Talk:HK 4.6×30mm

message: The SS195 fired out of a P90 or PS90 is faster than the 4.6x30 (2300-2450 ft/s), and the projectile mass is 28 grain. Since I don't have much information on 4.6 x 30 mm in terms of terminal ballistics or wound profiles, I can't say which is a better cartridge. However, fans of either PDW should expect a LOT of resistance from those in the professional community regarding the lethalities of either caliber. Just remember that the MP7 and P90 PDWs and the calibers were intended to replace conventional pistol cartridges (9mm Luger or 45 Auto FMJ/ball) and not rifle cartridges such as 5.56 x 45 NATO.
(Metroplex 23:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actually... 

message: "The 4.6mm caliber has been criticized for its supposedly low terminal effectiveness, but in real use this is not a problem. Because of its accuracy and low recoil the 4.6mm cartridge is deadly in the hands of any competent shooter."
Surely the only way to prove it's deadliness will be to cite instances of people being shot with it? Yes, accuracy and low recoil are nice, but that alone will not make a "deadly" cartridge. Optimus Sledge 06:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadliness 

message: Correct me if I am wrong, it is late and I may have misread the article, but it mentions the 4.6mm is generally weaker than the 5.7mm, but the ballistics chart describes a velocity and muzzle energy higher than that posted on the 5.7mm ammo page.  This seems terribly inconsistent.67.162.174.62 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency

message: The article, particularly the Performance section appears to be arguing with itself.  It's like sitting next to a crazy guy on a bus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limbo socrates (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 4.6 is definitely inferior to the 5.7, but not really. 

message: I removed the HKPro comparison table and instead summarized it briefly in the article overview, for several reasons. First, the industry standard for ballistic gelatin testing is a 10% mix, not the 20% mix used in the tests. Second, the neutrality of HKPro as a source is questionable, especially in a comparison of this sort. Third, in direct contradiction to the HKPro tests, Global Defence Review (GDR) states that the result of extensive testing by NATO showed 5.7x28mm to be "undoubtedly more efficient" than 4.6x30mm, with "greater effectiveness against unprotected targets and equal effectiveness against protected targets". See source. ROG5728 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  HKPro comparison table 

message: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support. --Francis Flinch (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: In the article, under "Variations," we see:
"The muzzle velocity V0 and V100 indicate a ballistic coefficient of approximately 0.141 to 0.150 (BC's are somewhat debatable)..."
That is all very well, which drag model is this?  The old G1 drag model?  The G7 drag model for boat-tailed spitzer bullets?  Or something else?  BC's are not debatable at all, by the way.  They are empirically measurable, mathematically model-able, and even predictable given sufficient information about the projectile's geometry, mass, and dimensions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Ballistic coefficient and External ballistics.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ballistic coefficient? 

message: The reason some writers use 4.6 x 30mm HK as the cartridge's designator is that after the FN P90 hit the market, a lot of manufacturers entered their competing designs. Knight's Armament Corporation used a 6x35mm round (6x35mm KAC) and Parker Hale submitted one using the 9x19mm Parabellum round. The "HK" refers to the HK-sponsored cartridge design used in their proprietary MP7 weapon. It is sometimes called the 4.6mm RO because the ammunition factory Royal Ordnance - Radway Green developed the bullet.  
As for the 4.6 vs 4,6 debate, it depends on the notation system used by the writer's country of origin. Many European nations do it 4,6 rather than 4.6. 4.6 is the standard used by Wikipedia because it is the most common.  
Fiocchi  manufactures the civilian ammo and just calls it the 4.6 x 30.
Another box depicts it as HK 4.6x30mm Police.  
Hotspur23 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designation of 4.6 x 30 mm  

message: I have deleted several citations to HKPRO.com. It is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles because its articles are anonymously posted and there's no discernible editorial review process. See WP:V for general rules, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#HKPRO/ hkpro.com for a specific discussion of this source. I also deleted a block of ballistic tests sourced solely to that site. Rezin (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  HKPRO 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on HK 4.6×30mm. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.global-defence.com/2006/Utilities/article.php?id=40
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on HK 4.6×30mm. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.global-defence.com/2006/Utilities/article.php?id=40
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311034656/http://www.fsdip.com/website/The46x30mmB2Fcartridge/tabid/405/Default.aspx to http://www.fsdip.com/website/The46x30mmB2Fcartridge/tabid/405/Default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080606091110/http://www.hkpro.com/pdw.htm to http://www.hkpro.com/pdw.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/calculations/bcv/bcv.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) 07:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified