1535:
about) with the argument that 'there is constant pressure from the non-shooting arm' as if for every shot the other arm has to push the gun forward manually. Never does it mention what the bump stock itself actually does to bump it back, instead it says your trigger finger has to bump the gun back which is very weird to say as it's just the recoil itself and the bump goes the opposite direction. In short it is explained in a roundabout and imo false way to lead one to believe be a purely manual process or technique, and hence it should be legal. The CNN article cited as a source (reference eight) says nothing of the sort and seems to be an unrelated source put in there just as a cover not to remove the writer's weird pro-gun argument. The mechanism of how a bump stock works should be described objectively and clearly at the start of the article. All the arguments about the legality and semantics about what an automatic gun in essence is can go in the description of the court cases in the end.
170:
146:
180:
74:
53:
242:
22:
270:
940:, standing in the bunker you see in the background. Probably the largest automatic-fire gun ever built — it could do an 8-shot burst at different charges and elevations so that all 8 would land on target at the same time with devastating effect. The muzzle blast would ruffle your clothes, would raise pebbles on the ground 3 feet into the air. Anyway, this thread has gone into
353:
vectoring of forces required for bumpfire in a controlled range situation, but you cannot count on doing it in a combat situation. It does has a lot of the forbidden fruit allure of doing something "naughty"-because-"illegal". The gun club I belong to does not allow simulated full-auto (perhaps due to rounds missing the paper target but wrecking the wooden target frames).
1191:, you can talk about "cyclical rate" all you want, but the previous content was verified and you'll need talk page consensus before you get to change the wording. I note also that in your version "cyclical rate" occurred in the text only once: in the lead as you re-wrote it, which makes it either unverified or original research--or both.
1266:– Outside of the first line of the lede, the entire article is actually about the device, the bump stock - what it is and what is its legal status. Given the public uproar over the use of bump stocks in a mass shooting, and their highly publicized eventual ban, this is also likely to be the far better known topic.
702:
No, I do not think we should include the Las Vegas mass shooting in the article. The section that that information is in now shouldn't be there. Sure it is related, but it only taks about it being in a mass shooting event, not more details about the stock itself, or how issues relating to the sale of
1132:
This source does not provide any supporting evidence for the claim of 400-800 rounds per minute. Every study/demonstration I have seen shows a firing rate of 7.5 rounds per second. That's 450 rounds per minute. Additionally, given that nobody has a 450-round magazine, this is still not accurate.
849:
Setting aside the Las Vegas shooting (because that wasn't a tactical situation), the statement itself would deserve examination... if it were in the article. But it isn't. Which is fine, because it's incorrect. Reduced accuracy doesn't "eliminate" the tactical advantage gained from rapid fire. Fully
1384:
It is opinion inserted alongside facts, misleadingly written so as to present no question of the accuracy of the polls results. It is an unwelcome intrusion of propaganda into an otherwise properly neutral article. Get rid of it. I have looked at re-writing it for neutrality but it is impossible by
776:
372:
I can provide plenty of links to discussion boards but very few links to reputable websites because it is a slang term. Yes, people really do it just like people shake up champagne bottles and spray them everywhere rather than drinking the champagne: there is no real benefit to rapidly shooting off
1534:
A lot of the article feels like it's written by a guns rights' activist. But especially egregious seems the section where the mechanism is explained. It takes a clear position that it doesn't turn a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon (essentially what the recent supreme court case was
1492:
I have removed several direct cites to court papers from litigants (complaints, motions, etc.) in the related lawsuits. We don't need these in view of the significant number of secondary sources available (news articles, law review articles, etc., plus even ultimate court decisions). Moreover, it
1388:
Opinion polls are not scientific, they are produced and published without peer review, by private corporations with absolutely no legal prohibition to outright falsification and deliberate deceit. There is not even any industry self-regulation to speak of. The results are almost without exception
481:
It is not a slamfire, it is just the equivelent of rapidly pulling the trigger. Yes, each round is fully seated, just as it would be in a full-auto rifle. Slamfires are quite similar, except that the trigger is not necessarily pulled again for each round to be discharged. Both terms are used to
314:
There are several videos on YouTube that show some people bumpfiring semi-auto weapons. To the casual observer it would appear that they are full auto weapons but watch how much the gun is moving independently of the shooters body. Also, I seem to come across bumpfire more often than bump fire
402:
It's the only term for the practice that I know of. I guess it's formally called "simulating automatic fire by rapidly firing a semiautomatic firearm". I found this letter from the US gov, which also calls it "bump-fire" (but notes that bump fire is a "vernacular used in firearms culture".
