| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Category talk:Pistol: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Additional Images = | |||
[[Image:Belgian Break Action Single Shot Target Pistol.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Belgian break-action single-shot target pistol, two barrel set, with Jules Bury retailer marking - .22 LR]] | |||
= Talk = | |||
what are some good high high capacity pistols? | what are some good high high capacity pistols? | ||
| Line 39: | Line 45: | ||
Well I guess it's not on me to make that determination then. I guess I should go back to adding Gun Image categories to uncategorized images. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 23:10, 12 December 2018 (EST) | Well I guess it's not on me to make that determination then. I guess I should go back to adding Gun Image categories to uncategorized images. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 23:10, 12 December 2018 (EST) | ||
: You're right, it's not on you. Maybe you should wait until someone who does make that kind of determination makes it. Yeah I get its been two whole weeks - sorry if the admins are people with lives and jobs and other shit to do and thus don't get to absolutely every query or issue on the site lickety split. For the record, I believe the 'legal pistols' category is there to serve as a point about US law on the matter, same with the blurb about 'assault weapons' on the assault rifle page. Same with the disclaimers and notes regarding any relevant gun laws or regs on pages throughout the site. The flare guns however I think you have a bit more of a argument about, though. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 23:32, 12 December 2018 (EST) | : You're right, it's not on you. Maybe you should wait until someone who does make that kind of determination makes it. Yeah I get its been two whole weeks - sorry if the admins are people with lives and jobs and other shit to do and thus don't get to absolutely every query or issue on the site lickety split. For the record, I believe the 'legal pistols' category is there to serve as a point about US law on the matter, same with the blurb about 'assault weapons' on the assault rifle page. Same with the disclaimers and notes regarding any relevant gun laws or regs on pages throughout the site. The flare guns however I think you have a bit more of a argument about, though. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 23:32, 12 December 2018 (EST) | ||
::They are more pistol than carbine. If we accept the definition of carbine as a short rifle, then these don't qualify, as they lack shoulder stocks. As they are legally regarded pistols, they cannot have | ::They are more pistol than carbine. If we accept the definition of carbine as a short rifle, then these don't qualify, as they lack shoulder stocks. As they are legally regarded pistols, they cannot have shoulder stocks. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 09:32, 13 December 2018 (EST) | ||
:::I'd say we should at least include them for the sake of the uninformed - if someone sees, say, the DSA SA58 Pistol (with "Pistol" being part of the gun's actual name) categorized as a carbine and not a pistol, they might get confused, and possibly even try to "correct" the "error". I'm all for putting them on the Carbines page as well, but I still think that it's best to have them here as well. [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 16:05, 13 December 2018 (EST) P.S.: If it wasn't for the damned NFA, we wouldn't have to deal with this nonsense... | |||
:::: Wouldn't a highlighted/bolded explanation paragraph be enough? The current format implies the opposite to actual IMFDB doctrines, implying that these legal pistols are categorized in the pistol category when in fact they're not. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 11:23, 29 December 2018 (EST) | |||
:::::True, but it's not like we don't do this sort of thing already. Take, for instance, the [[CETME Ameli]], which we list on the [[MG42]] page despite it only resembling the MG42 externally. Same goes for, say, the GSG-5 on the [[MP5]] page, the lookalikes on the [[Thompson]] page, or the various replica/airsoft/blank-fire guns listed on the pages of the guns that they superficially resemble and/or are associated with, despite them not being related from a practical standpoint. Hell, in our AK template, we have an entire category of guns that look like AKs but aren't. In most of these cases, I generally favor inclusion, as more information is generally a good thing. [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 12:01, 29 December 2018 (EST) | |||
:::::: I don't like the idea of giving American legal classifications galleries. I mean, what about legal "rifles"? What about legal "Any other weapons"? It's a mess. All we need to do is just give it a quick overview and use the technical classifications that a firearm encyclopedia should be based on instead of regional legal classifications. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 21:55, 29 December 2018 (EST) | |||
I still petition a removal of legal pistol images from this page, and migrate all of them over to the Carbine category page.--[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (EST) | |||
: As Pyro said, and I agree, it serves a purpose. Bear in mind it's only a "mess" because of US firearms laws, which given our subject matter we're obliged to point out when necessary as these details are often pertinent to IDing the weapons themselves - which is really our main point here, rather than being an encyclopedia. Again, we have notes and blurbs about other 'legal' weapons throughout the site. I grant a notation and link could work just as well, and a whole other gallery is rather redundant. Still, I don't see the harm in keeping it. And besides, as FCM said, they are closer going by the actual general characteristics between 'carbines' and 'pistols' and on that basis moving them to the 'carbines' page may only prove more obfuscating and confusing, rather than less. All-told this is yet again another "issue" that nobody other than you has made one of. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 14:54, 21 January 2020 (EST) | |||
:: OK. I agree with your points. I just tend to dig really deep into small issues. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 15:17, 21 January 2020 (EST) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:38, 4 September 2020
Additional Images
Talk
what are some good high high capacity pistols?
