text:
Talk:Semi-automatic pistol

Checking some edits
Someone who knows about this stuff please check if my recent edits (in totality; one of them was clearly wrong, but I've fixed it) are correct... it's my understanding that "single action" only requires manual cocking of the hammer for the first shot, so I've tried to make that explicit. Evercat 00:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nomenclature variation
Shouldn't this article be at semi-automatic pistol? Semi-automatic is used more than semiautomatic is used more than self-loading is used more than selfloading. Ergbert 03:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No, not all semiautomatic handguns are pistols. All Self Loading handguns ARE.  Webley made an interesting semi-automatic revolver (no one does now though). This discussion is a very muddled one because any self loading handgun is essentially the same so the real crux of the discussion is the trigger mechanism in this instance.  Digitallymade (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I moved it back to semi-automatic pistol from self-loading pistol. It was at semi-automatic to start with anyways. Self-loading is technically correct but not common usage, therefore a mistake for the wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert 12:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You were wrong to do so, and the title is also inaccurate. This should be a subsection under firearms, not a separate page. And the discussion of trigger actions is not directly a subset of self loading systems. The full, semi, burst trigger systems relate Only to firearms that use a trigger mechanism, several early and simply firearms do not. Touch hole, friction primer, and match locks do not have trigger mechanisms as such. Digitallymade (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Self-loading and semi-automatic can be two different things.

 * That is correct. Self loading is a type of firearms loading function but semi-automatic refers to the trigger mechanism. These are two separate design features. Firearms that are Not self loading can also fire both semi-automatically or fully-automatic. Such handguns are Derringers (and the multi-barrelled pepper boxes), but this is also found in drillings.  Multiple barreled firearms are typically semi-automatic. Early examples were manually indexed to the next loaded round.  Digitallymade (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

To the lay person semi-automatic just mean a shot for each pull of trigger, and does not actually imply self-loading.

 * Completely wrong except for the Webley Fosberry Revolver which no "lay person" is even aware exists. There are ALSO fully-automatic firearms that do not self load.  Metal Storm is a modern example. Rotary guns and cannon are others. Digitallymade (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

In technical usage, semi-automatic pistol implies both being automatic and having automatic loading, but this is a technical meaning. Self-loading pistols is less problematic as it implies being automatic, though, again technically this may not be the case. Ve3 20:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course this statement is muddled and meaningless because the author doesn't have a true understanding of design or function. Digitallymade (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * There are at least four modes of trigger mechanisms that can be found on both self loading repeating firearms (pistols and rifles) and on multiple barreled and rotary firearms.
 * A. Manual Trigger setting (also referred to as single action)
 * B. Semi-Automatic Trigger operation (will fire if a cartridge is loaded which also reset the trigger/striker to be able to strike again) is often a subset of fully-automatic operation
 * C. Full-Automatic Trigger operation (can fire repeatedly as long as there is ammunition being supplied to the self loading mechanism, such mechanism can have fixed firing pins and fire from open bolt
 * D. Burst Fire - Fires a specific number of rounds while the trigger is depressed. Typically in the AR16/M4 rifles this is 3 rounds.  The Vp70 also fires 3 rounds
 * E. Self Cocking Revolver - only the Webley Fosberry Revolver used this mechanism to enhance speed of aimed fire. So Revolvers too are both single and semi-automatic
 * F. Rotary Barreled repeaters (Gatling type) do not have triggers but are machine guns nevertheless.  Their self loading operation also includes firing.

Digitallymade (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard semi-automatic used to refer to non-fully-automatic, non-self-loading firearms. IMO this article is best at semi-automatic pistol -- a short and convenient name that I think nearly everyone will understand and that will create little confusion. Ergbert 03:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You are wrong. Everything you have written is either incorrect or confused.  Digitallymade (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Have tried to pull this article together into a coherent package over the last few weeks. Hopefully, the different pieces fit better, and the pictures also help explain the differences. Yaf 06:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You're making progress, but reading the whole thing from scratch... it still needs cleanup. I'm not going to tag it as such, but we should probably start bouncing some ideas about it around on the discussion page here.  Georgewilliamherbert 08:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Have done some more cleanup, and we should probably discuss where to go from here.  Ideas??? Yaf  6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Nothing widespread/organizational jumping out at me right now, but I want to re-read and comment over the weekend when I have more time. One specific thing that I did notice (not general, just specific point) is that the description of how single action semi auto pistols can get the hammer cocked back needs to get a bit clearer; if I rack the slide on any of these pistols, the hammer stays cocked.  The current description makes that sound like a special only-some-do-it feature, which is wrong...  Georgewilliamherbert 22:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This yet another page that should not exist. Whoever created it has created confusion and inserted a lot of opinions without factual basis as well as being completely unnecessary.  There is a proper hierarchical structure which includes this but it does not include such inaccurate and muddled thinking as this page does.

 * I strongly suggest this page be deleted entirely. Digitallymade (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Question: if you drop an SA half-cocked pistol on the hammer, will it still discharge?
I know the 1911 does, and maybe an edit could be useful here.

 * Sometimes. But not usually or always. It depends on the handgun. The grip on the M1911A1 would also usually have to be depressed at the same time, through hitting something, for it to discharge. (Hence the reason for this being a non-approved carry mode.)  Unless you are left-handed, and find yourself in combat, I wouldn't recommend it :-)  Yaf 04:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Any original M1911 or M1911A1 can fire if dropped on the muzzle. This occurs with the manual safety engaged or not and the grip safety does not affect this.  The modified M1911 models with positive firing pin blocks will not fire. Digitallymade (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Carry modes
Forgive an ignorant Brit, but what does this mean:

"Normal carry mode for DAO semi-automatic pistols is..."

Is it the approved method, or is it statistically the most common method?Blaise 11:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It is statistically the most common method. Double-action-only (DAO) semi-automatic pistols operate essentially the same as double-action revolvers.

 * Not accurate. Early self loaders were typically designed with single action trigger mechanisms.  In the 1930s these began to give way to double/single action mechanisms such as that of the J.P. Sauer & Sohns 38H.  These tended to be far safer than early single action handguns which had hammer or trigger block safeties which were ineffective if a handgun were dropped.  The Sauer and Walter designs became the most prevalent in self loaders and have only recently started to be phased out in favor of a different type of trigger mechanism.

 * The new type of mechanism was created largely to sell to Police Agencies that in many places require a "double action trigger" but are in fact being used in handguns where the triggers behave almost exactly like the single action pull of the Sauer/Walther styled Single followed by Double action mechanisms. In this type of trigger action (SA/DA) the trigger typically is set very far forward and has a long and frequently strong pull to fire the first shot from a loaded magazine of a self loader.  The reloading cycle recocks the trigger mechanism prior to reloading the chamber.  Due to the fact that the chamber is already loaded it is no longer necessary for the trigger to return to the far forward position, and so SA/DA triggers have a long first shot followed by a shorter reset with a reduced strength of trigger pull.   This is still found to be inadequate because the haste which might be needed to fire the first shot often results in a missed target due to the long and hard trigger pull.  So modern guns have moved almost entirely to Striker fired mechanisms.  These are NOT however the original types of striker fire.  They are NOW preloaded to a specific point of partial cocking.  Thus the now very consistent, light, and crisp trigger pull of the modern striker fired handgun is STILL described as Double Action, but for all practical purposes is as fine as the best single action trigger pulls while combined with the features that allow the SAFE carrying of a self loading handgun with a cartridge loaded without having an external safety (some agencies require external safeties, although this does not to enhance safety or quick use).  One example of this type of handgun is the Sig Sauer P320 series.  Digitallymade (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

They have long trigger pulls, which serves to increase the safety of carrying the pistol, and as long as the trigger is covered in a concealed carry holster in one's pocket, or in a visible holster in open carry jurisdictions, there is no danger of the gun being fired accidentally. Yaf 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Not particularly true. The holster and other appurtenances of clothing have sometimes caused accidental discharge. Most of the accidental discharges occur when holstering a firearm but can also be triggered if carried in an external holster that does not completely cover the trigger area.  Long and strong trigger pulls have been used on pocket pistols to enhance their safety, but is of far less value for M&P handguns and has been largely replaced with modern striker designs.  Some triggers use a long hard pull exclusively so the shooter does not have to adjust from the first shot the subsequent shots.  This exactly duplicated the long pull of a double action revolver and with practice is a valid option.  Digitallymade (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * This is untrue. The term double action has become a very inaccurate term because trigger mechanisms in striker fired guns have been modified to be "double action" due to some police departments who will purchase only handguns which are so designated.  In actual use the trigger on most striker fired guns operates almost exactly the same as a single action trigger, but it technically a double action trigger.  The traditional single action as found in the US M1911A1 Colt handgun is seldom found.  The old Colts have almost entirely been replaced by either SA/DA or DAO striker fired guns.  Long pull double action only guns still exist but are rare.Digitallymade (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

These discussions of "normal carry" should be deleted. 1. They are not safe, I guess the good thing about this is that handguns are the only type of weapons it is easier to shoot yourself than somebody else. 2. They are biased--other safer carry options are not given, i.e. military style round not chambered, safety on. An overview or expansion of the technical operation would better fit the purpose of the page. 68.72.98.157 08:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)bruin

 * I disagree; the discussions of normal carry should be maintained. As for safety, the purpose of a gun is that it is inherently dangerous;  otherwise, it serves no purpose if the pistol can't fire bullets quickly when necessary and needed.  As for the specifics of safe military-style pistol carry, that depends on the era.  During WW I, WW II,   Korea, and Vietnam, the normal US military carry method for a M1911 was cocked and locked by MPs and others.  Similarly, US police departments that still carry the M1911 likewise carry it cocked and locked.  As for your suggestions for safer carry options, military-style, it is only modern military techniques (e.g., so-called "Israeli carry", where pistols are carried with no rounds chambered) that your "safer carry options" are used, and these are largely politically-driven, and are not widely practiced in most parts of the US.  It is entirely valid to expand the article to contain these other normal carry techniques for a more global viewpoint, but we should not delete the current US dominant viewpoint that exists for normal US CCW carry discussions. As for expanding technical details, I definitely think this is worth considering, too.  Why don't you add these other details?  Yaf 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Carry modes are based on opinions which shouldn't be discussed on a page that is supposed to be describing technology. Modern striker fired self loading handguns are replacing older designs partly because they have been developed to be safer and accurate. Such discussions should be in an appropriate section on proper handgun usage on a different page .   Digitallymade (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Since the term Semi-Automatic refers to the trigger, not the gun, this topic is a muddle. Digitallymade (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Pictures
We have way too many pictures of the actual pistols and no technical ones. Not many people are going to read through the entire overview this way. { Slash -|- Talk } 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Carrying a SA pistol
You can't carry a 1911 with the hammer down and a round in the chamber.

 * Of course you can. Digitallymade (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It's possible but stupid since a 1911 doesn't have any decocking mechanism

 * There is no connection between carrying an M1911 style handgun and having a decocking lever. Digitallymade (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

so you're slowly letting down the hammer right onto the firing pin which is touching a cartridge.

 * False.. you don't know how the M1911 is made. The firing pin NEVER rests against the cartridge.  Digitallymade (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The only way a single action pistol can be carried like this is if it has a decocking lever, ie. a Sig220.

 * False.. numerous people carry the M1911 style pistols loaded and uncocked. Digitallymade (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

And even then, if you're carrying the pistol in case you have to use it, you don't carry a pistol without a round in the chamber, and likewise, you can't expect to have the time to draw the pistol, cock the hammer, and fire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.111.151.244 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

 * Again, you don't know much about the M1911 handguns and the way they were used in the past. For decades the Military carried the M1911A1 in an empty chamber state.  Soldiers and MPs were trained to draw, chamber, and fire in one fluid motion.  This is not the fastest way to use a handgun but in many instances a trained Soldier/MP can do this faster than a typical thug can aim and fire.   This is historically accurate. Some civilians recommend carrying loaded and locked, which may be marginally faster since the safety must be moved to the fire position, which can be just as bad and just as slow.  Digitallymade (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * The 1911 hammer has a half-cocked position. It doesn't rest against the firing pin.