352:
Yes, but it has little or no practical value (two clues: one, it is not a technique taught in any military or police training I know of; two, Aberdeen
Proving Ground tests from WWII refer to situations that amounted to bumpfire in semiauto weapons tests as malfunctions). You can pull off the
866:
Accuracy is not the inverse of rate of fire. Aircraft gatling guns for example have to be fairly accurate. Automatic fire can be used to precisely reduce reinforced targets, such as concrete bunkers, especially with heavy machine guns e.g. US M2 Browning. The M2 also was shown to be used
628:
The text in this article divert from the text in the Patent paper. The trigger finger is held stationary pulled in against a rest support after first shot. The weapon then moves back and forth sliding on the new stock due to recoil. No left hand movement is needed, only weapon support.
574:
I've engaged in the practice, and agree it is fun, but not practical for anything other than experiencing the thrill of close-to-automatic gunfire. I feel that the "bump fire" and "bumpfire" articles be combined under "bump fire", as I believe that is the more common spelling.
910:, I agree. Actual tactical (military) use of full-auto weapons not on at least a bipod is rare. I'm scratching my head trying to think of a doctrinal, modern use. As you probably know the US went to 3-shot burst on individual weapons for a while for this reason with the
1109:
The Akins device used a spring within the stock assembly. Therefore, this was considered by the ATF to be a mechanical change to the firing mechanism of the weapon of which it was attached; consequently, the bureau determined it was a "machinegun" under the law.
336:
I see there's now a couple sources.. but do people really do this? I can't imagine how it could possibly be useful. Is it just some guy with a website who talks about this? From google, it looks like most mentions of "bump fire" are talking about nail guns.
738:. There are so many mainstream news outlets reporting on bump stocks, what they are, what they do, how many were found, detailed descriptions of bump fire, etc., that it is highly relevant to this article and deserves at least a mention with a link back to the
472:
I'm well acquainted with the practice of bump firing and have even indulged in it a few times myself, though I agree it is little more than a novelty. What I can't find a definitive answer to is whether or not bump firing is a form of
1169:
Actually, most tests of bump fire stocks are showing 7 rounds per second, which equals out to 420 RPM. I think we should rewrite the text to say something like "a cyclical rate of fire of approximately 450 rounds per minute."
440:
You can bumpfire a revolver too, or any firearm for that matter that can be fired just by pulling the trigger. Its actually takes some effort to do it right, and takes a bit of practice. But its just a funny trick really.
1507:
I have added text relating to
Cargill v. Garland in the Fifth Circuit, which struck down the ATF's opinion letter. Could some kind soul fix the citation to be a proper footnote? I don't speak markup language very well.
1046:
1540:
889:
in fully automatic mode. Aircraft gatling guns, which are fastened to a rigid massive frame, are a non-sequitur; the context here is hand-held weapons, which aren't accurate when spraying bullets at a rapid rate.
1519:
1469:
It is confusing, but if you look more closely, you'll find 62% strongly favor; 81% includes somewhat favor. 56% is in a graphic. Polls help explain why Trump banned them. I think I'll bring back this section.
482:
describe two different methods of rapid fire and both involve momentum. The difference is that bump fire requires momentum of the whole gun, slamfire requires momentum of just the firing pin within the bolt.
