Jump to content

Talk:List of blow-forward firearms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jackhammer

[edit]

23:54, 12 January 2018

I've just added the Pancor Jackhammer. It wasn't until after the fact that I saw in the revision history that Winged Brick had removed the Jackhammer from the list in June. I have to admitt that the Jackhammer is probably a close call. In fact, the barrel is pushed forward by gas pressure of the shot and there is no gas piston or any moving part besides the barrel at all. However, the barrel has a gas port and is basically functioning like a gas piston in a gas tube. But still, there are absolutely no other moving parts and the barrel is pushed forward by the shot's gas pressure, so it fits into the definition of blow forward. Ian McCollum classifies it as blow forward which is good enough for me ;-) Cheers!--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. No, the gun is most definitely NOT blow forward by any stretch of the imagination. That is why it was removed. You are misinterpreting the data presented in the video. At 11:50, Ian states clearly that there are ports in the barre. These act on a piston which drives the barrel forward. This makes it a gas-operated revolver with forward-moving barrel. It is a gas-operated Nagant revolver upsized. I'm removing it. There is no case for inclusion. I read and compeletely understand what you are saying, but you are wrong in your interpretation. --Winged Brick (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

″These act on a piston which drives the barrel forward.″ — But there is no piston. The barrel is located in a tube, in which the barrel itself is propelled forward by gas pressure. The only difference to a more ″classical″ blow forward system is that the gas pressure is vented into the tube to act on the barrel itself. The moving barrel in turn is conected to the magazin/drum system via a bar, but this is no operating piston for the action. In my reading, the magazin is gas operated, but the action itself is blow forward. You have to seperate the breech action from the cartridge feeding system. Otherwise, the Mk 20 and the Howa Type 96 wouldn't qualify as blow forward, too, because their belt feeding operation is worked by the moving barrel. Blow forward as a concept is totally independent from the cartridge feed system, it is a breech action only.--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am not certain you understand how the gun works and it's difficult to explain it to you through text here as I am not as good a communicator as Ian is. The ports in the barrel vent gas to a piston formed by a barrel sleeve and the body of the barrel itself. The system is much like a CZ-52 rifle except that the piston is formed around and encompasses the barrel. The barrel is not driven forward by the projectile and combustion gasses impinging on the inside of the barrel as is the case with a blow-forward operating mechanism. The power for the working of the multiple parts within the system comes from gas tapped into a piston formed around the barrel. It is a gas-operated revolver... I would say plain and simple, however it is not plain and simple. The operation is unique, to be sure, but cannot be classified as blow-forward. --Winged Brick (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

″The barrel is not driven forward by the projectile and combustion gasses impinging on the inside of the barrel as is the case with a blow-forward operating mechanism.″ (emphasis by me) — Where comes this definition from? No definition I′ve ever heard or read includes the ″inside of the barrel″ part. Sure, gas action systems like seperate pistons are obviously ruled out, but in my eyes, all it need for a blow forward is a) the barrel being blown/pushed/dragged forward by either/and both b) the bullet in the barrel or/and c) the gas pressure directly working on the barrel (!). In the Jackhammer, gas pressure directly works on the barrel to push it forward.--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, have you tried the definition of a blow-forward firearm or 100 years of blow-forward firearm definitions in dozens of books and journals? Your inference that the gas pressure works directly on the barrel to push it forward does not describe a blow-forward firearm, first, and only defines one portion of how the revolver operates. You do know, by the way, that the barrel is ALWAYS pushed forward on gas-operated guns in relation to the bolt face, right? ALL guns are blow-forward by that definition. Listen, contact Ian and ask him the question. In debate, this is what we call an 'appeal to authority'. Then, find a scholarly reference that agrees with your broad definition. Then change each and every gas-operated firearm article to say blow-forward as the method of operation. It's not. If it is, prove it. The article is referenced, so find your own references. --Winged Brick (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one and only referenced definition given in Blow forward (00:13, 13 January 2018) doesn′t mention gas pressure at all and only mentions bullet friction. On the other hand, we clearly and positively have an authority cited that calls the Jackhammer a blow-forward firearm: Ian McCollum does so in the video linked above, and at no point in the video he states any other lablelling. As it is right now, I have a citation of an authority that supports my position, while you denounce said authority without any reference to any other authority and without any support by the state of discussion here in Wikipedia. Please understand that I′m not interested in attacking you, I just want to improve the project and find a better base of discurse.--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to accept a YouTube video, sorry. --Winged Brick (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you adviced me to contact Ian, didn′t you? As a professional historian, I′m not going to accept any statement given in unpublicised private correspondence. Any claim has to be publicised and comprehensibly to third parties.

