Talk:Magazine (firearms)/Archives/2015/October

Is the pan magazine technically a magazine?

According to the SAAMI website, a magazine is defined as follows:

'A recepticle for a firearm that holds a plurality of cartridges or shells under spring pressure preparatory for feeding into the chamber. Magazines take many forms, such as box, drum, rotary, tubular, etc. and may be fixed or removable.'

From: http://www.saami.org/glossary/display.cfm?letter=M

Furthermore, the NRA website defines the term 'magazine' as follows:

'A spring-loaded container for cartridges that may be an integral part of the gun`s mechanism or may be detachable. Detachable magazines for the same gun may be offered by the gun`s manufacturer or other manufacturers with various capacities. A gun with a five-shot detachable magazine, for instance, may be fitted with a magazine holding 10, 20, or 50 or more rounds. Box magazines are most commonly located under the receiver with the cartridges stacked vertically. Tube or tubular magazines run through the stock or under the barrel with the cartridges lying horizontally. Drum magazines hold their cartridges in a circular mode. A magazine can also mean a secure storage place for ammunition or explosives.'

From: https://www.nraila.org/about/glossary/

Under these definitions, a pan magazine, or at least the Broadwell drum which some members on here believe to be the first pan magazine, isn't truly a magazine, seeing as it lacks a spring.

EDIT: Furthermore it would seem most of the pre-volitional repeater repeating arms don't technically use magazines either, as well as most of the 19th-century machine gun feeding systems.

EDIT 2: Perhaps what's needed is a new page detailing the various feed systems for guns, which should be considered separate to magazines and clips? SQMeaner (talk)

An explanatory glossary entry is not a proscriptive definition. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well then what definition are we using, bearing in mind the NRA link is cited as a reference in the main article when defining a magazine? The way a magazine is defined currently on the main page means a puckle gun and the mitrailleuse would count as using a magazine.SQMeaner (talk)

And so they should. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

SQMeaner has repeatedly added factually incorrect information to this article. And, is now trying to redefine terms in order to fit his POV. He is attempting to use the modern 21st Century definition of a magazine, to claim that the 18th and 19th Century definitions are wrong. Competency is required on Wikipedia and SQMeaner competency is seriously lacking.--RAF910 (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, how would you define a magazine then? Also, regardless of whether you agree with the above-mentioned definitions of a magazine or not, the first use of a spring or follower in a magazine does seem pretty important and should probably be mentioned in the history section. SQMeaner (talk)

Well, if you simply read the article...you would see that it has a section called "Gravity magazines". If you would like to add to that section, you are welcome to do so. However, we (the other Wiki editors) are not your research assistants and if you continue to add factually incorrect information to Wikipedia you may be blocked.--RAF910 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

For the most part the "gravity magazines" cited are actually hoppers, which are not magazines (and the second Gatling example was just a feed guide). A pan magazine just barely qualifies since the rotating body of the magazine is used as a follower to index cartridges and operated by the mechanism of the gun, but a hopper has no follower at all. Broadwell's thingy was completely hand-operated and so was really just a "feeding device" rather than a magazine, though the Accles drum actually works almost exactly like a pan magazine in that the gun operates the rotor.

While it's interesting trivia what things might have been called in the past, we're writing the article today and readers will assume we're using today's definitions. If the word "ship" used to refer to a type of rock, saying "the first ship was a boulder somewhere in Africa" would be misleading to a modern reader since it would imply the boulder had something in common with a modern ship. I also don't think citing borderline examples that maybe sorta qualify as "firsts" is a particularly useful exercise. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)