Talk:Table of handgun and rifle cartridges

message: Elsewhere in Wikipedia we say the .380 acp was introduced im 1908, which is probably correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:48F0:4490:4C3F:783E:3C7C:21EE (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

message: Year for 10mm Auto (presumably year introduced to the market?) should be 1983, not 1938.
→Sorted, thanks. Eastsidehastings (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in 10mm Auto heading 

message: Shouldn't the column after nation be in inches for a "Metric/SI-native" cartridge? Silly not to have a conversion for 7.62 mm, for example (or rather 7.62 mm as the conversion). Scoo 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial-Metric/SI

message: 24.236.77.2 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a rifle marked 5.5 mm. 

message: in 2007 strum, ruger and federal developed the .327 federal magnum.  it definitely deserves a place on this list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.178.248.98 (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  .327 federal magnum 

message: There are quite a few entries which contain the bullet diameter in the Size or Comments field. I wonder whether it is worth adding a bullet diameter column? StraightAsADie (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet Diameter Column 

message: The .32 special was one of the first smokeless powder rounds and it is still used today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.29.63 (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winchester .32 Special is missing 

message: What's the point in having a table that lists muzzle velocity, muzzle energy and propellant charge with no relation to each other, and with no information about the various factors involved? A table listing muzzle velocity with no information about bullet weight, muzzle energy with no information about either bullet weight or muzzle velocity, and powder charge weight with no information about what powder/propellant is used is a total waste of both disk space and the reader's time. It would have been a lot better to spend the energy wasted on this table on the already existing lists of cartridges (6 mm caliber, 7 mm caliber, 8 mm caliber,9 mm caliber, 10 mm caliber and others), to bring those articles up to date. Thomas.W  talk 17:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally pointless table 

message: A pointer to reliable sources for propellant charges / reloading data for metric rounds much appreciated.  Likewise, ballistic coefficients.  Eastsidehastings (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, please? 

message: A problem I have with the current table is that there's no way of telling, in most cases, which cartridges are commonly in circulation, and which are deeply obscure.
As a broad indicator of the general popularity and currency of a particular cartridge, I'm thinking I could put in a column totalling current manufacturers of the cartridge.
Hence a popular cartridge like 223 Remington would have an entry like "16" with 16 citations, while a more obscure cartridge like 221 Remington Fireball would have an entry like "2" with 2 citations.  Many cartridges would have zero current factory loadings.  Citations, of course, could come from the manufacturers' websites or catalogues.  I could start with some big manufacturers, and those interested in particular manufacturers could add more later.
Thoughts?  Would it be too close to the line on WP:OR?
Thanks, Eastsidehastings (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble with the chart at the present is the data in that column is grossly inaccurate.  Only six organizations producing 9x19mm Parabellum and .44 Magnum and only a single one making 5.45x39mm?  Incorrect to the point of being absurd.  And, for that matter, where does one draw the line?  Huge manufacturers and state arsenals, naturally, would fit, but what about the many small scale shops?  I don't see how to correct this issue and, at present, it is presenting inaccurate information.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 00:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Column - Factory Loadings? 

message: Given guidelines on simple calculations based on verifiable data not being OR or SYNTH, I'd be interested in adding a column for Momentum, being 2*muzzle energy/muzzle velocity. Although there is some interest in momentum from stopping power and bullet penetration perspectives, I would expect it to be most useful as an indicator of recoil. Total recoil should include propellant mass as well, while perceived recoil would need adjustment for firearm weight, muzzle brakes and recoil pads - but the bullet's muzzle momentum could represent a recoil index/guide of sorts.
Thoughts?  Eastsidehastings (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Column - Momentum? 

message: .. and should it be added under MMR ("In the military")? Unless it's a typo or something non-standard.. comp.arch (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is mmR? 

message: I sorted the list by muzzle energy and noticed that this cartridge is listed at a pathetic 0.312 lb-ft, probably not enough to even hurt someone.  [page] lists much more realistic figures of ft-lbf and up. 216.137.234.123 (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  .327 Federal Magnum typo spotted 

message: In adding the Factory Loadings counts, I've noticed several cartridges that are in current production but aren't in the table.  Seems a shame to have a laundry list of obsolete US cartridges and a bunch of wildcat/proprietary cartridges and yet be lacking some current European standards.  Here's a few that caught my eye from the Sellier & Bellot catalogue (some of which I think I also saw earlier in the RWS and Norma catalogues):
9x21, 9mm Makarov, 5.6x50 R Magnum, 5.6x52 R, 6.5x57, 6.5x57R, 7x57R, 7x65R, 8x57R, 8x57JRS, 8x64S, 9.3x72R, 9.3x74R, and probable mix-up on 6.5x52 Italian for 6.5x52R aka 25-35 Win
Any others? Eastsidehastings (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing European Cartridges 