1149:
This is referring to cyclic rate, not sustained rate. Cyclic rate is a function of spring rate, gas pressure, and bolt weight, so I believe 800 or more rounds per minute is feasible with the right firearm.
644:
The first sentence under the headline "Mechanism" explains what a bumpstock is, the rest of the section describes the mechanism of manually bumpfiring a rifle. I moved the first sentence to the Bump Stock
373:
an entire magazine from the hip, but it is fun to do it. You are trading accuracy and safety for rapid fire of a semi-automatic rifle (usually to show off to your friends). Go to Yahoo.com and type in
1379:
928:
Actually I didn't know that. 3 shot bursts seem like a pretty good idea. My experience leans more to heavy artillery and shipboard defense systems from my DoD days. I worked a bit with the
936:, a dual gatling gun with a very high rate of fire that basically put an impressive wall of depleted uranium in the air for a missile to fly into. And I'll never forget my involvement in
1404:
721:
Oppose. I think a link from any article related to the shooting itself to this article makes more sense than actually discussing the Las Vegas shooting within the body of this article.
500:
813:
1095:
I can't actually understand from the article, why was this device banned in 2006, but other bump stocks are still not considered machine guns? What's the legal difference?
1536:
1396:
496:
483:
1515:
1188:
1171:
1136:
792:
670:
1471:
1456:
1157:
326:
1239:
387:
742:
article, for the simple reason that people are going to come here as a result of that coverage. The information is encyclopedically relevant to this article. ~
1446:
in the article, instead there is a vague mention of "just over half" of
Americans, and further, the poll data linked in the article is no longer accessible.
821:
Oppose. The murder of massed, unarmed civilians cannot accurately be described as tactical situation. One has very little to nothing to do with the other.
804:
Give it a few days, until we have a definitive source that says the shooter used the "bump fire" devices he apparently had. Maybe we'll have a brand name.
788:
504:
383:
1460:
232:
128:
1588:
1400:
442:
1081:
Should we mention the Akins
Accelerator as a bump fire device? The device was available in late 2006 but then banned by the ATF in November 2006. --
610:
1487:
1294:
Per nom. If someone wants to write a referenced article about the act of bump firing on the newly formed redirect, they are also free to do so.
576:
665:
It is being reported that in yesterday's Las Vegas mass shooting a bump stock was used. I think that might be relevant info for this article.
1578:
1179:
226:
1144:
1127:
1224:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
604:
251:
156:
1423:
poll found that 81% of
American adults supported banning bump stocks with a margin of error of ±3.5 percentage points. Another poll, by
424:
1427:, around the same time, found that 56% of American adults supported banning bump stocks with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points.
1497:
1161:
1593:
1563:
1523:
118:
654:
674:
660:
861:
753:
1200:
618:
408:
1045:
I would like to propose adding (as a see also) with content to another article for "Trigger crank" modification mechanism - per
777:
Revise the claim that "the drawback of decreased accuracy eliminates any conceivable "tactical" advantage that might be gained."
435:
1598:
1583:
1568:
1323:
1104:
1348:
770:
715:
1252:
1206:
955:
923:
901:
880:
1411:
I'm inclined to agree on this, several years later, and I have also identified a few very clear problems with the following:
1307:
1119:
844:
730:
691:
445:
1544:
420:
362:
330:
94:
1285:
830:
796:
666:
202:
90:
1479:
1451:
I'm removing this portion entirely, as it's outdated, riddled with errors, and/or unverifiable using available sources.
1573:
1558:
1153:
835:
I agree with above, one thing to note is that spraying into a crowd from a high position doesn't require precise fire.
623:
565:
322:
1389:
published in already collated and transformed forms that are impossible to ever verify or even attempt to reproduce.
638:
1034:
391:
344:
309:
1493:
looked like all or almost all of the court papers linked were submitted by the challengers, but not the government.
