Talk:Mateba Autorevolver

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mateba Autorevolver article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Muzzle velocity

Muzzle velocity of 1800 ft/min (9 m/s)? Surely it should be 1800 ft/s. Please check. Bobblewik 21:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the Shell

"if mateba srl was founded in 97 then how come togusa makes mension of his gun in the 95 movie Ghost in the Shell?"

The model 6 Unica discussed in the article is a recent design, but Mateba and, in particular the underbarrel "6-o'clock" Mateba pistols have been around for a long time. Previous generations of the Model-6 Unica were similar in design and fame. It is thus very likely that the original Manga, and subsequent GITS movie, used similar inspirations for Togusa's sidearm(s).

"The Wielder"

"This revolver type, when fired, automatically recocks the hammer and rotates the cylinder for the wielder." I'm sure I'm not alone in finding this description of the shooter somewhat bizarre. If nobody objects I will change it to "the shooter". Wulfilia 08:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't hurt anything. Go ahead ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mateba 6 Unica.jpg

Image:Mateba 6 Unica.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

ok this article needs some citations on the actual creator of this.

there has been an argument on the actual creator and this page was recently edited to one specific point of view, so don't beleave everything this says to the word.

I'm not advocating any side but I just want there to be an accurate, correct article.

so if any one can confirm the creator and the name meaning for this gun with citations, we would all be very greatful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.232.86 (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be difficult to find any citations, but I do believe the man who designed it was Sergio Mateba(There's no article on him on the wiki for reasons unknown to me.). 207.5.213.97 (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recoil - needs detail

I get that the recoil cocks the hammer and thus rotates the cylinder, allowing a single action trigger pull. What I'm not getting is the mechanism. Does the gun recoil, in a way analogous to the slide of an autoloader, which visibly moves when fired? It looks from the front like the entire cylinder, barrel and hammer mechanism recoil on the grip and trigger and frame, but the contours of the grip seem to make this impossible. Or is a purely internal mechanism? Can someone who has used one clear this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourMessageHere (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

never mind, found this info on one of the cited sources. Silly me. Adding it now. YourMessageHere (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple cartridge capabilities

What about the other caliber versions of the gun? Can the .44 Magnum version fire .44 S&W ammunition properly? Darkeye11547 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean .44 S&W American, .44 S&W Russian, or .44 S&W Special? If .44 Spl or .44 Russian, yes; otherwise, no. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all the different variants were available in at least .357 and .44 magnum. I have a 8" "Hunter" version of the .357 so that's why I edited the section that showed a calibre with the variant.User lococnc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.244.17 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this any different then a normal double action revolver?

well? 69.132.79.61 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather late, but:

A double-action revolver is actually manually operated. All energy for advancing the cylinder and cocking the hammer come from the manual action of pulling the trigger.
This is semi-automatic. When you pull the trigger, the energy of firing is used to advance the cylinder and cock the hammer. This means you have a single-action trigger pull on a self-cocking and self-advancing revolver.

Granted it's pointlessly complex for very little real advantage, but it is different. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blank verse

Since someone evidently thinks the page is meant to be a catalog of every casual mention, let me explain. The "pop culture" sections are meant for significant cultural impacts, comparable to those of the M29 in "Dirty Harry". Saying "this isn't that gun" is precisely the point (or willful ignorance, I can't tell which): the Mateba has not been mentioned anywhere with that kind of cultural importance. Casual mention in a poetry journal, "professionally edited" or otherwise, does not qualify as significant. If this was the AutoMag & it was used by a character in a series of books, yes; a major motion picture, possibly; even in a single novel, maybe. A couple of lousy poems in a journal read by at most a few hundred people? Don't be absurd. This should be deleted promptly & permanently. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:54, 15 September 2012 & 17:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuttin' a wad

I'm not really sure how fix this issue, so let me raise it. The mention of two recoil springs & the ".38 wadcutter" reference seems to elevate the wadcutter slug (not a unique round in any fashion) to its own distinct caliber. For those not familiar with firearms, this is, obviously, problematic. I recognize the linked page clarifies; I'd rather it be clear here on casual reading, too. Does anyone have any thoughts on fixing it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mateba Autorevolver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]