Heizer Defense DoubleTap
this could be added as it is already on the site Heizer Defense DoubleTap and it 2 shot would fit with the description --Seekerdude (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
Help Me Identify This Pistol
--Elzzupa (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2013 (PDT)
- As a guess: Belgian 'Le Rapide' in .25. Greg-Z (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2013 (EDT)
- Close enough for me. Thanks, Greg! --Elzzupa (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2013 (PDT)
- I don't see the ejection port in the cap. Can you give us the name of the movie, so we can get some context? --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2013 (EDT)
- It could be a mirrored shot, but i still dont think it is a Rapide. From the way the light is reflecting it appears that there is a step half way up the slide, with the top half being narrower than the bottom which is not the case on the Rapide. Also the slide serrations are on the bottom half of the slide, as opposed to the Rapide where they are on the top half. --commando552 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2013 (EDT)
- I don't see the ejection port in the cap. Can you give us the name of the movie, so we can get some context? --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2013 (EDT)
- Close enough for me. Thanks, Greg! --Elzzupa (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2013 (PDT)
I am beginning to believe that the weapon is a pre-1939 EM-GE starter pistol.
--Elzzupa (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2013 (PDT)
Revolvers and Derringers
Since the page is separated beetween pistols and revolvers, wouldn't it make more sense to place derringers in the revolvers page?
Fox666 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2014 (EDT)
- Derringers are pistols, not revolvers, so they are in right place here. Greg-Z (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2014 (EDT)
Sizing
It might be a good idea to go over this whole page, as some of the pistols in the 'Standard' section (which I assume should mean standard size, that is large or full-size variants) are closer to what we generally have classified as 'compacts' in size, even here on the page. Now if 'standard' means the standard size for that particular pistol series/variant, well, if we go by that reasoning we're kinda screwed as there are many 'standard' variants of pistols that are hardly large or full-size guns. Anyway, just wanna get some thoughts on this, particularly from admins - Just seem to be a couple models that seem to fit better in other sections and such. I know we don't have a strict regimentation here but I think we could be a bit more consistent perhaps. StanTheMan (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2015 (EST)
- Honestly, given how arbitrary and debatable the distinctions are, I personally think that we should just do away with the size-based categorization. Instead, we could split them up another way - say, muzzle-loaders, breech-loaders, manual repeaters (e.g. the Welrod, the Volcanic, etc.), semi-autos, and legal "pistols". Sound good? Unless anybody has any particular objections, I'll re-work the page sometime tomorrow or Friday. Best regards, Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2018 (EST)
- I personally support for the rework, though I'm not an admin. --Wuzh (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2018 (EST)
- No objections have been voiced, so here I go! (If you feel a desire to reverse the decision, feel free to do so.) Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2018 (EST)
- I personally support for the rework, though I'm not an admin. --Wuzh (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2018 (EST)
Should legal pistols even be here?
They're not a part of the Pistols category at all. Most of them are under the carbines category.
