Talk:Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1

Mistake

This is not a gas-operated gun. It's mechanisms all electrical powered. Even the shell powder charge burn by ignition of electrical powered detonator. Only misfires been cleared by unique mechanism described in current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.133.105 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A little bit correction there. The trigger system is electrically-powered, but the gun itself is operating on recoil-operation principle. Even the official manufacturer website states that. But it is true that this gun is not gas-operated. Perhaps it is mistaken with the double-barreled Gsh-30K? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.254.88.152 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Old talk

Um... this gun is not like the Vulcan except for the fact that they are both aircraft mounted. It's closest mechanical relatives would be either the Oerlikon 35mm cannon (both are single barrel and high rate of fire) or the GAU-8 or GAU-13 30mm Gatling cannons (both are aircraft mounted and of 30mm). 137.53.85.122 (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Alex

Not sure why there is a comment in there stating "It is perhaps important to note that US aircraft may come with up to 940 rounds" given that there is no information on the amount of ammunition carried with a GSh-30-1 in this article. Not only does it not actually give any measure of comparison but it seems like it was added by someone wishing to specifically criticise the GSh-30-1 and support a pro-US arms position. I do not see what place it has in this article without proper means of comparison and a more thorough explanation of the differences in philosophy for aircraft mounted auto-cannon's.

- It is potentially misleading to quote ammunition capacity without quoting other figures like rate of fire and weight of ammunition. The Gsh-301 is said to have considerably less dispersion and more effective ammunition. It also has a more effective range finding/targeting system than contemporary NATO fighters had. I have a quote from one of the designers who states that he would have given the weapon half its current ammunition supply (ie. only 75 rounds) if he'd known it would be as effective as it is. I'll post references when the book with this quote turns up.--Hrimpurstala (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- However, I'll have to disagree with the idea that these weapons aren't comparable: They were designed for use in equivalent roles and represent (along with the DEFA) the leading weapons of their time.--Hrimpurstala (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that quote was from Mikhail Simonov but I have no reference to it.Flanker235 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

designation

the actual Russian designation is GSh-301

Shouldn't this article be moved to Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-301 then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.178.116 (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Definitely, someone will need to change the redirects as well --Hrimpurstala (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that unique to this gun only? Because all of the other articles, such as the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 are still written in the hyphenated style. I'd think it was more important for the article titles to be consistent with each other. Anyway, isn't the most commonly used name given preference over the most accurate name anyway? I don't know all the Wiki policies, but I remember something like that. If the majority of people reading Wikipedia have only ever seen it written "GSh-30-1", then that's what they'll be looking for. By all means, include the info in the article, but I think the title should have stayed as "30-1", for consistency,.45Colt 22:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any source that states that the name of this weapon is "offically" the GSh-301, but rather most sources (including the Sputnik link, https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-and-hear-the-su-30sm-flankers-hard-hitting-30mm-c-1734478366, https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/18/video-of-live-fire-tests-of-the-russian-t-50-stealth-fighters-30-mm-gun-appears-online/, https://books.google.com/books?id=Kt2ZaOilGXIC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=%22GSh-30-1%22&source=bl&ots=vREVhQ-II1&sig=746iSb8hrMRe8dDUkupsXAn-n18&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiYtP2RvPzcAhUD3YMKHTv2B7w4HhDoATAIegQIAhAB#v=onepage&q=%22GSh-30-1%22&f=false, and others) use GSh-30-1. This change appears to have been made off of unsourced information. I'm also concerned that the Weaponsystem.net source may not be reliable. Garuda28 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Barrel life

" it uses a short recoil action instead of a revolver cannon or Gatling gun mechinism. This results in a reduced rate of fire, and very short barrel life, but lower weight and bulk."

I don't like the suggestion here that it has a shorter barrel life than a revolver or Gatling cannon. A Gatling, yes, since it divides its fire between multiple barrels which prolongs barrel life by lowering the rate of fire per barrel, but not a revolver cannon. It has a shorter barrel life than a Gatling, a lower rate of fire than either type, but with the benefit of being less bulky and heavy. Perhaps I will change it to reflect that..45Colt 22:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Article preview tag

First, I notice that the article still appears to suggest that for some reason the fact that the Gsh-301 is recoil operated reduces its barrel life below that of both Gatling and revolver cannons. I still don't see how a single barrel, recoil operated cannon should inherently have a shorter life than a single barreled revolver cannon. If for some reason it does have a particularly short barrel life, it is more likely due to something like barrel metallurgy or using a very high-pressure cartridge. The article ought to explain WHY a Gsh-301 has a "very low" barrel life expectancy as opposed to a revolver cannon like the ADEN, DEFA, or BK27. Those ought to actually have even shorter barrel lives, with their very high rate of fire out of a single barrel.

Anyway, I've brought that up already. What I really came here to say is that the preview tag for the article is wrong. When you turn on preview settings, it shows a little blurb and a photograph of of the page when you hover over a link on Wikipedia. I notice the blurb for this page says that "The Gsh-301 is a 30mm Gatling-type autocannon...", which is totally wrong. A Gatling type cannon has multiple barrels and is generally externally powered. But I have no clue how one changes these preview tags, so I can't fix it. Hopefully someone who knows how will fix this? Thanks..45Colt 20:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)