Talk:Long gun

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Untrue statements?

There are some strange looking statements in this article, such as:'Modern fighting rifles also usually have muzzle brakes for increasing sheer firepower.'.

Since when did muzzle brakes in --24.85.147.171 00:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took out a lot of the Bad Science. The article still needs quite a bit of work. UseArthurrh 05:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the use of "long gun" for naval cannons be the primary definition?

I have never heard the use of term "long gun" for personal firearms, where-as it was common in nautical usage. -- Geo Swan 14:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a navalist, I agree that the cannon definition should be primary. :-) The personal firearm meaning is apparently familiar to gun dealers at least, as in [1], [2], [3], etc (found via Google). I suppose the naval meaning will have to move off to another article eventually. Stan 14:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "long gun" to refer to personal rifles and shotguns is quite common in Canada. Only since 1995 have Canadians had to register their long guns while handguns have required registration since 1934. Long guns are still considered unrestricted so there is a clear line drawn between long guns and handguns. It may surprise some to learn that long guns are common posessions among Canadians (due in part to the country's significant frontier/rural/hunting heritage). In fact, the opposition party in the upcoming federal election is running with "dismantling the long gun registry" as a platform promise. --Ds13 00:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've lived in Canada my whole life, and I don't remember ever hearing the term "long guns" applied to rifles and shotguns. -- Geo Swan 02:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I can't explain that, but I don't think it's a regional thing because, for example, if you want to register a new non-restricted firearm (i.e. shotgun or rifle) you bought from someone else then you need to fill out a form CAFC 682 and the title of that form is "Application to Register Non-Restricted Firearms (Long Guns) Acquired by Transfer". The term is right there at the top of the form (albeit, in parenthesis). I am under the assumption that "non-restricted firearm" and "long gun" are synonymous in Canada. And in current news, you'll no doubt hear the Conservatives promising to scrap the "long gun registry" -- if you Google for "long gun registry", you'll see that politicians are comfortable using the term when campaigning, which indicates to me that it's used/recognized by a significant amount of the population. But you've got me thinking about where I first heard it or if I hear people outside of government speak it or not... --Ds13 05:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but the nautical usage is a world-wide usage, of long-standing.

I agree. I advocate both usages finding a place in this article. --Ds13 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the proper term was Long Arm, like Side Arm only not at your side haha, as it would be your main weapon in combat or hunting I suppose.

Article doesn't explain fundamental advantages of a long barrel

The article describes advantages of the long barrel in terms of handling - recoil transfer to the body, and increased moment of inertia, both producing better stability for aiming. But surely these are secondary benefits to the long barrel - otherwise, the effect could just as well be achieved by a long stock and weighted body.

I'm sure there's some direct advantage(s) to a long barrel in terms of the basic firing of a projectile. What is/are they? 1) more momentum transfer to projectile? 2) more momentum transfer to projectile specifically in the case of a larger propellant charge? 3) higher accuracy (narrower cone of projectile exit angles)? 4) other? SSSheridan (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article’s existence makes no sense to me.

Isn’t the use of this term in the context of small arms quite a modern development? The article doesn’t even say much of sustenance, instead rambling about both the obvious, and irrelevant differences between rifles and pistols. Ironmatic1 (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 June 2024 and 29 July 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sjones11 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: HarleyForet.

— Assignment last updated by Ashlie.k.hood (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]