message: I'm not sure the ME of the 7.62x25 cartridge is actually that high. The .cz version of the S&B website and the catalog both list that as correct. However, the US S&B website lists the ME at 512 ft-lbs which is much more inline with other manufacturers.  The CZ S&B source claims a 1850+ fps MV which seems quite high to me. Also, most of the chronograph data I have seen () lists the rounds as closer to 1500-1600 fps.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry13 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  7.62x25 ME  

message: Since almost all the information here is COPIED from copyrighted sources it is a violation of wikipedia policy to have such information on a page.
I am proposing that this page be deleted (first by putting a notice here) Digitallymade (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an error on my part.  I meant to suggest that the article page be deleted, not the talk page. I wanted to put in a notice of my intention to request the deletion of the article page, and made a mistake. I am sorry that I did that.Digitallymade (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking the AfD page for the convenience of other users. --pmj (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

text: The purpose of this page is primarily educational.  If you have some specific copyright violation, take that up with the parties involved, then make the appropriate edits.  To delete the page in its entirety would be unnecessary, since most of this information could be obtained from reading labels of products. 2600:1700:8830:8DF0:AD19:7B4:775:D1A9 (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Deletion of this page 

message: Hi
It got skipped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Weatherby_Magnum  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.199.239 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  .416 Weatherby magnum 

message: It looks like the momentum column (P) is in units of lbf-seconds, not foot-pound (mass)/second which would be a peculiar unit though physically consistent.  foot-pound per second would be physically wrong, since foot-pound (really foot-lbf) is a unit of energy, so foot-pound/sec would be a unit of power, measured in watts.  Lbf-sec works out because it is calculated as 2*ME/MV which is (lbf*ft)/(ft/s) which is lbf*s.  It is 2*ME/MV because the kinetic energy E=1/2 m*v2.
Also, the number given for the 11×60mm Murata is way off.  It is given as 0.354 but it should be about 2.77.  I will make fixes, this is the explanation.  A few other numbers are off but not by as far so I'll leave them alone. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  momentum column 

message: The notes state that .223rem and 5.56NATO are not interchangeable.  This needs a citation because .223rem is routinely used in rifles chambered in 5.56NATO.  This is so common, it is just assumed to be true, no one even thinks about it.  To make a extraordinary statement like "these are not interchangeable" needs to have some evidence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.208.30 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They are definitely not interchangeable. Yes, .223 Remington can be used safely in rifles chambered in 5.56 NATO, but the reverse is not true. Using 5.56mm NATO in a rifle chambered for .223 Remington is unsafe, and that fact is so commonly known to be true that I'm amazed you question it. There is mountains of documentation saying that it is an unsafe combination, and SAAMI lists it as an unsafe combination. It's so commonly asked that SAAMI has it listed under their FAQ, where they say, 
"It is safe to shoot 223 Remington ammunition in a 5.56 military specification chamber.  The firearm manufacturer can verify whether the chamber in your firearm meets that definition.
However, due to the sizeable number of “wildcat” or non-military specification 5.56 chamber geometries in existence, SAAMI recommends that you consult the firearm owner’s manual or contact the firearm manufacturer for further guidance as to whether your firearm can safely shoot 223 Remington ammunition.
However, it is not safe to shoot “5.56,” “5.56 NATO,” or “5.56x45mm” ammunition in a barrel marked as being chambered in 223 Remington for a number of reasons. The main reason being that a barrel marked as chambered in 223 Remington will have a shorter throat into the rifling than a “5.56” barrel which may cause increased pressure if the “5.56” ammunition is fired in it. This can result in serious injury or death to the user and/or bystanders, as well as damage to the firearm."
See this SAAMI information here: https://saami.org/faqs/#ammunition-firearm-chambered Gato63 (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for .223REM and 5.56NATO 

message: Industrias Tecnos in Cuernavaca México who is the manufacturer of Águila ammunition has been producing the 5mm Remington for several years. They export to their Houston TX distributor amongst other lines of cartridges. 
They are one of the few companies worldwide which uses the Eley priming system for the rimfire products, the 5mm included. 2600:1700:10C4:4040:70FA:75A5:E900:424 (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  5mm Remington 

message: The citation added was listed to only the 5.56 NATO SS109. It must be included with the original cartridge from 1960 which is located in the row above the former. 
There are too many subtle differences that had an impact to pressure levels, safety and weapons function. 
Please contact the manufacturer of the rifle if in doubt to the correct chambering for the .223 or 5.56. It would be a good idea to do so with any caliber before purchasing cartridges and especially before chambering a round to shoot. 2600:1700:10C4:4040:70FA:75A5:E900:424 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation also needed for the 5.56 NATO 1960 and original version 

message: Just wondering why the first section of the article is titled "Legends LMV" in quotation marks, when the first section appears to just be defining the abbreviations used in the table. Is this a reference to something? If so it is completely lost on casual readers and thus not terribly helpful. Perhaps changing the section title to something like Definitions would be more appropriate. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading name 

message: what it says on the tin. I'm going to be working on amending this but with how little information I can gather without doing original research makes this a task and a half. - MountainKemono (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  .460 rowland missing