but has recently become more popular in the west", and some basic details regarding the construction. Other than that, if the article had the requested two reference citations per paragraph, I could easily see it getting up to at least GA status, and possibly higher. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

M-1 Carbine Revert War
The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Blade Runner WikiThanks!
Great photos, thanks a bunch! - RoyBoy 800 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More external links
While you added these links a long time ago, I think it's still worth pointing out that you did so against WP:EL and WP:SPAM because I cannot find any warnings by others. --Ronz (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot/Astruc/MiFeinberg/etc.
Scott, you may find this case interesting, as it involves "many" editors we have seen who have been pushing a single anti POV over many months on gun-related articles. I recognized many of the names. There is also an SF newspaper article on Griot that is out there, too, that is related. Yaf (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Paper cartridge article
Nice work on this article! Yaf (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ballistics and the Thompson/Center Contender
Your work on ballistics is pretty impressive. I reformatted your list to a wiki-table in my comment here: User_talk:Tierlieb. I think you ought to put this into the appropriate article as it is good work. Btw.: Great Heinlein quote on your user page. Got the same ;-) . Tierlieb (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Little help?
User:Michael Courtney has been splashing Hydrostatic shock references on popular articles. Could you please join the discussion on the notability of including this entry on cartridge pages? Thanks for the help. For the record, I'm asking a few others with a vested interest. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom
Your participation in Arbcom is requested here. Thank you. 20:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Your comments would help immensely. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Red Dot Sights
Thank you so much! The intended use is for an airsoft gun with effective range of about 140-160 feet. It is mostly used around 80-120 feet though, I am not sure if this matters. One of the major advantages of airsoft is that with zero recoil there is not much to worry about, except for BBs hitting the lens. I just wanted to drop by and say, thanks for all the info! Cheers MattTheMan (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ballistic pendulum
Shouldn't canon be cannon? And even if not, it's not a good idea to link to a dab page. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It was a quick catch because it showed up in my anti-vandal tool (because of the presence of the word "balls").  Since, from your contribs history, that's likely to be a common word in your edits, I think I'll put you on my "trusted editors" list, in the "single-issue fanatics" section :-) Philip Trueman (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some tips
A few things that catch my eye at theory of camouflage: it is uncategorized, there is no WikiProject banners on the talk page (it is always good to include these, and even assess it if it's fairly clear what rating it should get), and it had no link to camouflage (adding relevant links in the lead is very important).

You also seem to be using main when the 'summaries' of the articles are only really supposed to be about the 'theory', not true summaries. I'll give the article a chance but I want to ensure there is not too much overlap and hence duplication between our articles in this area.

Oh, and you might want to create an archive for your talk page; it's getting pretty long. Richard001 (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fluzwup/Archive 1