Here are two definitions I was able to come up with by a quick google search:

″The mechanism relies on the friction of the bullet moving forward through the bore to pull the barrel forward.″
Jeff Kinard, Pistols. An Illustrated History of Their Impact, Santa Barbara/Denver/Oxford 2003, p. 173.
″A blow forward system uses the friction of the bullet moving down the barrel, or the gasses produced by the cartridge, or a combination of both, to cycle the action.″
Wayne Webster, Weird and Unusual Weapons. Firearms and their Development, [no place of publication given] [no year of publication given], [no page given].

I personally would no trust Webster at all, this source doesn′t ″feel″ citable at all. Can you find any better? It would help us a lot! As it stands, we still don′t have any definition of blow forward that rules out the Jackhammer′s system.--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC) PS: I′ve also checked Chinn, he usually gives pretty good definitions of different actions, but in his description of the Mk 20 (Vol V, pp. 507–511), he seems a little baffled and doesn′t give a name to it at all, let alone a definition.--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to find any better. I was satisfied with the way it was written before. "Blow-Forward" is simply blowback in reverse. Are you suggesting strengthening my assertion about how the gun operates? Are you suggesting changing the article for blow-forward? That does not seem to apply to the gas-operated revolver that is the Jackhammer. --Winged Brick (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went into this discussion with a positive source claiming the Jackhammer to be blow forward and asked for any definition of this operation principle that contradictes said source. Until now, no such positive definition was brought up. ″′Blow-Forward′ is simply blowback in reverse.″ is no sufficient definition, as it neither independent from otherwise unrelated items nor gives a positive desription of what defines the principle in question. I also generally miss any citable source for this view. The article Blow forward in its current form (00:13, 13 January 2018) is lacking in this respect, and therefore, ″the way it was written before″ is not satisfactory to me. However, it is not my main interest in this discussion to improve the article Blow forward. The point that motivates me is, that ″the way it was written before″ still gives no positive reason to reject Ian McCollum′s characterization of the Jackhammer being a blow forward action. You have repeatedly claimed this, but you have at no point given any substance to this claim, neither in the current Wikipedia nor in any external source.--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to more references:

″Blow forward action is where the friction of the bullet travelling down the barrel pulls the barrel forward on firing and is harnessed to extract the empty cartridge case and reload. […] The first weapon to use this system was the Steyr Mannlicher M1894 pistol of Austro-Hungarian origin and the first rifle was the Swiss SIG AK53. The only time this system has been used by the modern military was in a 40mm automatic grenade launcher issued to the US Navy during the Vietnam War [refering to the Mk 20]. There is a modern design and patent for its use in an automatic 12-gauge shotgun called the Jackhammer, but no one seems keen to manufacture it on any scale.″
Robert Stirling, Special Foreces Sniper Skills, Oxford 2012, [no page given].
″The Pancor Jackhammer is a combat shotgun based on a similar mechanism to an automatic revolver. It uses a Blow-Forward action to move the barrel forward (which unlocks it from the cylincer) and then rotate the cylinder and cock the hammer.″
Jeffrey Strickland, Handbook of Handguns. Warning Shots Not Fired, Colorado Springs [no year of publication given], p. 50.

