Talk:.338 Lapua Magnum

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencingand appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.    --dashiellx (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Does this mean penetrating five ceramic plates that are commonly used in military body armor? --UnneededAplomb (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. The cartridge was designed to penetrate 5 layers of body armour at 1000 m (1094 yd)  as used in 1983. You should think of layers of fabric designed to stop service projectiles with maybe one trauma plate, not a thick stack of ceramic plates that would get to heavy to wear for a soldier. The range, velocity and energy table above indicates a .338 Lapua Magnum sniper rifle bullet arrives with roughly the same energy at 1000 m as a 7.62 x 51 mm sniper rifle bullet round at 400 m for two roughly comparable long range bullets. Since the exact nature of the target medium or media (body armour, bone, flesh, soft tissues and in what order) and the interaction with employed projectile (parts) play an important role in terminal ballistics your question will always be hard to answer and highly dependant on a specific situation.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Layers of Military Body Armor 

message: About the bullets of this cartridge, there's things such as Lapua Scenar GB488 VLD.What material, shape, ect. means Lapua Scenar GB488 VLD? Agre22 (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The very-low-drag bullet article has an image of a VLD type bullet like the Lapua Scenar GB488. "Lapua Scenar GB488" is just a trade name + article number used by the ammunition and bullet manufacturer Lapua. Bullet manufacturers like Sierra, Berger, etc. use other brand names and article numbers for comparable products.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullets and letters 

message: The author of this section is using misleading terminology.  A case  loaded differently from a factory load is called a handload, or a custom load, not a wildcat. Simply loading a 338 Lapua with a different bullet and firing it a faster twist barrel does not make it a wildcat.  Please refer to the Wikipedia article on handloading for more information.  A wildcat cartridge had different case dimensions from the factory loaded case.
Also, putting a different twist barrel on a rifle makes it a custom or bespoke rifle, not a wildcat.
In the paragraph on the 343 Lapua, these are the attributes that make it a wildcat (case modification):
::"The length of the neck is increased from 8,31 to 8,50 mm to support the bigger LM-107 bullet. Several other dimensions of the .338 Lapua Magnum parental cartridge are also changed. The shoulder angle gets steepened from 40° to 60° and the body taper is set at 1°."
DrHenley (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. I changed the text. The LM-105 is indeed a wildcat (it exceeds the C.I.P. OAL ruling). The LM-107 was a more comprehensive wildcat proposal that also deviates from several C.I.P. rulings. C.I.P. does not rule twist rates, since twist rate is not a main safety concern for the firearm user. They do however mention the common twist rate. As an example the SAKO TRG-42 can have a 1 in 12" or 1 in 10" twist rate. None of these barrel executions is considered custom by C.I.P. Regardless of barrel twist these rifles are proof tested and when they pass approved for civilian use. The reason for differing barrel twist is that projectiles at very long ranges have to deal with complex transonic transition effects. Manufacturers can optimize the barrel twist for a particular (class of) projectile(s) so a rifle will perform well at very long range.-Francis Flinch (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance with standard cartridges 

message: I would like to see a proper source for "It cannot be used in countries which ban civilian use of former or current military rifle cartridges." If one cannot be found I would question whether this belongs in the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied from my user talk page:
You removed information regarding restrictions of civil use of the .338 Lapua Magnum chambering that was and is backed by Wikipedia articles which were internally referenced to.
From Gun politics in Mexico - Type of firearms permitted: High-powered rifles, of repeating or semi-automatic function, non-convertible to full-auto, with the exception of .30 caliber carbines, rifles, moskets and carbines caliber .223, 7 and 7.62mm, and Garand rifles caliber .30.
From Gun politics in Italy - Limitations: Italian gun laws pose restrictions to the kind of firearms and calibers available to civilians. Full-automatic/select-fire firearms (machineguns), grenade launchers, destructive devices and all other kinds of military weapons are forbidden; a prohibited caliber is expressly the 9mm Parabellum, and as a matter of fact all military ammunition (such as 5.7x28mm, 4.6x30mm, .50-BMG and up) are not available to the public. On the other hand, standard military calibers such as 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO are available in civilian loads and with civilian denominations (such as .223 Remington, .308 Winchester). Semi-automatic firearms can be bought by licensees without additional restrictions.
I did not write these gun politics articles and what you or I think regarding such gun politics and their limitations is irrelevant for the lawmakers in these jurisdictions.
I assumed you removed the internally referenced information in good faith.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