 * NO handgun has a firing pin that rests againt the cartridge. This has nothing to do with the half cock position.  Half cock is used to prevent a gun from firing if the hammer is struck with sufficient force to fire the gun.  The M1911 uses and inertial firing pin design.  The weight of the firing pin alone can cause the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled and without regard to the safeties that are part of the original M1911 design.  Later series 70 designs corrected that safety fault.  Digitallymade (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Lots of people carry a 1911 with the hammer down. What you say about thumb-cocking before firing is true, but that's a personal preference, not a saftey issue. —Thernlund (Talk 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * No, it's a safety issue and isn't good practice. Digitallymade (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * While some 1911 hammers have a half cock notch (note concave notch at front) some do not (such as Wilson's, generally eliminated to prevent dinging the sear). Still, even without a half cock you can carry it hammer down on a loaded chamber, as it has an intertial firing pin, it is still a sticky issue, since you have to decock the pistol by pulling the trigger, which generally deactivates all safeties, except possibly in the Kimber, where the grip safety directly controlles the firing pin block and may allow a hammer drop when not depressed--I'm not sure if it still acts to block the trigger (I would assume so) or not.  At any rate, I'm not aware of any justifiable safety concerns with cocked and locked carry; the idiots who can't be bothered to learn to disengage the safety upon drawing should carry a revolver, DAO, or decocker only gun.  Decocker/safeties are just redundant, and usually ergonomically horrid to boot...decockers are generally just as ergonomically bad, but you generally don't need to operate them when someone's shooting at you.  scot 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Once a handgun has been loaded and the trigger fully cocked guns with a decocker mechanism to control the speed at which the hammer drops are safer. Such designs typically have firing pin blocks which engage while the decocker lever slows the drop of the hammer to ensure that it does not strike the unlocked firing pin. Experienced M1911 users have successfully used them by using both hands to ensure that an accidental discharge does not occur.  Even then, the M1911/A1 is no more dangerous than a typical revolver.  Modern handgun designs are safer whether they are SA/DA, SAO, DAO, or Striker fired because of other design factors such as positive firing pin blocks and disconnectors.   Digitallymade (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Holding the slide prevents the gun from firing?
I have seen a video of a (apparently anyway) law enforcement self defense trainer and in it he says that holding the slide in place (I assume with a round chambered or its moot anyway) will prevent the gun from firing.

 * I have a friend who has a hole in his hand from doing exactly that. This is a stupid suggestion if that is what he said then he meant to say something else.  What he meant to say is that if you are able to push the slide out of battery very slightly the gun cannot fire. Digitallymade (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

But as far as my, and someone who replied to the video's, knowledge goes the gun would fire irregardless.

 * True.

But it would be unwise to just dismiss his comment as he has more experience than me and the other fella so he may be right.

 * No it wouldn't be. You'd be amazed as the stupid things some "experts" say.  There is a saying about this: Put your mind in gear before you run your mouth.  Digitallymade (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * My guess is that what he's doing is pushing the slide back slightly to keep it out of battery; most guns will NOT fire with the slide out of battery;

 * Some will and you'll be able to see this from the brass having a bulge in it. The MAC machine pistols are notorious for bulging their brass, but this is because they are simple blowback.  If you see this in a lock breech handgun, something is seriously wrong.  Digitallymade (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

either the hammer won't drop because it's been disconnected, or the hammer will drop won't hit the firing pin because it hits the bottom of the slide first. The amount you have to push back will vary from model to model, and assumes that the slide comes forward enough to grab; this won't work well on a Walther P-38, with it's half length slide, or a Ruger MK II, with its inclosed bolt; it might work on a Mauser Broomhandle or a Luger P-08 if you push the barrel back. scot 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Handguns are generally designed so that the firing pin will not strike the primer if the slide is not in full battery. Some poorly designed guns can do this though.  Digitallymade (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Also when holding the slide of a pistol if it is fired (if it can be) will the slide not be able to cycle or will it just rip your hand open a bit and cycle anyway?

 * This is actually a common problem. A lot of people place their hands against the slide when shooting.  This can cut up the hand, and it can also cause failures to eject.  This is one of the most common reasons for failure to eject.  Digitallymade (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * You'll stop it from cycling; even dragging your thumb along the side of the slide is enough to stop it from cycling in a lot of cases. It might tear up your hand a bit, depends on whether or not the slide has any sharp edges.  Many people have discovered accidentally that the slide coming back can cut the web of the shooting hand (it's common enough to be called "slide bite") and that's why there's a flared bit just below the slide, called a beavertail, on many models.  Look at M1911 accessories and you'll see "beavertail safties" that make this wider and longer to provide more protection than the stock model.  scot 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

 * This topic is mentioned in The upshot there is that this is a valid tactic, but only for extremely hairy situations where the gun is already in your face and you're pretty sure you're already at 50/50 odds of getting shot. It's a roll of the dice to take a chance at making a FUBAR situation slightly less FUBAR than it's already headed toward being. For example, acting against a nutjob already in the middle of a school shooting (which is the context of the incident discussed in Bird 2004:75-79). The problem is that the exact outcome will depend on a dozen unknowable variables concerning your position, the gunman's position, and how the melee plays out. The goal is that even if you don't stop the currently-chambered round from firing, you may cause it to be poorly aimed (the first small tactical victory), and then your impeding of the slide will cause the next round to misfeed or the slide to remain out of battery (the next small tactical victory), and then the gunman won't get a chance to clear the jam before you and/or your fellow bystanders are tackling and neutralizing him. In the case discussed in Bird 2004:75-79, the kid who grabbed the slide did take a bullet to his hand, but he changed the situation to where a bunch of guys tackled the nutjob and ended the killing. So he got injured, but he kept the body count down lower than it would have been if he'd done nothing. I recommend reading Bird 2004:75-79 directly for all the details. — Lumbercutter 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

 * That's basically writer's nonsense. However, doing anything in the face of a shooter is better than doing nothing.  The probability of survival is directly related to the skill level of the shooter.   Although school shooters have apparently had some success, it's typically in an environment where no one fights back or gets close to the shooter.  Television and media have done an excellent job of training killers.  People as a group often will attack in mass and even if some are killed they should be able to stop an armed person.  But that depends on the shooter and the willingness and numbers of the group.   Major Hassan Nidal killed about 13 as I recall and several of the men charged him.  None of them reached him.  He shot about 33 people all tolled (with a .22). Even a poorly educated killer won't let you get near him.  Not because you might try to push on the slide, but because you might knock the gun out of his hand, or you might crush his throat, or gouge out his eyes, which can be done very quickly and with far less skill.  Watch some of the videos that test out the 21 foot rule and you may notice that once a person gets too close there is no assurance of survival.  Digitallymade (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

9mm Luger vs Paraballum...is there a difference?
I've notice a difference in nomenclatue in 9mm ammo. I've seen rounds stamped as "9mm para" to designate parabellum ammo and others marked as "9mm Luger".

