Talk:Wildcat cartridge

message: I added the 6.8 SPC entry to the "commercially accepted wildcats" article some time ago, but I now question whether or not it should be moved to the "commercially developed wildcats" segment of the entry.  It was developed mainly by Remington engineers, and honestly it hasn't gotten a great deal of commercial acceptance - although it remains to be seen how much staying power the cartridge has.  I may just move it myself within a few weeks, if nobody objects.
:That sounds good--and it is getting wider acceptance, Ruger has come out with a Mini-6.8 rifle.  scot 22:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't change the fact that it presumably was accepted at one point.  If a significant number of commercial firearms were manufactured in that caliber and/or a major ammunition maker manufactured ammunition in the caliber, the I'd say it was commercially accepted, albeit perhaps obsolete.  Sounds a lot like the .25-06 Remington, which was a wildcat for many years until Remington accepted it, but it's never been a big caliber.  scot 22:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  6.8 SPC and .303/25 

message: I find this section completely wrong. The most glaring error is that the “most difficult to manufacture part of a wildcat is the barrel”. This is completely erroneous. Barrel making is a separate part of the firearm manufacturing processes than chambering. I can get any number of barrels made in: 2 types of alloy; alloy sleeved aluminum, carbon fiber rapped; in over 20 different calibers; in twist rates of 1:5 to 42:1, smooth bore, 3 grooved to 9 grooved, polygonal to gain twist; round, half round to full octagonal, from more that a dozen major barrel makes. This does not include the manufactures themselves or the small custom shops. Need I go back to the second sentence or on to the fourth sentence of the first paragraph? Also to go back up to the last topic “Commercially developed wildcats”, the second and last paragraph is in conflict with what the community feels is a definition for the wildcat (personally I think wrongly).
I purpose to delete this section of the article or integrate the correct information into the section of “Wildcat goals and methods”. I feel wildcats are not developed. Wildcats are the improvement of an existing, developed cartridge.Greg Glover (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to disagree "wildcats are not developed". The best of them take a lot of work to get to the common, publicly-known form. Take a look at the development of the .41 Special, just for instance, or a lot of Harvey's work. Yeah, they start from commercial rounds, but they don't just appear, fully formed & perfect. That takes development.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed my point. But your response is well received. If you believe wildcats are “developed” then what the section should talk about is; goals, case forming, load development, computer diagnostic equipment, trial and error, hypothesis, outcome etc… This section reads like a how-to for shooters that want to buy a firearm chambered in a wildcat from a custom gun builder. What do you think?Greg Glover (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have. As written, it's a bit "kit car"-ish, "how to assemble the pieces", not "how to do the work". If (as your post to my talk suggests) you mean it should be more specific to the technical issues, including selecting cases, measuring pressures, judging what's too much pressure, powder, load, & slug selection, casting/swaging slugs, & so on, I'd completely agree. When I think of "development", that is what I think of, which (I think) is what you meant (but maybe not what I understood you to mean to begin with...).  TREKphiler hit me ♠  21:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Development of a Wildcat

message: To say that Wildcat cartridges are common in Australia seems a little absurd as guns are not common. We have very strict gun laws and hunting as a sport is not common. Also no one here would refer to a kangaroo as a "varmint", that's not a term used in Australia. 121.44.212.152 (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wildcat cartridges are common as a proportion of legally owned guns. There are a lot of .303/25 rifles out there, and whilst hunting here is not as big a pastime as it is in the US, there are still significant numbers of farmers and hunters in Australia. You're right about Kangaroos not being "varmints", though. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildcat cartridges in Australia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Wildcat cartridge. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071101012837/http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/w30herr.html to http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/w30herr.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071101012933/http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/w357herr.html to http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/w357herr.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified