Talk:Gas-operated reloading

Lever operation

This section is under dispute, with the claim that the lever operation is equivalent to a short stroke action:

Lever operation

The earliest successful gas operating mechanism appeared in the M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun, commonly nicknamed the "potato digger" due to the behavior of its unique operating mechanism. Invented by John Moses Browning in 1889, the M1895 was an air cooled, closed bolt, belt fed machine gun. It had a gas port on the bottom of the barrel, roughly six inches from the muzzle, which impinged on a piston attached to a long lever. Upon actuation, the lever would swing in an arc down and back, cycling the action in a manner similar to a lever action. The nickname "potato digger" was the result of the gun's behavior when fired from a prone position; if fired from too low a position, the piston's arc would result in it digging into the ground. The M1895 was made in a number of calibers, and saw service through World War I with US and Russian troops.

Here is the discussion, copied from Asam10's talk page:

Bolt temps, temper of metal, bad info.

Article shows PEAK chamber and bolt face temps at around 140F, nowhere near enough to cause damage from heat. http://vuurwapenblog.com/2010/05/10/does-nickel-boron-reduce-heat/ Spensah.v2 (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The 'BLOG' you are quoting is not a peer-reviewed article. It does not even mention whether this is Celsius or Fahrenheit. Nor is the data the least bit scientific. What was the instrument used? I suspect it was a laser-pointer guided thermometer designed for home use. I dare you to hold an M16 bolt carrier after I dump three mags through the gun. --Winged Brick (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Still better than *no source at all* for that info. Thought unsourced material was frowned upon. Spensah.v2 (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Found a second source http://books.google.com/books?id=Q4pv0YLUjxIC&pg=PA127

Not good enough either? Spensah.v2 (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Published blog where they use a laser-guided IR thermometer designed for the HVAC industry. You gonna grab my bolt carrier or not? You didn't even address that. I can tell you the result: instant blister and dropped carrier. 140 degrees does not flash vaporize water like an M16 bolt carrier does after a few mag dumps. 140F does not pass the stress test. When an objective person reads the blog and 'published blog' using non-scientific methods, this objective person sees the BS meter pegging. CLP doesn't burn off at 140 degrees, yet it does on my BCG's. Your BLOG sources are no better than my anecdotes. You are removing info that has been there for a while based on an unreliable reference.--Winged Brick (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you object to changing the wording to reflect these quotes from the Ehrhart article already sourced in the article.

"In the case of the AR15, that residue and higher temperature combustion moves from the gas port in the barrel to the bolt carrier, to cycle the action. This high heat burns off any lubrication, and combined with powder residue, increases the rate of malfunctions."

"One of the most critical areas to lubricate is the bolt and cam pin. If the weapon has been fired continuously, the heat inherent in the operating mechanism will evaporate the oil."

At what temperature does CLP burn off? --Winged Brick (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Book of AR-15 is not a 'blog'. Bring me your bolt carrier, sure. Bet I won't burn myself. Second, that source doesn't mention a specific substance, only 'oil' and 'lubrication', pretty vague. Lastly, CLP has a boiling point of 140F, and a FLASH POINT of only 200F http://hazard.com/msds/f2/bph/bphwh.html

I've now posted three pieces of information that support the removal of that **unsourced** claim that heat can change the temper of the bolt and associated parts.

Are the bolt and carrier heated by gas? Yes. Enough to damage the parts purely by heat? Extremely doubtful, hence the removal. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Rewording to reflect those quotes would be fine, my only problem with the section was the unsourced and honestly, ridiculous claim of altering/ruining the temper of parts. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your background is, but heating of parts, especially springs, can change their temper and performance. You seem to be under the impression "Because you read it on the internet" is good enough for you. Well, I read on the internet that heating a bolt carrier enough to burn off the CLP causes issues. What temperature would you believe that to be? There are 'proper' studies done that explain this, I'm just not sure one is on the internet. Holding the "Book of the AR-15" up as a scholarly source implies that there was a scientific method. In fact, I read that article and noted he used the same "bubba" techniques to get a result that agreed with his premise. I'm not buying it because I have experience that laughs in the face of their results. Just because it says on the internet that we faked the moon landing does not make it so. I've looked and I can't find a credible source that records bolt carrier heat with scientific instruments. Feel free to find one and post it.