 * There are probably about two DOZEN 9mm calibers. There are three for the 9 x 19mm Parabellum.  This is often called 9mm Luger and is also called 9mm Nato.  There is another 9 x 19mm Glisenti cartridge which will chamber and fire in the 9mm Par guns.  Chances are it will not eject.  You can also take a 9mm Nato round and chamber it and fire it in a 9mm Glienti, in which case the gun may blow up and blow some of your hand off too. The 9 x 19mm Parabellum has become the world's most popular military cartridge.  But it is loaded to a variety of pressure levels.  Some makers tend to use low pressures, which produces cartridges with less power.  Some writer's will call 9mm NATO a plus p load.  That means higher pressures are found.  Digitallymade (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I shoot a Taurus copy of the Beretta 92 and carried a Beretta 92 while serving in the Army and have always shot rounds stamped 9mm para, but recently I have been given a box of 9mm Luger and before I use this ammo I wanted to know if there was a difference. Could this damage my weapon? Injure the shooter? Or is this just two different ways to identify the same round?

 * Almost all the modern 9 x 19mm Parabellum handguns made today can easily handle 9mm Luger, 9mm Nato, and 9mm Parabellum and do so without risk. Some makers don't recommend using the standard 9mm Nato and call it Plus P.  American makers STILL tend to make lower powered ammunition and will in some cases void your warranty if you use Plus P ammo.  Plus P, is actually 9mm loaded the way it was from it's beginnings in 1902.  The Russian Republic loads 9mm to even higher pressures called Plus P plus which should be used only in guns known to handle the pressure with the understanding that it can seriously shorten the life of the firearm.  I use Plus P rated ammunition exclusively for my full sized handguns, but lesser pressures for my pocket pistols and when practicing. Never use any 9mm ammunition unless you know exactly what it is. Digitallymade (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Wildcard34 06:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The two terms are synonymous; 9 mm Parabellum is the same as 9 mm Luger. You may fire them in your Taurus Beretta clone interchangeably. Twalls 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wonder Nine?
So what's a "wonder nine"? The term redirects here. Thanks. Maikel (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrewr05 (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A wonder nine is a term used to describe 9mm pistols with higher than usual magazine capacities. Examples include the Glock 17 and the Berreta 92 among others.

Rate of Fire
A great many number of articles on Wikipedia cite the rate of fire for weapons as "semi-automatic." Almost all pistol articles use this rubric. How fast is semi-automatic, exactly? The articles need numbers in terms of rounds per minute. I mean, if you wanted to know the power output of a microwave, an answer of "defrost" would be very unsatisfactory.

Naturally, the answer to this is "however fast you can pull the trigger." But as a spec for the firearm, the number needs to represent its manufactured capabilities. If God were pulling the trigger at a million times a second, how fast could the gun cycle? Understandably, recoil will reduce this number in practice, but standardization is necessary. ZomB-man17 (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrewr05 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that "as fast you can pull the trigger." is about as in depth as you need to be on this topic. With most modern firearms the average person will reach a physical limit as to how many times they could move their finger before an theoretical limit of rounds is reached.

The only time I can foresee anyone actually reaching the maximum rate of fire of a handgun is when they are specifically trying to do so and even still its doubtful they would reach it for any sustained amount of time.

It would over complicate this article with such information in my opinion, especially since every manufacturer will likely state a different theoretical limit.

 * You are absolutely correct that the rate of fire of most self loading firearms is not discussed.  In firearms terminology this is referred to as the cyclic rate.  The cyclic rate is most often discussed with regard to fully-automatic weapons.  For example: the cyclic rate of the first AR-15 ordered by the United States Air Force was 750 rounds per minute.  Changes were made to the ammunition which caused that rate to rise to 950 RPM in the M-16. Even with machine guns, there's no real use for this rating.  With machineguns the cyclic rate is unimportant because the guns overheat and melt quickly.  More important than the cyclic rate is the effective rate of fire.  That means how fast you can AIM and fire and hit the target.  Except for machineguns, the effective rate is a combination of factors which include the cyclic rate, the shooters trigger pull rate, the time to reacquire the target and if sustained firing, the time it takes to reload.  If you watch competitive shooting and see what the shot times are, you can easily calculate the effective rate of fire.  As far as the cyclic rate, I do not know of any sources for that.  The rate of fire of the fully automatic Mac9 Submachine was 1200 RPM. Since almost all semi-automatic guns have disconnectors for safety this rate will be much slower. Digitallymade (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Recommended Wording Change
The article currently says, "For example, the term "automatic pistol" technically refers to a machine pistol which is capable of firing multiple round bursts for a single pull of the trigger, although in popular US usage it is also used as a synonym for a semi-automatic pistol. In the case of pistols, an 'automatic pistol', a 'semi-automatic pistol', or a 'self-loading pistol', all usually imply a handgun that is semi-automatic, self-loading, and magazine-fed with a magazine that is removable, producing one shot fired for each trigger pull."

I respectfully recommend adding words, as indicated in all-caps, below, and dropping the last sentence from the quote used above: For example, the term "automatic pistol" technically refers to a machine pistol which is capable of firing multiple round bursts for a single pull of the trigger, although in popular US usage it is also INCORRECTLY used as a synonym for a semi-automatic pistol. THE TERMS "SEMI-AUTOMATIC" AND "AUTOMATIC" ARE NOT CORRECTLY USED INTERCHANGEABLY, AND ADD TO THE CONFUSION AND MISINFORMATINO REGARDING THE DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO TYPES OF PISTOLS.

 * (the above word change recommendation was shown unsigned).

I also suggest a word change in the introduction: "After a round is fired, the pistol will cycle, ejecting the spent casing and chambering a new round from the magazine, allowing another shot to take place immediately." The word "immediately" implies that this is a fully automatic weapon. I recommend changing the statement to say: "After a round is fired, the pistol will cycle, ejecting the spent casing and chambering a new round from the magazine, allowing another shot to take place after the trigger is released." --96.244.248.77 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Good suggestion. I thought it sounded slightly clearer by saying "...allowing another shot to take place as soon as the trigger is again pulled." I changed it in the article. — ¾-10 17:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"toggle-lock" principle
"…based in large part upon Maxim's toggle-lock principle."

I'm not finding any occurrence of "toggle" in Maxim gun, nor of "maxim" in Blowback (arms) (where is the only approximation of the "toggle-lock" term, in its Toggle delayed section). So i suspect that there's a problem here. --Jerome Potts (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

 * The Toggle Lock is a mechanism not a principle. Digitallymade (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not finding any occurrence of "toggle" in Maxim gun, nor of "maxim" in Blowback (arms) (where is the only approximation of the "toggle-lock" term, in its Toggle delayed section). So i suspect that there's a problem here. --Jerome Potts (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

 * You shouldn't 'find Toggle Lock in Blowback because it is a locked breech mechanism. Look at the Luger pistol which should be highly documented.  Stoeger Arms made a luger lookalike that might have been a blowback design, but if it was the extreme expense of that construction would make no sense. George Luger worked for Hugo Borchardt on the original toggle lock handgun which he later miniaturized to become his Luger handgun.

