Talk:Pistol sword

Proposed merge with Bayonet due to lack of focus

It seems the move to Pistol Sword did not have the desired effect of indicating that the article should focus on the real world weapon. The article seems to now be a few words on the existence of pistol-swords followed by a list of computer games with weapons combining blades and pistols, whether firing or not. Furthermore, it seems there is insufficient information available on the internet for general users to be able to create a worthwhile article. A military historian, or someone with access to books detailing the weapon might be able to provide more information, but this has not yet occurred and does not seem likely to. I propose the article is merged with Bayonet, perhaps under a section "Permanent bayonets" or "Pistol-swords". The popular culture references are neither necessary nor desirable, as the information would better serve the community if it were in the articles about the games themselves. We don't have a list of every computer game that has an AK47 in it, nor should Pistol Sword contain such a list. I was wrong about the move from Gunblade to Pistol Sword. --Cameron.walsh 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree to merge. The article is currently too unbalanced; the pop culture section is too large while the first section, the most important one, is too small. Kariteh 09:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Support merging this stub into the bigger article makes sense also move the trivia and Final fantasy bits back to Gunblade rather than merging in. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gunblade used to redirect Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Cast creation and influences because Gunblades were not notable enough to warrant their own article. Old content was revamped and the article moved to Pistol Sword, in order to focus on the real-world item. Gunblade was left to redirect to Pistol Sword. Instead, Gunblade should have been left to redirect to the Final Fantasy article, with Pistol Sword keeping the real-world bits. However, Pistol Swords seem to be little more than a footnote in military history, with nobody able or willing to provide the information necessary to upgrade the article from stub class. That's why I proposed that the real world Pistol Sword should be merged in to Bayonet, with Gunblade returning to its old redirect. I'll leave this up for a while longer, in case anyone has any compelling arguments against the above, before I do the merge, unless somebody else beats me to it. Any policies I should be aware of before doing that? --Cameron.walsh 03:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. The size of both the bayonet and pistol sword articles represents a lack of editor contributions rather than limited room to expand. Both articles are too short, but that doesn't mean they should be thrown together--they are unique weapons, like the difference between a knife and a sword, or a rifle and a handgun. The pistol sword has a long history on the high seas and is an evolutionary step between bladed arms, like the cutlass (or its predecessor), and dependable firearms. The bayonet, on the other hand, is evolved from the pike, and its origins lie with the battlefield. They are two separate weapons serving similar, though unique purposes in history. I say, instead of spending the time on deciding whether or not to mix two articles together to make one more substantive, we should instead improve both articles to make the articles better. TeamZissou 23:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge. These are too different weapons, one rather rare, one extremely common. Rmhermen 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the term "pistol sword" is almost exclusive to Wikipedia (ie, OR). Less than 1000 G-hits. Axem Titanium 02:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "Original Research" just because of the limited number of google hits - references have been provided. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a generally accepted name. "Gunblade" is exclusive to computer games, variations on "Pistol Sword" such as "Pistol Blade", "Pistol Cutlass" and so forth yield similar but slightly fewer google hits. The problem is that most of the information is not available online. Somebody needs to go to a library, bring forth the information and cite it. TeamZissou is correct in that bayonets and pistol swords serve different purposes (bayonets to cope with lack of ammunition and to avoid shooting team mates, pistol swords because the pistols were not sufficiently reliable and were slow to reload). --Cameron.walsh 12:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether the articles are merged or both are improved separately, it is clear that the Final Fantasy information does not belong with the article. Half of the game items work completely differently to the actual real world weapon. As a preliminary step, I'll redirect Gunblade to a FF items article, and remove the popular culture section on the pistol sword page. Unless there are objections to this, I'll do it in a week or two. --Cameron.walsh 12:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I agree with the opinion that the bayonet and pistol sword articles represent two separate weapons serving similar purposes. Also concur with the suggestion that both articles should be improved, especially related to mentioning supporting bibliography (that I don't have on this topic).