Not sure where you think you've posted "sources" that say that the bolt on an M16 rifle does not reach temperatures that will cause temper changes in the metal... at the very least the springs. You posted some dudes with HVAC thermometers and watches. --Winged Brick (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So wait a second, now instead of needing to cite sources to make claims, we have to cite sources to REMOVE them? I'm pretty experienced in metalworking, guess I don't know much about metals and tempering. You're pretty blockheaded about this, even though I've shown evidence (even if its 'not science', its better than making claims with NO SOURCE) to the contrary. Find some proof, anywhere. Scan it, go to the library, google it, whatever you have to do. I've seen absolutely nothing to support this kind of heat on a BCG. There is no citable source, it should be removed. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you're resorting to calling me a Blockhead? I offered a compromise position and you glossed over that. You 'cite' people who took HVAC equipment (not going to address their methods at all, eh?) and pointed them at parts of their guns. I'm not sure you are standing on as good a leg as you think you are. --Winged Brick (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't gloss over anything, guess again.

>>>"Rewording to reflect those quotes would be fine, my only problem with the section was the unsourced and honestly, ridiculous claim of altering/ruining the temper of parts. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)"

Oh, more 'HVAC' equipment http://www.pof-usa.net/articles/P416Torture.pdf

I don't have to resort to calling you names, it was just an observation of your behavior. You don't have a leg to stand on. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

HA! You say you don't have to resort to name calling... but you did. Please explain in detail how "You're pretty blockheaded about this" is not name calling. You seem to ignore the fact that a laser-pointer on a $30 infrared thermometer designed for the ducts in your house is NOT appropriate for pin-point measuring. You assert that a random, unknown temperature will not temper metal. Well, sir, if you can find anywhere anything that says that an unknown temperature won't change the temper of metal. I'll come right out and say why I'm debating this. You come off as an apologist for the Direct Impingement method of operation. Probably own a DI gun yourself and don't really understand the scientific methods used by proper engineers (not you or I) to measure temperature at various points on a firearm. Your assertion that the bolt only heats up to 140F is not only ridiculous, it's LAUGHABLE! --Winged Brick (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy with the edit. That's all. I'm no apologist, every system has pros and Cons.

Fact is, even the pof test shows temps around 140. If anyone would want to play up the whole heat in the receiver angle, it'd be a company that makes piston ARs. -- Spensah.v2 (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Shotguns

The word "Shotgun" doesn't even appear on this page. What type of gas system does a shotgun use? I assume it counts as a long-stroke gas system, but I'm not sure. It has a ring-shaped piston that wraps around the magazine tube, and fits into a cylinder of slightly larger dimensions. It wouldn't be clear to a person looking at one that it was a form of gas operation when looking at the images that are shown on this page. AnnaGoFast (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This page appears to be dominated by military rifle oriented editors. Search 1 Oct 2021 for "shotgun" yields no returns. Gas-operated shotguns with tube magazines present different design parameters than largely box magazine rifles.

AnnaGpFast describes a Long-stroke gas system automatic shotgun where the gas piston travels the full length of recoil with the bolt.

I have a Model 1000 gas operated shotgun made by Howa for Mossberg (and S&W). The gas piston moves a short distance and stops after imparting momentum to the sleeve, action bars, bolt base assembly that unlocks the bolt (sleeve, bars, base and bolt travel as one assembled unit). I'd call it short stroke since the gas piston pushes the bolt carrier, rather than a tappet system where a very light piston impacts the bolt carrier.

Automatic shotguns were recoil operated with moving barrels until the Winchester Model 50 of 1954, based on David Marshall Williams' "Inertia Operated Bolt Lock" that used a floating chamber within the barrel acting under gas pressure as a piston to unlock then impart momentum to the bolt, the first automatic shotgun with barrel fixed to the receiver.

Gas operated shotguns are neglected in Gas-operated reloading. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting merge into Action (firearms)

This article should be under Action (firearms)Digitallymade (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. --Winged Brick (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree, as gas operation is notable in itself; but there is definitely a link between the topics. For example, I don't feel that semiauto is an appropriate article for the "autoloading" link in the lead section. While technically true, it's misleading, especically as there are fully automatic rifles that use gas operated actions to load themselves. Indeed, coverage of "autoloading firearms" could perhaps be added to or expanded inside Action (firearms) and the repeating action section; or maybe even form a distinct page if there are enough sources to provide notability. Techhead7890 (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is there no History section here.

Since Hiram Stevens Maxim developed the gas operation for firearms which was subsequently first used by John Moses Browning why is there no history here? Digitallymade (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)