584:
486:
1089:
291:
818:
Give it a few weeks, and then a few months. The FBI shall have after-action reports. 05:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
395:
609:
Bump fire can be done with pistols that do not have foregrips by holding the normal grip and pushing it forward.
850:
automatic weapons aren't meant to be accurate anyway, they're designed to be used as a hose to spray targets. ~
512:
193:
151:
81:
58:
1175:
1140:
1115:
1071:
495:
I wrote the original article on this. I agree, someone please merge "bumpfire" and "bump fire" together. --
33:
1057:
885:
When firing one bullet at a time in semi-automatic mode, yes, the M2 could be used as a sniper rifle, but
1475:
462:
89:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
1502:
1358:
1270:
the page and reverse the lede sentence to make this about the device with a comment on what it does.
1215:
1076:
650:
1228:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
937:
561:
416:
367:
455:
I once saw a video of a guy bump-firing a TEC-22 pistol. I thik the wording should be changed to:
201:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1111:
739:
1017:
289:
on 4 May 2008. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see
358:
868:
781:
I think the Las Vegas shooter proved that there was a pretty fucking big "tactical advantage".
1370:
1366:
1225:
1086:
1040:
950:
896:
856:
748:
39:
404:
1511:
1392:
1319:
1248:
907:
784:
646:
553:
458:
Bump firing is the simulated automatic firing of a semi-automatic weapon, usually a rifle.
450:
379:
318:
1133:
I think we should change the source and revise the article to read 7.5 rounds per second.
8:
1341:
692:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/03/gunman-had-a-bump-stock-device-that-could-speed-fire.html
412:
21:
1067:
840:
711:
614:
1452:
1301:
1053:
766:
580:
557:
467:
354:
282:
1280:
1196:
1082:
945:
891:
851:
743:
634:
546:
341:
540:
277:
1494:
1315:
1244:
1100:
977:
941:
826:
809:
726:
185:
1336:
1332:
1003:
1552:
1529:
1063:
1027:
1010:
919:
876:
836:
707:
296:
1297:
1049:
933:
929:
762:
459:
1271:
1192:
911:
630:
338:
179:
169:
145:
1263:
1096:
822:
805:
722:
286:
1259:
517:
1424:
1024:
1007:
915:
872:
513:
474:
198:
86:
73:
52:
241:
1420:
1365:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
477:. Does each round go fully into battery while bump firing?
996:
990:
984:
1416:
1439:
in that section of the poll, the actual figure is 62%
1380:"Public Opinion" section has no place in this article
1357:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1331:- I'd have just moved this, dude. Please let someone
932:
and I remember watching a video demonstration of the
598:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
532:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
197:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
175:
85:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
983:From Single Shots to Automatics: How Firearms Work
1373:. No further edits should be made to this section.
231:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1550:
1062:Support, it’s a device with a similar purpose.
703:bump fire stocks are relevant to the shooting.
944:territory, so I guess it's best I quit it. ~
995:Banning ‘Bump Stocks’ Won’t Solve Anything
989:What Is a Bump Stock and How Does It Work?
295:; for the discussion at that location, see
1214:The following is a closed discussion of a
1589:Unknown-importance gun politics articles
1442:The CBS poll does not list that figure
19:
1551:
1488:Direct cites to court papers/litigants
1002:A gif animation could be asked to the
1537:2A01:827:897:B501:59DE:9A81:BF12:3CFB
1397:2601:142:4280:2B6:E438:B20D:3555:D9CA
1579:Unknown-importance politics articles
1233:The result of the move request was:
1128:Source for 400-800 rounds per minute
906:With those caveats and disregarding
526:The following discussion is closed.
264:
191:This article is within the scope of
79:This article is within the scope of
15:
1516:2601:602:CD00:36:5C3B:936B:A3B5:13E
605:not exclusive to holding a foregrip
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
240:
14:
1610:
1435:The "81%" figure does not appear
1594:Gun politics task force articles
1564:Low-importance Firearms articles
661:Include Las Vegas mass shooting?
