Talk:Semi-automatic pistol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


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)

Self-loading and semi-automatic can be two different things. To the lay person semi-automatic just mean a shot for each pull of trigger, and does not actually imply self-loading. 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Carrying a SA pistol

You can't carry a 1911 with the hammer down and a round in the chamber. It's possible but stupid since a 1911 doesn't have any decocking mechanism so you're slowly letting down the hammer right onto the firing pin which is touching a cartridge. The only way a single action pistol can be carried like this is if it has a decocking lever, ie. a Sig220. 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).

The 1911 hammer has a half-cocked position. It doesn't rest against the firing pin. 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 | Contribs) 20:46, 21 March 2007 (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)

[edit] Holding the slide prevents the gun from firing?

I have seen a video of a (apparently anyway) law enforcement self defence 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.

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

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.

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; 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)

Also when holding the slide of a oistol 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?

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 Bird, Chris (2004). The Concealed Handgun Manual: How To Choose, Carry, And Shoot A Gun In Self-Defense, 4th ed, San Antonio, Texas, USA: Privateer Publications, p. 75-79. ISBN 0-9656784-1-5.  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)

[edit] 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".

I shoot a Taurus copy of the Baretta 92 and carried a Baretta 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 dammage my weapon? Injure the shooter? Or is this just two different ways to identify the same round?

Wildcard34 06:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


The two terms are synonomous; 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)