DPdH 02:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I oppose as the bayonet is of historical significance. The pistol sword has no merit in regards to bayonets neither historically or in development. Further note that the bayonet is a military weapon while the pistol sword has no historical use in any military capacity. Merging articles & discussion revolving around videogames & fiction destroys the integrity of the existing article on bayonets and this pistol sword has no place whatsoever in any discussion on bayonets. I've read hundreds of books and websites on bayonets and not a single one of them refer to pistol swords or any similar weapon. The pistol sword is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter around bayonets & does not belong. 17,Jan. 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.253.196 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose removing the merge tags and leaving the articles separate, based on a lack of consensus for the merge. Is that reasonable? JJL (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous move from Gunblade to Pistol Sword

I moved the article to "Gunblade" and added a note that it was a fictional weapon that really wouldn't work that well in real life.

Furthermore, Gunblades have very little to do with Pistol Swords. A better article specifically about Pistol Swords should really be made. Right now I just have it redirecting to Gunblade so other Final Fantasy articles still link to it.

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Final_Fantasy/archive/24#Articles_on_Real_World_Items. Fancruft is getting heavily deleted these days. I don't think it stands a chance as a Final Fantasy only page. Rmhermen 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem I had is that the "Pistol Sword" article was obviously about Gunblades, and hardly mentioned real Pistol Swords at all. I'd like to see Gunblade redirect to a list of Final Fantasy weapons or something. 68.224.240.157 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I rewrote the article to be specifically about the real world "Pistol Sword", and moved the description of the gunblade down into the FInal Fantasy section. The layout is a little unwieldy, but it's much more clear now what parts are about fictional items. Letting "Gunblade" redirect here will also sum up what it is, isn't, and direct the reader towards Final Fantasy articles. Tomorrow, in the daylight, I'll take a nice photo of the pistol-sword I have and put it up. 68.224.240.157 06:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is anyway to entirely disassociate this article from "gunblade", that's something that should be done. If I knew of a way to do so, I'd do it now. Druff (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed Gunblade to redirect to a page about final fantasy weapons, since that mentions gunblades, and this article seems to have lost all mention of them. Gotler (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research?

Does this term even exist in academic literature? Google test only scores 1000 hits outside Wikipedia and many are from coincidental pairings. Axem Titanium 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen no, someone created it to move it away from gunblade & it didn't work. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose a number of things to solve this:

1. Move the article back to Gunblade to preserve edit history.
2. Merge with Bayonet in a new section called "Fictional portrayal" or something.
3. Delete the Pistol sword redirect because the term does not exist, use RfD or something.

Objections? Axem Titanium 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Drawings in US patent number 52504 [1] and 254 [2] use the words "Pistol-Sword" and several replica weapon companies use them term. The weapons themselves were short-lived enough that much of the history is simply not on the web. Some of the few remaining weapons are on public display, albeit in Poland. Photos of surviving pistol-swords are available at [3] and [4]. Surely this is enough to satisfy the "no original research" criteria? As for what to do with the article, it should definitely not be merged under "fictional portrayal" given the evidence for the existence of the weapons. Unless you meant the Final Fantasy Gunblade material? I think we've established that the weapon did at one stage exist; the problem now is whether or not it is sufficiently different from a bayonet to warrant its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron.walsh (talk • contribs) 09:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel like the concept itself is not sufficiently different from bayonets; they're practically the same except bayonets are designed to be removable. I would suggest to go through with the merging then. Axem Titanium 00:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the weapon existed. Perhaps Sword revolver or Sword-revolver was a more common term? I don't see many references to it on Google, but it seems clear that such a thing was made and I'd say it merits an encyclopedia entry. As to fantasy "gunblades," I can think of others; e.g., in the movie Ultraviolet there is a variation of this idea (image here; yes, those are meant to be swords sticking out at the bottom). I would move the page to Sword revolver which is the term used in the lead paragraph at the original reference in the article. JJL (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for expanding this article. I've known about Pinfire sword rifles for some years, but FF8's Gunblades were all I could find in searches. It's nice to see some clarification on the facts of the issue. People used to claim they were fictional, invented by Final Fantasy, going on about bayonettes. Bayonettes are detachable accessory. Thank you for proof that these were more common, varied weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.18.10 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This article contains a cyclical reference to "Gunblade"