I would also want to ask should the flare guns be here. They are inconsistently categorized; many of them are not in the Pistols category and are only in the Flare Gun category, but many are also in both. I wonder what should be done here. --Wuzh (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2018 (EST)
Well I guess it's not on me to make that determination then. I guess I should go back to adding Gun Image categories to uncategorized images. --Wuzh (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2018 (EST)
- You're right, it's not on you. Maybe you should wait until someone who does make that kind of determination makes it. Yeah I get its been two whole weeks - sorry if the admins are people with lives and jobs and other shit to do and thus don't get to absolutely every query or issue on the site lickety split. For the record, I believe the 'legal pistols' category is there to serve as a point about US law on the matter, same with the blurb about 'assault weapons' on the assault rifle page. Same with the disclaimers and notes regarding any relevant gun laws or regs on pages throughout the site. The flare guns however I think you have a bit more of a argument about, though. StanTheMan (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2018 (EST)
- They are more pistol than carbine. If we accept the definition of carbine as a short rifle, then these don't qualify, as they lack shoulder stocks. As they are legally regarded pistols, they cannot have shoulder stocks. --Funkychinaman (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2018 (EST)
- I'd say we should at least include them for the sake of the uninformed - if someone sees, say, the DSA SA58 Pistol (with "Pistol" being part of the gun's actual name) categorized as a carbine and not a pistol, they might get confused, and possibly even try to "correct" the "error". I'm all for putting them on the Carbines page as well, but I still think that it's best to have them here as well. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2018 (EST) P.S.: If it wasn't for the damned NFA, we wouldn't have to deal with this nonsense...
- Wouldn't a highlighted/bolded explanation paragraph be enough? The current format implies the opposite to actual IMFDB doctrines, implying that these legal pistols are categorized in the pistol category when in fact they're not. --Wuzh (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2018 (EST)
- True, but it's not like we don't do this sort of thing already. Take, for instance, the CETME Ameli, which we list on the MG42 page despite it only resembling the MG42 externally. Same goes for, say, the GSG-5 on the MP5 page, the lookalikes on the Thompson page, or the various replica/airsoft/blank-fire guns listed on the pages of the guns that they superficially resemble and/or are associated with, despite them not being related from a practical standpoint. Hell, in our AK template, we have an entire category of guns that look like AKs but aren't. In most of these cases, I generally favor inclusion, as more information is generally a good thing. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2018 (EST)
- I don't like the idea of giving American legal classifications galleries. I mean, what about legal "rifles"? What about legal "Any other weapons"? It's a mess. All we need to do is just give it a quick overview and use the technical classifications that a firearm encyclopedia should be based on instead of regional legal classifications. --Wuzh (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2018 (EST)
- True, but it's not like we don't do this sort of thing already. Take, for instance, the CETME Ameli, which we list on the MG42 page despite it only resembling the MG42 externally. Same goes for, say, the GSG-5 on the MP5 page, the lookalikes on the Thompson page, or the various replica/airsoft/blank-fire guns listed on the pages of the guns that they superficially resemble and/or are associated with, despite them not being related from a practical standpoint. Hell, in our AK template, we have an entire category of guns that look like AKs but aren't. In most of these cases, I generally favor inclusion, as more information is generally a good thing. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2018 (EST)
- Wouldn't a highlighted/bolded explanation paragraph be enough? The current format implies the opposite to actual IMFDB doctrines, implying that these legal pistols are categorized in the pistol category when in fact they're not. --Wuzh (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2018 (EST)
- I'd say we should at least include them for the sake of the uninformed - if someone sees, say, the DSA SA58 Pistol (with "Pistol" being part of the gun's actual name) categorized as a carbine and not a pistol, they might get confused, and possibly even try to "correct" the "error". I'm all for putting them on the Carbines page as well, but I still think that it's best to have them here as well. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2018 (EST) P.S.: If it wasn't for the damned NFA, we wouldn't have to deal with this nonsense...
- They are more pistol than carbine. If we accept the definition of carbine as a short rifle, then these don't qualify, as they lack shoulder stocks. As they are legally regarded pistols, they cannot have shoulder stocks. --Funkychinaman (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2018 (EST)
I still petition a removal of legal pistol images from this page, and migrate all of them over to the Carbine category page.--Wuzh (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (EST)
- As Pyro said, and I agree, it serves a purpose. Bear in mind it's only a "mess" because of US firearms laws, which given our subject matter we're obliged to point out when necessary as these details are often pertinent to IDing the weapons themselves - which is really our main point here, rather than being an encyclopedia. Again, we have notes and blurbs about other 'legal' weapons throughout the site. I grant a notation and link could work just as well, and a whole other gallery is rather redundant. Still, I don't see the harm in keeping it. And besides, as FCM said, they are closer going by the actual general characteristics between 'carbines' and 'pistols' and on that basis moving them to the 'carbines' page may only prove more obfuscating and confusing, rather than less. All-told this is yet again another "issue" that nobody other than you has made one of. StanTheMan (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2020 (EST)