Digitallymade (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Revision 1. Oct. 2014
You wrote: the term "automatic" refers to automatically loading a new round when the trigger is pulled". Wrong! Better would be: "when a shot is fired" -- hmaag (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC).

See also section
I'm not going to insist (at this time) that this article needs a section about semi-automatic pistols and law/politics, but a link to Assault weapon is appropriate here because some semi-automatic pistols are considered assault pistols or assault weapons. See: --Lightbreather (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Assault weapon
 * Assault weapons legislation in the United States
 * Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989

 * , you are absolutely correct in your assertion that "some semi-automatic pistols are considered assault pistols or assault weapons", but its not a relevant part of a technical article. The fact that you used the word "some" is a clear indication of that. The majority, most, or even many of the semi-automatic pistols produced are not "assault weapons", thus this inclusion is not NPOV and to some extent its also WP:UNDUE for the same reason.

 * Furthermore, I would make this same assertion at Semi-automatic shotgun, but not at Semi-automatic rifle given their prevalence. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Weight has to do with article content, not the See also section. That's why I'm not pushing for including this in the article at this time.

 * WP:ALSO: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

 * Let's us not squabble over this. The last time we fought over a "See also" it lead to a long, drawn-out period of pain for the both of us. Lightbreather (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Trust me, I don't want to squabble either! But there are literally (no pun intended) a handful of pistols that fit this classification and that's using the loosest possible interpretation. Plus, this creates the possibility of rehashing the whole "Hitler invented the term assault weapon" because of its relation to the StG 44 developed in WW2 from another model of firearm called a machine pistol. This is still just a technical article, we need not invite controversy and I think we've both seen See also's abused or misused. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * , you've done the research and know that the legislation does not apply to the run-of-the-mill semi-automatic handgun like the Colt M1911 or the Beretta 92F that the Government uses. Trying to make this connection is tenuous as best. You should also know better than to revert it given our previous Tban and the discretionary sanctions on gun politics articles. You are adding political elements to a technical article.

 * Please, I'm happy to start an RfC or ask for a 3rd party opinion or whatever, but please don't leave me any other choice but to seek the assistance of an Admin or a formal process. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * It's not uncommon for firearms articles to have a section on "legality". My impression is that "semi-automatic pistols" are usually regulated as "handguns", except for issues with magazine size. Since this is an overview article it wouldn't make sense to try to describe every applicable law in every jurisdiction. But I don't see the harm in a couple of sentences saying something like, Certain models have fallen under restrictions on "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines",  or whatever. I agree with Scalhotrod that "see also" sections are bad places for controversial entries. Rezin (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Though now that I look, I see that the much shorter Semi-automatic firearm and Semi-automatic rifle articles don't have any mention of legality, though it'd be even more relevant in those. (Which makes me wonder why this article is so long - I'm guessing a lot of the text is just copied from other articles.) Maybe it'd be best to leave it out of here too. Rezin (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that if, after giving the evidence above - that some semi-automatic pistols are called assault pistols and/or assault weapons, and that WP:ALSO supports this ONE addition - plus evidence (sources) in the discussion that follows, about creating an Assault pistol article, there is still disagreement, that we take it to WP:NPOVN.

In addition, I think your first impulse was correct,, these articles should probably have brief "Legality" sections. Lightbreather (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe time to create Assault pistol
Related to the "See also" discussion above, in which I argue - and it's no fringe theory - that some semi-automatic pistols are considered "assault pistols" and/or "assault weapons": It may be time to create an Assault pistol article. (It currently just redirects.) Here are SOME sources:

 * Books
 * - Hawaii
 * - Maryland
 * - Enfield MP-45
 * - F.I.E. KG-99, Spectre Assault Pistol
 * - F.I.E. KG-99, Spectre Assault Pistol

 * Journals

 * News

 * Other
 * - not for use in an article
 * - not for use in an article

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree and have thought about this as well. So as not to be a content fork to be merged later, I suggest adding the material to Machine pistol as they are the precursor to what is now referred to as an Assault pistol. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * No, it's a ridiculous idea. Almost from the beginning of self loaders the handgun has been made to be fully automatic. The result has always been disastrous.  One of the early ones, the Mauser Schnellfeuer was found to be totally uncontrollable.  Recent attempts such as the Beretta 93R and Ingram Mac series have not improved on the peformance, which has been miserable.  The Sturmgewehr 44 was originally called a machinepistol (MP44) and due to it's size and low powered cartridge it created the category of Assault Rifle. The Submachinegun is what an "assault pistol" would be except that it actually works. Digitallymade (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Terje Lea, the modernizer of all semi-automatic and automatic guns
I happen to know a bit about guns and in the article it says "double action" Walther when in fact the modernization didn't happen before the 1980s with Terje Lea of Norway. Don't do lying in the article, God d*mmit! 92.221.236.224 (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Actually what you wrote indicates that you don't. Digitallymade (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Unsourced WP:MANUAL". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This should be restored, although it's going to need work. The various carrying conditions, their different terminology from different authors, and especially their relative safety and how this varies so much for some weapons, is important and belongs in the overall article for semi-autos. This can be covered without falling foul of WP:NOTHOWTO or WP:NOTMANUAL. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Restored - as usual, K.e.coffman uses a bludgeon when a scalpel is required. Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove this page.. it deserves a quick burial
There is nothing here of value. The concepts discussed here, belong elsewhere. Digitallymade (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources, not opinions. And I'm reminded that you're the person who wanted to merge away all firearm articles into one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * A single properly written article would be of value. The current varying inaccurate articles have no value.  Digitallymade (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision
is wrong as written. Semi-automatic pistols include derringers, pepperboxes, and some specialty guns. Double barreled short shotguns are by law pistols and NFA and are semi-automatic too. Semi-automatic firearms are NOT solely single barreled firearms. Digitallymade (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * None of those things are semi-automatic pistols. Derringers are single shot firearms, whether they have one barrel or multiple barrels. Short-barreled double-barrels are the same (and legally they're not pistols in the US, either - they're either SBSes or, in the case of the Shockwaves and the like, "firearms").
 * Semi-automatic firearms may not solely be single-barrel firearms, but they do need to include a magazine that reloads the gun with a mechanism that uses energy generated by firing a cartridge. The Arsenal Firearms AF2011A1 comes to mind as an obvious example. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Why So Much of this page is WRONG
It's wrong largely because of a limited understanding of how firearms work and attempts to link the semi-automatic trigger feature to one handgun configuration, which is inaccurate. As with so many firearms related pages the scope is linked inappropriately to several features which can be related but are not always so. This is the result of having limited knowledge and likely preconceived, and muddled ideas.