592:The above discussion is closed.
268:
178:
168:
144:
72:
51:
20:
123:This article has been rated as
1431:That NPR/Ipsos poll figure is
1405:22:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
1120:02:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
685:
487:22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
211:Knowledge:WikiProject Politics
103:Knowledge:WikiProject Firearms
1:
1599:WikiProject Politics articles
1584:C-Class gun politics articles
1569:WikiProject Firearms articles
1349:19:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
1324:14:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
1253:10:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
1207:Requested move 31 August 2019
1180:08:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
1162:00:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
1145:22:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
1105:20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
655:07:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
619:16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
331:23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
249:This article is supported by
214:Template:WikiProject Politics
205:and see a list of open tasks.
106:Template:WikiProject Firearms
1201:02:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
1058:20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
956:05:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
924:04:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
902:03:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
771:20:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
585:22:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
436:Doesn't have to be semi-auto
425:07:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
7:
1524:07:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
1308:21:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
1286:20:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
1072:01:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
1035:15:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
1018:10:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
881:23:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
869:as a competent sniper rifle
862:00:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
845:23:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
831:06:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
814:22:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
754:23:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
731:06:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
716:04:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
675:14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
639:13:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
446:14:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
10:
1615:
1090:22:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
624:Wrong explenation in text?
463:23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
233:project's importance scale
129:project's importance scale
1574:C-Class politics articles
1559:C-Class Firearms articles
1545:06:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
1480:23:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
1461:19:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
568:) 01:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
505:18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
396:21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
350:Do people really do this?
345:21:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
310:Do people really do this?
248:
230:
163:
122:
67:
46:
1498:14:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
1363:Please do not modify it.
1221:Please do not modify it.
595:Please do not modify it.
529:Please do not modify it.
363:22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
997:https://nyti.ms/2xZP8J9
991:https://nyti.ms/2yJhw1t
985:https://nyti.ms/2yLUGX0
740:2017 Las Vegas shooting
252:Gun politics task force
1503:ATF opinion overturned
908:ultra-rapid burst fire
571:
245:
28:This article is rated
537:
411:comment was added by
275:The contents of the
244:
497:Boristhebulletdodger
484:Boristhebulletdodger
194:WikiProject Politics
82:WikiProject Firearms
1335:this into a move.
1189:NationalInterest16
1172:NationalInterest16
1137:NationalInterest16
1112:Irruptive Creditor
938:one of these tests
246:
93:and see a list of
34:content assessment
1526:
1514:comment added by
1472:Philosopher Spock
1407:
1395:comment added by
1305:
1243:
1240:non-admin closure
1077:Akins Accelerator
1032:
1015:
954:
900:
860:
800:
787:comment added by
752:
569:
556:comment added by
428:
398:
382:comment added by
375:"bump fire" -nail
333:
321:comment added by
307:
306:
303:
302:
263:
262:
259:
258:
217:politics articles
139:
138:
135:
134:
109:Firearms articles
1606:
1509:
1428:
1390:
1345:
1339:
1296:
1278:
1237:
1223:
1031:
1028:
1014:
1011:
948:
894:
854:
782:
746:
694:
689:
597:
551:
549:
543:
531:
406:
377:
368:Its a slang term
316:
294:
272:
271:
265:
219:
218:
215:
212:
209:
188:
183:
182:
172:
165:
164:
159:
148:
141:
140:
111:
110:
107:
104:
101:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1614:
1613:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1549:
1548:
1532:
1505:
1490:
1414:
1382:
1377:
1343:
1337:
1306:
1272:
1219:
1209:
1130:
1079:
1043:
1029:
1012:
980:
779:
699:
698:
697:
690:
686:
663:
647:Zipor haNefesch
626:
607:
602:
593:
572:
545:
539:
527:
521:
470:
453:
438:
407:—The preceding
370:
312:
290:
269:
216:
213:
210:
207:
206:
186:Politics portal
184:
177:
154:
108:
105:
102:
99:
98:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1612:
1602:
1601:
1596:
1591:
1586:
1581:
1576:
1571:
1566:
1561:
1531:
1528:
1504:
1501:
1489:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1464:
1463:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1440:
1412:
1381:
1378:
1376:
1375:
1359:requested move
1353:
1352:
1351:
1329:Speedy support
1326:
1310:
1295:
1258:
1256:
1231:
1230:
1216:requested move
1210:
1208:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1078:
1075:
1042:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1023:Request made.