text: That's right, I removed it under the provisions of WP:V which requires that anything liable to be challenged needs to be cited to reliable external sources. A Wikipedia article would not qualify. My preference is to leave the information there but with a  tag, to see if someone can find a proper source we can cite. If this cannot be done, we need to remove it as unverifiable. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would this (http://www.earmi.it/diritto/faq/Sintesi%202012-A4.pdf) suffice as an external reference for Italy?--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, ideally it would be an English language source and one with some sort of established reputation for fact-checking. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you realize the paper is written by Edoardo Mori, Magistrato di Cassazionea or judge at the Court of Cassation (Italy). Google Edoardo Mori for yourself and you will find out he is a legal professional in Italy. At http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Edoardo_Mori you can see Mr. Mori. I feel judges of national supreme courts can be regarded as competent regarding the law in their jurisdiction.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't think this is a good source, sorry. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not want to start an edit war, but thinking or feeling is not good enough if you doubt and hence question the reliability of an external source. To do so you have to find and produce facts mentioned by other external sources that clearly disagree with the view of in this case Italian justice Edoardo Mori. If professionals openly disagree that should be mentioned in Wikipedia articles. I assume you do not attempt to take ownership of this article but try to prove to the world Mori wrote nonsense regarding Italian gun law, so let's wait and see for a week what external sources you can find and mention here that disagree with the statements in the Mori paper.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice idea. Unfortunately that is not how it works. The onus is on you to find decent sources to support the material you want to include. Failing that, we cannot use it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy; Art. 1 e 2 L. 110/1975 see http://www.fmj.it/110_75.htm and http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1975-04-18;110 This was published regarding war weapons and their ammunition and may other subjects in the Gazzetta Ufficiale in 1975. The Gazzetta Ufficiale promulgates acts of the Italian Parliament (comprising the Senate of the Republic and Chamber of Deputies) and Decrees of the President of the Republic. On publication, legislation begins a brief period (usually 15 days) known as vacatio legis, allowing for it to become widely known before taking legal effect. The latter is published by http://www.normattiva.it/. This is the website that publishes Italian law. The validity of sources that officially publish Italian law is evident and binding.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So there is nothing in English, and no secondary sources? --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Here's another question. Do your sources mention the .338 Lapua Magnum? --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I could not see any mention of the article's subject in these sources, I have removed this factoid again. We are not allowed to synthesise like this. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Italian lawmakers opted not to include a list of chamberings. They simply prohibited war weapons, war like weapons and war ammunition for civilians. So when a (new) chambering is introduced as Italian service ammunition it becomes a no no for civilians in Italy. There is no combined material from multiple sources in the refs mentioned to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The actual law text is the most trustworthy source obtainable. Maybe you or I do not like Italian law and how it is formulated but that is futile for Italian lawmakers and every civilian gun user in Italy. Lawmakers often formulate legal restrictions in (for laymen maybe complex) ways to avoid to have to change law very often. Of course laymen are free to seek legal advice if they are in doubt or not capable of understanding law. Logic dictates it would have been impossible in the 1970s to mention the .338 Lapua Magnum, since it was not designed at that time. Sadly for .338 Lapua Magnum fans the Italians introduced the TRG-42 sniper rifle in .338 Lapua Magnum as one of their service rifles. This introduction as service ammunition ended the .338 Lapua Magnum as a legal option for civilians in Italy. For the FN 5.7×28mm a similar story applies. Italian civil gun users solve such problems with alternative chamberings and resorting to wildcatting. Wildcatting comes with pros and cons in C.I.P. regulated countries for civil shooters I will not discuss at Wikipedia since I do not know if the reader is permitted to produce his/her own ammunition. So sentences like; Since the introduction of the SAKO TRG-42 .338 Lapua Magnum sniper rifle as an Italian service weapon, the .338 Lapua Magnum became prohibited by law for civil use in Italy can be referenced in a Wikipedia article. I think it is not very important to mention the restrictions in Italy, but encourage you to travel to Italy with a .338 Lapua Magnum rifle and its ammunition and experience what happens to you. Other people I would discourage to do that.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically, this is entirely based on your own knowledge and there is no third-party source known to you which makes the connection? Case closed. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgy factoid 

message: Lets see some low drag projectiles then only thing that makes it usable at long ranges.--Simon19800 (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low Drag Projectile 

message: All the other decimal-inch cartridges I have looked at have the Imperial measurements listed first, with the SI second, in brackets.  Should it not be so with the .338 Lapua as well, or does the Finnish/UK development demand SI first?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redness88 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurement Consistency with other cartridges 

message: The rifling twist rate for the .343 Lapua Magnum LM-107 wildcat cartridge was chosen at 180 mm (1:7 inch), Ø lands = 8.72 mm, Ø grooves = 8.45 mm and loaded with the LM-107 projectile...
It says .343 twice in an blurb written about a rifle that may or may not have been built(?). I think that either .343 is wrong and should be .338 ( which is what this entry is about) or it should be its own article
I’ve never heard of a .343 caliber anything. It seems very odd. It may be a mistranslation from non-English metric to American non-metric English (hah!) Anthonyjoehaynes (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  .343?