Several of the statements made on this talk page are unintelligible. Start to cure this by treating the technology which relates to "semi-automatic" as a trigger design feature. Digitallymade (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a good article, certainly. It's short, yet wordy. It's unstructured, yet covers a broad scope. Broad scopes on important topics are also a situation that WP's editing model is particularly bad at delivering upon.
 * I would suggest that you use this talk page - or a subpage of it - to write an article outline, just as headings and their descriptions (a sentence each). This article needs structure first, not copyediting.
 * What is the purpose of this article? Is it primarily technical, historical, or legalistic? It must be international.
 * What is a "semi-automatic pistol"? For our purposes here, not necessarily any lump of iron which has ever been described as one.
 * What are the topics which need to be covered?
 * In the history section, what are the innovations which need to appear?
 * In any articles, which are weapons that belong here, on account of their abundance, their historical significance, their innovation, or their technical features? We do not need the inevitable WP car article, where "my favourite" gets added by every passing seagull.
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * The page is entitled "semi-automatic pistol". So probably their historical development, basic principles of operation, and advantages over other repeating handguns. Perhaps also the distinction between recoil operation and gas-operation, since the former is much more common on pistols and the latter on rifles. Semi-automatic operation is a technical development and one of several well-established ways to achieve a repeating handgun, so the article's scope should be limited appropriately. AP295 (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Kel-Tec
The Article currently says: "In 1995 Kel-Tec introduced their first compact 9 mm pistol, the Kel-Tec P11, designed for concealed carry. In 1999 Kel-Tec introduced their .32 ACP P-32 for concealed carry." Now in what way exactly is that a noteworthy milestone for the historical development of the semi-automatic pistol? --BjKa (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Should there not be a sub section on the matter of 'Safety Catches'?
They are a feature of semi automatic pistols, and are different in most cases than those used on revolvers. Not only are there slide safety catches, but the grip safety is a major part of the Colt 1911 - one of the iconic types of the pistol. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Colloquial use of "automatic handgun"
A sentence in the intro reads: " The term automatic pistol is sometimes also used, though it typically refers to a fully automatic pistol. " This isn't usually the case in my experience. It's generally understood that fully-automatic handguns are very uncommon and not legal for most people to own, so "automatic handgun" is almost always used in reference to a semi-automatic handgun rather than fully-automatic. It's not cited anyway, so I'll probably change it. If anyone objects, let me know why. AP295 (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change. Southwestern Giant (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Automatic pistols are modified to be automatic, whether internally, or with a "switch". When a pistol is automatic, it's not semi-automatic, and vice-versa. They can be converted, but in and of themselves, aren't each other. That's like saying "Joseph Biden (sometimes known as as Donald Trump)", which is inaccurate. The intro even says "not to be confused with machine pistol" which is where automatic pistols should be categorized. the very name itself means "not fully automatic." HungryHighway (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Semi-automatic pistol


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Middle Class (band)

Hmm. I suppose that the page has already been deleted. What was the content of the page? Rickyrab
 * It gave less info than the quote I cited from Steve Blush about the band, which is virtually nothing itself. If you'd like it undeleted, you could request it at Votes for undeletion. Tuf-Kat 00:37, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Schutzhund

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sassenach75.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Training section
As I have written the training section I find that it does not provide any information on actual training methods. Each time I started to write a description of actual training techniques I found that there would be too many caveats. Schutzhund training, especially protection training, is fairly specialized and difficult. It is not something that can be easily or accurately described in just a few paragraphs. In the end I wrote about training resources. I would appreciate comments as to whether this is sufficient or should I try to provide descriptions of actual training. Dsurber 00:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that it would be hard to discuss training techniques in detail. Can you give just some brief examples? For example, for dog agility, I might say that "training techniques and what a handler desires in his dog's performance vary greatly. For example, techniques for training the weave poles include using offset poles that gradually move more in line with each other; using poles that tilt outward from the base and gradually become upright; using wires or gates around the poles forcing the dog into the desired path; putting the hand in the collar and guiding the dog through while leading with a toy or treat; teaching the dog to run full speed between 2 poles and gradually increasing the angle of approach and number of poles; and many other techniques."  Hmmm, I like that, guess I ought to put it into the agilty article.  Elf | Talk 05:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm confused by the statement in the article that most dog trainers don't use clickers. In my experience most do - particularly when preparing a dog for agility - but I don't know about Schutzhund.  Is this statement meant to apply only to Schutzhund trainers? --Laura Scudder | Talk 18:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the not using clickers applies to Schutzhund trainers only, not trainers in general. Lachatdelarue (talk) 21:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Clicker training is a variant of marker training, i.e., marking good behaviors with a physical or verbal cue appealing to the dog. ("Yes!" "Good dog!" etc.). Marker training is definitely used by protection sports enthusiasts of all stripes, and certainly  the vast majority of modern Schutzhund trainers.  They don't use clickers because they're annoying, can't be carried on the field (and certainly can be forgotten in practice)and are a poor substitute for actual handler/dog interaction and bonding via verbal and food-

✅ I reworked the article, though kept much of the original "training" section; merely splitting the club training from the theory-and-home training information. I don't think this article could bear to include some of the training techniques, if just because the dogs are trained for y-e-a-r-s, in many cases. Such training is beyond the scope of this article. Best to leave that to the article Dog training or some other article. Normal Op (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic, Subjective, POV, etc
Like so many of the pet articles, this one reads as if it were copied and pasted from the poorly-designed GeoCities page of some backwater puppy mill or uneducated "training consultant". Sure, it's no worse than the typical Wikipedia article about "Simpsons" minutia or my friend's band, but the list of links to photocopied propaganda pamphlets pushes this one below the usual standard of article quality. Thus, Request for Deletion is the next logical step.