1000:
999:
993:
987:
979:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
778:
775:
774:
773:
756:
733:
705:
704:
696:
695:
683:
682:
678:
662:
659:
658:
657:
625:
622:
606:
603:
601:
600:
588:
536:
535:
534:
522:
520:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
490:
489:
469:
466:
452:
449:
437:
434:
432:
430:
429:
413:Jumping cheese
369:
366:
311:
308:
305:
304:
301:
300:
273:
261:
260:
257:
256:
247:
237:
236:
229:
223:
222:
220:
203:the discussion
190:
189:
173:
161:
160:
149:
137:
136:
133:
132:
125:Low-importance
121:
115:
114:
112:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1611:
1600:
1597:
1595:
1592:
1590:
1587:
1585:
1582:
1580:
1577:
1575:
1572:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1562:
1560:
1557:
1556:
1554:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1527:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1500:
1499:
1496:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1386:
1374:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1340:
1334:
1330:
1327:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1311:
1309:
1303:
1299:
1293:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1277:
1276:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1241:
1236:
1229:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1212:
1211:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1187:
1186:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1041:Trigger Crank
1036:
1033:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1016:
1009:
1005:
998:
994:
992:
988:
986:
982:
981:
957:
952:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
926:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
904:
903:
898:
893:
888:
884:
883:
882:
878:
874:
870:
865:
864:
863:
858:
853:
848:
847:
846:
842:
838:
834:
833:
832:
828:
824:
820:
819:
817:
816:
815:
811:
807:
803:
802:
801:
798:
794:
790:
789:63.234.181.59
786:
772:
768:
764:
760:
757:
755:
750:
745:
741:
737:
734:
732:
728:
724:
720:
719:
718:
717:
713:
709:
701:
700:
693:
688:
684:
681:
677:
676:
672:
668:
667:77.167.231.99
656:
652:
648:
643:
642:
641:
640:
636:
632:
621:
620:
616:
612:
599:
596:
590:
589:
587:
586:
582:
578:
570:
567:
563:
559:
555:
548:
542:
533:
530:
524:
523:
519:
515:
506:
502:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
488:
485:
480:
479:
478:
476:
465:
464:
461:
456:
448:
447:
444:
433:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
405:
401:
400:
399:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
376:
365:
364:
360:
356:
351:
347:
346:
343:
340:
334:
332:
328:
324:
320:
298:
297:its talk page
293:
288:
284:
280:
279:
274:
267:
266:
254:
253:
243:
239:
238:
234:
228:
225:
224:
221:
204:
200:
196:
195:
187:
181:
176:
174:
171:
167:
166:
162:
158:
153:
150:
147:
143:
142:
130:
126:
120:
117:
116:
113:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1533:
1510:— Preceding
1506:
1491:
1453:SilverXnoise
1443:
1436:
1432:
1391:— Preceding
1387:
1383:
1362:
1356:
1342:
1328:
1312:
1291:
1281:
1274:
1273:
1267:
1257:
1234:
1232:
1220:
1213:
1154:96.19.142.21
1152:
1148:
1135:
1131:
1080:
1061:
1044:
1001:
934:Kashtan CIWS
930:Phalanx CIWS
886:
783:— Preceding
780:
758:
735:
706:
687:
679:
664:
627:
608:
594:
591:
573:
558:Sharkface217
552:— Preceding
538:
528:
525:
471:
457:
454:
451:Rifles only?
