Talk:Flash suppressor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] Question
can someone cite me a source for this: "Faster-burning powder, however, produce less projectile velocity, which reduces both the accuracy and lethality of the weapon." seems to me that a faster burning powder would increase velocity, but also increase the chamber pressure, resulting in the possibility of burst brass or barrels.Qleem 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Legality
Yaf, pleaese stop reverting to the previous version. The way I wrote it is neutral and accurate. Your reversion is neither. CynicalMe 07:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your edits are neither accurate nor gramatically correct, nor do they follow the WP:NOT rules governing the avoidance of speculation in articles. Stating a state may do something in the future is not allowed under Wikipedia rules. We must stick to the facts that are verifiable. Yaf 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Back at you. States do NOT 'retain provisions' of the federal ban, they have their own laws which are not the same. CynicalMe 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but for example, California and New York both make statements in their state laws that these laws are in accordance with cited Federal laws. However, this reference is now to a defunct federal law. If this is not retaining provisions, I don't know what is. It is especially an issue with high capacity magazines (holding more than 10 rounds) that must be marked in some states to be for law enforcement use only, but are not required to be marked in current Federal law nor in other states. Needless to say, they are no longer being marked. Yet, this rule, too, existed previously in a Federal law that has now sunset, but to which the state law still points. Yaf 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Linking the two makes it sound as if the state laws no longer apply. In addition, California's law was always more strict than the federal law. Also, I don't know of any state laws which require that mags must be marked LEO. They restrict possession, but there are no marking requirements that I know of, at least not here in CA. CynicalMe 16:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but for example, California and New York both make statements in their state laws that these laws are in accordance with cited Federal laws. However, this reference is now to a defunct federal law. If this is not retaining provisions, I don't know what is. It is especially an issue with high capacity magazines (holding more than 10 rounds) that must be marked in some states to be for law enforcement use only, but are not required to be marked in current Federal law nor in other states. Needless to say, they are no longer being marked. Yet, this rule, too, existed previously in a Federal law that has now sunset, but to which the state law still points. Yaf 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Back at you. States do NOT 'retain provisions' of the federal ban, they have their own laws which are not the same. CynicalMe 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Move to Flash Hider
I suggest moving this article to "flash hider." In my experience the term "flash hider" is much more common than "flash suppressor". Addittionally, this article seems to be confusing with the plain "suppressor" article and a name change would make them more distinct. Any opinions? --Askaggs 16:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I believe the technically accurate term you will find in most manuals etc is "flash suppressor" though in practice the terms are used pretty interchangibly. Cloaked Dagger 05:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with suppressor
I tagged both articles mergewith. As far as I can tell, flash suppressors do not necessarily do anything for sound, and suppressors (silencers) usually reduce muzzle flash. --Christopherlin 16:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. Flash suppressors and sound suppressors are fundamentally different devices, and should be described in separate articles. A See Also link would be more appropriate. Tronno 21:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Other Discussions
What are those things on the end of some tank barrels (they look kinda like flash suppressors) that have transverse holes? Just wondering what their true function is. Here's a link to a pic:
http://www.d-daytanks.org.uk/images/tanks/sherman_firefly2.jpg
thank you
-Al
Answering my own question, it turns out it's a muzzle brake, which reduces recoil by venting a portion of the propellant gases sideways.