This article has a "See also" link for "Gunblade", a fictional weapon from the video game Final Fantasy VIII. Unfortunately, "Gunblade" redirects to this article, which has a "See also" link for it that redirects to this article, which has a "See also"--crap. See? I got stuck in a loop for a moment. It appears that this article used to be primarily about the fictional gunblade, but that the article was rewritten to be about pistol swords. Supposedly, "Gunblade" should be redirecting to whatever article the old gunblade information was moved to. One way or another, someone who knows more about this article's history should probably get rid of the cyclical condition, by whatever means is appropriate.

While I'm here, I might as well weigh in on the demi-debate on this article. I'd suggest that this article (being about the real weapon) be merged with bayonet for the following reason(s). While it certainly is worthy of its own section in the bayonet article, I see them as two variations of the same specific concept. The only distinction I can see between them is the primary/secondary nature of the sword and firearm. The idea of a weapon that integrates the functionality of a sword and a gun is one specific concept in my mind, just like the idea of a vehicle that integrates the functionality of a watercraft and a land vehicle. Watercraft with mechanisms for travelling over land (i.e. powered wheels) shouldn't be in an article separate from land vehicles with mechanisms for travelling over water (i.e. buoyant cabin, aquatic propulsion & steering). My reasoning for this is that they are only different things in that the extent to which it is primarily one or the other (e.g. sword or firearm) is varied. The pistol sword happens to be a sword first and a firearm second, but even among the examples given in the article, the "swordness"/"firearmness" ratio is varied, at least as far as appearance goes. The German hunting knife looks like the sword-first equivalent of a typical bayonet, in that it appears to just be a regular knife with a firing mechanism attached to it. The pistol cutlass also appears to be just a straight cutlass with a mechanism attached to it. The Spanish 6-shot has a more integrated design, and looks to me like it may have been constructed by notching an existing blade and mating it with a long typically-styled flintlock body, and finally a pommel attached to the bottom. It has a very sawed-off look, and is lacking a guard between the flintlock body and the blade. In my mind, it's a sword that's been notched and had its hilt replaced with a custom-made flintlock body. Lastly, Rauch's design appears to be a true hybrid, with a proper (blade) guard that serves also as a trigger guard and a reasonable grip for either purpose. While it's still probably more sword-first than firearm-first, we're getting closer and closer to the middle of the spectrum. Continuing to the other side, you have permanent bayonets, non-permanent bayonets, and on into things like the 18th century knife pistol shown under "Similar weapons" which might as well be a taped-on pocket knife. 140.31.211.242 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging with Bayonet has been discussed before and I personally think that it's fine that this is a separate article. Bayonets were successful and are continued to be used today. These strange weapons were never successful and probably didn't have very much influence on the development of bayonets. Rolen47 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

japanese pistol sword

The item does in fact exist, and examples occasionally show up for sale. The weapon was for officers and most likely for use as an assault weapon. That should be enough information to go and cite some source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.98.38 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Henry VIII's pistol shield "pop culture" reference

In the Anime "Gundam Wing", the Mercurius suit has a shield that emits a beam sword from the center barrel/protrusion. I'm not sure if it actually fires, like a gun/laser in the series. However it does fire from the shield in the Super Nintendo game "Gundam Wing: Endless Duel". The shield itself looks pretty much identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.18.10 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Century clarification

some flintlock pistols of the 17th and 18th centuries were constructed as gun-swords

combination swordsticks and wheel lock pistols have been in use since the 16th century

I noticed the gunblade disambig mentions:

Pistol sword, a rare type of combination weapon in use from the 16th until the 19th centuries.

The ref I found supporting the combination swordstick/wheellock (expanded the cite) says:

Dated to the end of the 16th century, this sword cane (already a combination weapon) also incorporates a wheel-lock firearm

I am wondering if the disambig summary might need to be changed. Should we specify the type of pistol (wheellock) and the type of sword (swordstick/canesword) and that it was later in the 16th century? Or is the general idea fine? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)