Talk:16-inch/50-caliber Mark 7 gun

message: It appears the USN wants to dispose of the replacement barrels. Is that something to discuss in the article?
http://www.govliquidation.com/­auction/view?auctionId=4229536
NOTE!:"%C2%AD" will appear in the URL when you click the link! You must delete that in order to go to the page I wanted to link to!
173.78.130.181 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: They're selling these old barrels

message: 1 in 25 what... feet, inches??? what was a typical muzzle velocity? --Kvuo 04:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedia of Weapons & Warfare (Phoebus Publishing, 1978), Vol 14, "Iowa", p1461, has propelling charge 297kg, MV 762m/s, shell 1225kg, range 38720m @45°.  Trekphiler 09:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  twist 

message: I notice that nowhere in this article is the range of this gun mentioned. What is it? Alex.tan 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: range 38720m @45°. -- dude mentioned right above --Kvuo 14:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range 

message: Notice anything special about this sentence: "It is often considered to be the best battleship gun ever designed, due to its power and efficiency." Yep, it contains "it is often considered" without any reference. 
Should either be sourced or deleted. 85.227.226.168 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  best, huh? 

message: There isn't anything in the article about the legality of owning one of these. Is it? Is there a specific law against it? 76.28.138.83 (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Department of Defense is required to demilitarize all artillery before it can be transferred from the military, so you can't legally acquire one of these. TomTheHand (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You CAN legally acquire one. In demil condition, where the breach is cut away and the barrel cut in no longer than 8 foot long lengths. The URL listed in the "they're selling these" has the demil instructions.76.98.121.53 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian Ownership? 

message: The illustration of the battleship's heavy gun turret and feeding system identifies it (accurately) as a 16" gun.  How did "50 caliber" get introduced into the title? 
Caliber is a measure of muzzle bore and refers to hundredths of an inch, and is generally represented with a decimal point. ".50 caliber" represents one half inch, and is the caliber of heavy machine guns and extreme sniper rifles.  Still, .50 cal. is 1/32 the size of the battleship's big guns.  
71.234.203.245 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In artillery, the length of the gun's barrel is often specified in the number of calibers long the barrel is.  In the case of the 16"/50 caliber gun, the barrel is 16 × 50 = 800 inches (66 ft 8 in) long.  See our article on caliber, specifically the section titled Caliber as a measure of length. TomTheHand (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  16"/50 caliber = incompatible; what's with the 50 cal? 

message: Israel Walker (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weapon construction

message: This article could use  as shown by another naval rifle: BL 13.5 inch Mk V naval gun -MBK004 05:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, that absence surprised me. I think I could could go apply it now... About four months late. But yeah, it's definitely worth adding. This only leaves the question of what image should be used as the main caption. I think that the photo of the USS Iowa firing a broadside would be most appropriate. Nottheking (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

message: The assertion that the 16"/50 had nearly equal penetrating power as the Japanese 18.1" is preposterous.
The site that makes the claim also shows data tables on that website that directly contradicts that claim.
For instance:
According to that site, the 16" will penetrate 12.97" of side armor at 35000 yrds, while the Japanese 18.1" is penetrating 16.38" of side armor(32000 yrds).
In what universe does a difference of 3.48" in penetration, nearly a quarter less penetration ability, constitute "nearly equal penetrating power" ?
70.50.186.175 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  16"/50 Claims 

message: Does anyone find it curious that the second reference apparently states battleships are not moved sideways by the thrust of the guns firing, yet the photo of USS Iowa shows at least the bow portion has abruptly moved sideways as the guns fire?--Rwberndt (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Im correcting the text to the effect that apparently that kind of movement was no big deal. I agree that you can't fool the laws of physics. --BjKa (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Actually there should also be some increased rolling, as I guess the guns must have been well above the center of gravity. Of course the firing computer might have been programmed to use the gunfire for decreasing any previous roll. --BjKa (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sideways movement 

message: All the sources I've seen on these guns (if I recall also in the military when I served on the USS Wisconsin) refer to these guns as 406 mm. In fact, the gun specification in the box also gives this measurement. However, most of the time this article and at least the ones on the Wisconsin and Missouri give the caliber as 410mm. Either one or the other should be corrected, but I don't have hard sources to support either.  Scyg (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric caliber? 

message: So, for comedy's sake, I entered the specs for the 2700 pound projectile into a ballistics calculator to get Muzzle Energy at https://billstclair.com/energy.html and got the following:
Muzzle Energy: 303,621,552 foot pounds
(assumed bullet weight of 18,900,000 grains and a muzzle velocity of 2690 fps with a 16 inch diameter)
Was wondering if this might be worth adding?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.173.189 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muzzle Energy?