 * While in many aspects this article has come a long way- there's still disputable material. While a big fan of Karen Pryor myself, I'm not sure that the specific books mentioned really belong here, unless as a reference at the end.  Some mention of Behaviorism and Operant Conditioning on the other hand, might be appropriate (or not?) Cuvtixo 2006-12-22T03:34:00

Normal Op (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Restored Introduction
I restored the introduction that was gutted by an IP address back in December. It is an introduction and should provide more context than the bald recital of facts that remained. No question the article needs work, but wholesale deletions are probably not the right direction. Dsurber 00:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Passing through on my way back to wikiretirement (or hiatius)--I rephrased the intro a little to clear up a couple of things and try to be a little less POV, but I haven't researched the origins so it might still be incorrect about the "developed for GSDs" concept. Elf | Talk 21:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

✅ I reworked the article. Normal Op (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Reworked the article
The prior version was horrible — entirely out of date, a patchwork of ideas with no cohesive plan, few citations, citations that didn't support any of the article content, and some of it looked like a bad translation from the German wiki article over a decade ago. I did, however, keep some of the text; the content wasn't completely tossed out. I interviewed people to get the lay of the land (ha ha, since I could learn nothing from the Wikipedia article), then did research, rewrote the article, and added bunches of citations. It's not perfect, but it's heaps better than it was. Normal Op (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Schutzhund


text:
Talk:Sister Princess

Adding More Information

 * After some thought, I put information about the incest ripoffs of Sister Princess in the trivia section. This is an encyclopedia, so I guess it should have an entry, no matter how disturbing it is (I have nothing against hentai games; just those that deal with incest).

 * Does anyone know the voice actor for Jiiya (the maid). I've never seen anything giving her credit before; even on Japanese sites. On that same note, Marie's Nurse had a few lines, but I'm equally in the dark about her voice actor as well.

 * I added the "major" supporting cast to the article. There are dozens of additional characters in the Sister Princess universe (Yuki, Izimekko, Sakuya's dog, the goat that bit Hinako, and so on), but these are the ones I think have the most regular impact, rather than just a one time only kind of thing (such as Izimekko, who actually got into a physical fight with the brother after picking on Karen).

 * In the first 'Sister Princess' game, they name Chikage's father as 魔界の王 (King of Demons, more or less). This is a problem, because its implied that all the sisters share the same father, but different mothers - unless of course, you get the "non-related" ending. While it would fit that her father isn't blooded related for that kind of ending, it doesn't work for the "canon" setup where they're all related. That said, I recommend that we DO NOT use information concerning 魔界の王. It doesn't support the general flow of the series.

 * Can't decide where this should go. Doesn't really count as a support character, as its just one of the sisters in disguise...

 * Can someone clarify whether or not the girls are actually his sisters (adopted or half) or if this fact was simply omitted in all versions of Sister Princess?

Clover (クローバー)
Clover is actually Yotsuba in disguise. She takes this alter ego whenever she desires to do things without being caught. This ploy fools all her sisters, but naturally, not her brother. Despite him seeing through this illusion, the sisters' brother plays along and pretends to not know who she really is. Clover displays Yotsuba's mastery of acrobatics and gymnastics, as she can perform feats of movement similar to Batman. The character seems to be inspired from the Scarlet Pimpernel.

Mami
So... should we mention something about Mami? Not a character I like, and she's not in the "official" works, but she was treated as a sister in the first series.
 * I plan to make a major update to the Sister Princess anime page (like I did here originally) in the next few days that will take care of Mami. --Kendai 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added some brief info about Mami who is in fact an undercover "agent" posing as a sister. You might expand in that article if you want. - 上村七美 16:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything's expanded on the anime page; you can check it out now. - 上村七美 13:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Woo-Hoo! Great work! I'll see if I can find some high quality images for the characters. I recall having production illustrations somewhere...

Images for the Characters
Ya know... it would be nice if someone could upload and display images for the characters. I'd do it myself, but I'm not so good with inserting pictures.

 * Nevermind. I found the "freebie" images that Mediaworks uses on their site. Managed to find a picture of the oh-so-sexy maid that is Jiiya too.

Kanji Translations
Translated most of the sisters' names into English. I was a bit "liberal" in the translations, as it is rather difficult to translate them literally and have them still make sense.

If anyone can help, please do so. Kanji was never my forte. ^_^;

Kaho (花穂): "穂" is head or top... I think "花" is an archaic way of saying flower. That said, I believe her name would be "flower petals" in English. Not sure, so I won't post it in the article until I get more confirmation.

Aria (亞里亞): "里" is village. The trick is that pesky "亞". It's a prefix that's difficult to translate. I'm sticking withing village unless someone can point me in the right direction if I'm wrong.

 * Thanks for your contributions. You've really helped flesh out the article with plenty of new information.

 * As for Aria's kanji (亞里亞), according to Jeffrey's Kanji Lookup, 亞 mean's "rank" or "follow."So I bet, it means "a village between the next two." But in my opinion, the 亞 is used exclusively for names and not to mean anything. So I think translating Aria's kanji either will lead to more confusion or is just pointless. But it is up to you to take this tidbit.- [[User:Nanami Kamimura|上村七美] 16:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The name of this girl is based in Aria, an opera term, the melody performed by a singer. Your kanji sounds like this non-japanese word.

 * I'm told that Aria is a traditional Japanese name. If so, then the previous statement is incorrect. Can anyone confirm if records of the name predate Western contact? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.96.111 (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Please view the most recent translation of the sisters' names; these sound a bit hack-kneed, to say the least. Can anyone confirm whether it's valid enough to allow it to stand, or should it be undone? Art is life and life is an art. 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually I've reverted it just now because they sound like a little too literal. But I did modify the meaning of Sakuya's name since 耶 "Ya" literally means question mark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nanami Kamimura (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

The idea of literally translating Japanese names is only slightly less silly than following western names like: John (lit. Jehovah has favored). I'm gonna bite my tongue on those though since it's probably a losing battle. Translating じいや as "court physician" however is a step too far into Bad Use of Online Dictionary, so I have removed it. 71.61.140.48 (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Heights of the sisters in English units
I have included the approximate height of the sisters in feet and inches. I hope you don't mind because some people do not immediately understand the equivalent of a height without calculating. - 上村七美 09:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good call actually. ^_^
 * To be honestly it reminds me how tall the brother is, considering Sakuya has a good height in comparison to average Japanese women, and he's a good measure higher than her.

In US
The first series did come out in the U.S. finally, right?

reply: yah

Statistics
I'm not sure that the statistics for birthday, zodiac sign and height are of encyclopedic value or just fancruft. However, I moved them to the very bottom of each character description so that they can be easily deleted later. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that this information is always given on official publications - be it the MediaWorks site, the game manuals, manga, etc - I think it should stay. Information like this is almost always present in "dating game" listings. But then, I am a SisPri fanboy, so I'm a bit biased.

Dream Girl
Isn't anybody going to talk about who dream girl is? Or should we just leave her be? Reply?
 * Dream Girl is already being talk about in the anime article. You don't have find it here because the Dream Girl was an anime-exclusive character. - 上村七美 09:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing "address brother"
Edit meaning of each sisters call brother. ps. Sorry for such poor grammar.

 * You know, your grammar is really bad. I have to change your descriptions. - 上村七美 | talk 11:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for edit my grammar ^^ ClowRead 17:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Too much mixing of the different settings
We need to better differ between the incarnations of Sister Princess. This article tends to blur them all together, and that's a bit confusing for someone who doesn't know much about the series. Sister Princess has FOUR settings. Yes. It's crazy.

 * G's Magazine Setting: This is the original setting. 90% of all the story content is from the G's features, but some other stuff is from the mini-novels. The brother is perfect in this setting. Perfect. Perfect. Perfect. He can do no wrong, because he's never wrong. Told from the sister's point of view though... so it might be biased. Later on, this setting took elements from the dating game setting (Jiiya, Maria's nurse, etc)

 * Dating Game Setting: Based off the G's Magazine setting, but not the same setting, because it contradicts certain aspects (like the sisters having different fathers AND mothers; name of locations). Brother is only perfect if the player wants him to be. "Canon" ending seems to indicate he isn't 100% perfect, because going that route only leads to a "one sister" ending where as the official endings go for the "harem" ending.

 * First Anime Setting: Totally off the wall in terms of Sister Princess continuality. Takes the basic premise of the magazine and dating game – but in a spin that has NOTHING to do with either of the earlier incarnations plot wise. Brother is not perfect. Hell... he's a dork, jerk, and moron at times.

 * RePure A (15 minute episodes that connect): Thanks to a few allusions and cameo characters, this seems to be a sequel to the original first anime setting. Takes place a year or two latter on a different island perhaps. Not sure. Brother is semi-perfect. He makes mistakes, but he can fix them real fast.

 * RePure B (15 minute "one sister" stories): Remakes of the G's Magazine stories. In fact, they're like 99.99% like them - all except the one for Sakuya. Safe to say, they take place in the G's Magazine setting. Brother is perfect. Seems the sister bias is there however.

We gotta work on making the article better reflect this. Anime stuff should stay with the anime. G's Magazine stuff should stay with G's Magazine. Etc. Sorta like Star Wars. There's the Expanded Universe, but there's the "core" Universe too. Don't believe me? Check out the Japanese entry for Sister Princess in Wikipedia. It points out the differences.

Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.100.65 (talk • contribs)

Unsourced material
The following is unsourced: Can these be provided? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a slight inconsistency with the appearance of the sister's brother in the magazine stories and second anime series. The reasoning behind this is that he is being shown from the sisters' perspective, and each of them envisions him slightly differently from the others (i.e. they see him as they want to see him).
 * The seiyū of Sakuya also sings the theme song for the show (Yui Horie).

Separate Articles
Why is the anime article separate from this one? they should be merged.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

2 Dead links.
Under the title called "The Game" refers to 2 games.

The 1st is called "Colorful Kiss" with the link: http://www.web-giga.com/colorful/ck.html

The 2nd is called "Colorful Heart" with the link: http://www.web-giga.com/colorfulheart/colorfulheart.html

I went to the main page: http://www.web-giga.com

However, I don't know how to read Japanese. So, I don't know if they moved the games or they just remove them. I think that they are removed from the website.

I still working learning more about Wikipedia. But, if someone would check the main page of that website. We can have the correct link or call it dead.

.Kingduran (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Review(s)
Animefringe: --Lucia Black (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Stack
MediaWorks is listed as both the developer and the publisher of the games. Is this correct? I have read elsewhere that MW only did the publishing and that Stack did the development. For example here. Also heard this in temporary internet discussion. I am interested in investigating these ideas. Does anyone know if Stack has any connection with the SP series? They are the parent company of 0verflow but do not yet have a page on Wikipedia I think. Ranze (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sister Princess


text:
Talk:Henryk Magnuski

U. S. Patent List
Here is the expanded list of patents with titles. Putting them in the article would make it too long.

 * 2,398,793	April 23, 1946	Radio Receiving System
 * 2,408,791	October 8, 1946	Radio Communication System
 * 2,409,139	October 8, 1946	Radio Receiving System
 * 2,608,648	August 26, 1952	Highly Selective Radio Receiver
 * 2,608,649	August 26, 1952	Highly Selective Radio Receiver
 * 2,637,782	May 5, 1953	Resonant Cavity Filter
 * 2,699,495	January 11, 1955	Automatic Switchover System for Radio Relay
 * 2,699,496	January 11, 1955	Microwave Relay Test System
 * 2,713,664	July 19, 1955	Limiter for Phase Modulation
 * 2,734,131	February 7, 1956	Communication System with Carrier Strength Control
 * 2,782,300	February 19, 1957	Modulation Meter
 * 2,803,802	August 20, 1957	Deviation Calibrator
 * 2,813,198	November 12, 1957	Microwave System
 * 2,852,730	September 16, 1958	Power Supply
 * 2,860,238	November 11, 1958	Diversity Receiving System
 * 2,892,930	June 30, 1959	Communication System
 * 2,959,673	November 8, 1960	Radio Receiver Squelch Control
 * 3,235,768	February 15, 1966	Variable Microwave Phase Shifter Utilizing Plasma Electrode
 * 3,292,086	December 13, 1966	System for Converting a Train of Binary Zeroes to a Train of Alternating Ones and Zeroes and Vice Versa
 * 3,292,178	December 13, 1966	Communication system
 * 3,361,970	January 2, 1968	Selection of Frequencies for Minimum Depth of Fading in a Frequency Diversity Microwave Line of Sight Relay Link
 * 3,380,023	April 23, 1968	Electronic Alarm System
 * 3,392,392	July 9, 1968	Bearing Measurement System Using Statistical Signal Processing by Analog Techniques
 * 3,406,775	October 22, 1968	Vehicular Speed Indicator, Odometer and Automatic Speed Control System
 * 3,453,562	July 1, 1969	Delta Modulator with Uniform Quantizing Steps
 * 3,467,783	September 16, 1969	Speech Bandwidth Reduction by Sampling 1/N Cycles, Storing the Samples, and Reading the Samples Out at 1/N the Sampling Rate
 * 3,471,646	October 7, 1969	Time Division Multiplex System with Prearranged Carrier Frequency Shifts
 * 3,506,966	April 14, 1970	Pulse-Coded Wide Band Radio Communication System
 * 3,532,988	October 6, 1970	Digital Troposcatter Multiplex Communication System Optimum Frequency
 * 3,646,441	February 29, 1972	Digital Radio Communication Systems Using Repeaters Operating at Same Frequency

--hankm 00:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Henryk Magnuski