439:
431:
378:— Preceding
374:
371:
355:Naaman Brown
349:
348:
335:
323:71.175.65.42
313:
276:
250:
192:
157:Gun politics
124:
80:
40:WikiProjects
1371:move review
1226:move review
1083:Marc Kupper
946:Anachronist
892:Anachronist
852:Anachronist
744:Anachronist
384:66.95.19.42
317:—Preceding
292:its history
1553:Categories
1530:Neutrality
1495:Neutrality
1316:Rreagan007
1264:Bump stock
1245:Cwmhiraeth
806:John Nagle
680:References
645:section.--
544:merged to
443:SnitchyCat
287:Bump stock
281:page were
95:open tasks
91:discussion
1367:talk page
1260:Bump fire
761:per nom.
547:bump fire
518:bump fire
468:Slamfire?
1512:unsigned
1444:anywhere
1437:anywhere
1425:CBS News
1393:unsigned
1385:nature.
1369:or in a
1064:Botclone
942:WP:FORUM
837:Botclone
797:contribs
785:unsigned
708:Botclone
611:Halconen
566:contribs
554:unsigned
541:bumpfire
514:Bumpfire
475:slamfire
421:contribs
409:unsigned
392:contribs
380:unsigned
319:unsigned
278:bumpfire
208:Politics
199:politics
152:Politics
100:Firearms
87:firearms
59:Firearms
1415:A 2018
1333:WP:SNOW
1313:Support
1298:ZXCVBNM
1292:Support
1050:Shaded0
1004:WP:GL/I
978:Sources
763:Shaded0
759:Support
736:Support
577:Aracona
460:CeeWhy2
127:on the
30:C-class
1433:wrong.
1275:bd2412
1235:Moved.
1193:Drmies
1030:(talk)
1013:(talk)
631:KjellG
342:(talk)
339:Friday
283:merged
36:scale.
1421:Ipsos
1344:Slash
1097:Ain92
912:M16A2
823:Syr74
723:Syr74
285:into
1541:talk
1520:talk
1476:talk
1457:talk
1401:talk
1320:talk
1302:TALK
1268:Move
1249:talk
1197:talk
1176:talk
1158:talk
1141:talk
1116:talk
1101:talk
1087:talk
1068:talk
1054:talk
1047:link
1006:. --
951:talk
920:talk
914:. ☆
897:talk
877:talk
871:. ☆
857:talk
841:talk
827:talk
810:talk
793:talk
767:talk
749:talk
727:talk
712:talk
671:talk
651:talk
635:talk
615:talk
581:talk
562:talk
516:and
501:talk
417:talk
388:talk
359:talk
327:talk
1417:NPR
1338:Red
1025:Yug
1008:Yug
916:Bri
887:not
873:Bri
550:--
227:???
119:Low
1555::
1543:)
1522:)
1478:)
1459:)
1403:)
1361:.
1322:)
1262:→
1251:)
1218:.
1199:)
1178:)
1160:)
1143:)
1118:)
1103:)
1070:)
1056:)
922:)
879:)
843:)
829:)
812:)
799:)
795:•
769:)
729:)
714:)
673:)
653:)
637:)
617:)
583:)
564:•
503:)
423:)
419:•
394:)
390:•
361:)
329:)
155::
1539:(
1518:(
1474:(
1455:(
1419:/
1399:(
1318:(
1304:)
1300:(
1282:T
1247:(
1242:)
1238:(
1195:(
1174:(
1156:(
1139:(
1114:(
1099:(
1085:|
1066:(
1052:(
953:)
949:(
918:(
899:)
895:(
890:~
875:(
859:)
855:(
839:(
825:(
808:(
791:(
765:(
751:)
747:(
725:(
710:(
669:(
649:(
633:(
613:(
579:(
560:(
499:(
427:.
415:(
386:(
357:(
325:(
299:.
255:.
235:.
131:.
97:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