Additionally, Webster cited above also cites the Jackhammer as a blow-forward weapon. That now makes it four sources describing the Jackhammer as an example of the blow forward system (of which one [McCollum] is rejected by you and one [Webster] ist rejected by me).--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understand that based on Ian's video, the references that say that the Jackhammer are blow-forward are incorrect. Ian's video clearly demonstrates it is gas pressure in the piston formed around the barrel which push the barrel forward, not the friction of the projectile. Ian is the first one to publish an actual examination of the actual mechanism, though from the patent it was clearly gas operated as well. You may not be satisfied, but you are stubbornly refusing to accept that it is gas operated in spite of both the YouTube video you cited and the patent information saying as much. Because others with zero access to the firearm and without citing anything have made the same mistake, you should not do the same. Gas-operated revolver. The motion of the barrel forward is not being 'blown' by the friction of the projectile or by the rest of the gun recoiling away: both of these are happening in a blow-forward gun; neither are happening in the Jackhammer. --Winged Brick (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is farer to me than acting stubbornly, and this is also not my intention. I′m, however, interested in positive definitions and thoroughly scholarship. Here, we have Ian McCollum′s examination of the Jackhammer, which is, as you write, the first publicated actual examination. Therefore, it is the go-to source (although you reject it). In said go-to source, there is a positive characterization of the matter as blow forward. When it comes to the matter of definitions, they fall in two groups: one gropu of definitions that solely cite the bullet′s friction as base principle and don′t mention gas pressure at all, and a second group of definitions that also refere to gas pressure as a possible base principle. Of the second group, not a single one rules out any form of gas vents or gas barrieres to help the gas pressure act on the barrel. When analyzing the matter as presented in McCollum′s video, you interprete it as showing a gas piston. I, on the contrary, see a barrel with a specific geometry to support gas pressure utilization, but without any seperate piston. In essence, this boils down to a question of interpretation similar to the old question whether the AR-15 system is direct impingement or gas piston system. I was looking for a more clear definition of blow forward that could sort this out without even bringing up this question by ruling out any non-conventional barrel geometry. No such definition has been brought up. I remain unsatisfied. However, as I stated in the beginning, I′m not interested in appearing stubbornly. This is not how I percive my interaction in scholary discurse, and I strongly intend to not appear stubborn.--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tedious. It's a gas-operated revolver. Prove it's otherwise and I'll support you. Your references were not authoritative. Gas-operated. --Winged Brick (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel very uncomfortable with your characterization of this discurs as tedious. I have cited four sources that expressly and positivly call the Jackhammer a blow forward firearm. Even if every single definition of the blow forward principle in existence would contradict this, it would still be mentionable and probably in conclict with Wikipedia:NOR to reject four positive sources on basis of personal interpration, especially without citing a single definition of blow forward that rules out the claim stated. However, this is not the case; at least no source was produced by you to substanciate your view. [As a side note, your definition of blow forward as ″simply blowback in reverse″ makes you blind for the possibility of a gas operated blow forward system. In your hierarchy of firearms action principles, blowback and blow forward are one category, while gas operated and recoil operated are separate and incompatible categories. As I see it, there is no reason to support this strict hierarchy as long as there is no definition of blow forward that positively rules out gas operation.] I′m generally not active in the English language Wikipedia, this is my first and only venture into this realm. I feel very unconfortable with being characterized as stubbornly and tedious, when just trying to sort out matters in form of a scholary discurse as it is very common in the German Wikipedia and my professional field of scholarship. I will therefore add no further comment to this matter.--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After what I have written in my last comment, I hate to do this, but I can′t let my own mistake stand uncorrected. Above, I called Chinn ″baffled″ when describing the Mk 20. I made this comment without realizing that Chinn himself designed the Mk 20 … I now feel very bad for making this comment. To add a last bit of information to the matter of the general discussion: Chinn characterizes the Mk 20′s action as ″blowback/blow-forward system of operation″ (George M. Chinn, The Machine Gun. Volume V, [no place of publication given] 1987, p. 468), however, he later puts it under the general category of blowback! (Chinn, Machine Gun. Vol, p. 509).--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_blow-forward_firearms&oldid=1208213516"