Talk:Centerfire ammunition

berdan to discourage reloading? b.s.

"Berdan priming is used by nearly all militaries and most civilian manufacturers (with the exception of those in the United States) to discourage reloading of ammunition."

No. Berdan is not used to discourage reloading. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find Berdan primers in the U.S., but they're available in Europe, where Berdan priming is the most frequently encountered. I'm removing this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.239.184 (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't follow

"Because the Berdan primer is difficult to remove from the case without damaging the anvil, Berdan priming 
is used by nearly all militaries and most civilian manufacturers (with the exception of those in the United States)."

Why should the difficulty of removal be a criterion for military adoption (or indeed civilian adoption). The Berdan system is cheaper to manufacture because the primer is simpler and there is one less assembly stage. The diferent cartridge design is a non issue, because either design can be easily produced on the cartridge press. Now that may be a valid criterion.

Unless a valid cite for the above extraordinary claim can be produced, I intend to remove it as unsourced. 86.166.66.41 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

concur with removal.Thewellman (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enogh: 'tis done. 86.135.31.128 (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverting good faith primer chemistry edits

I am reverting three segments of recent primer chemistry edits for reasons described below:

1st - The decomposition of mercury fulminate in storage, as described by the reference citation, occurs through a slow physical chemical change causing decreased energy. The editor alleged, without reference citation, a change causing increased sensitivity. Such an edit should include a supporting reference citation.

2nd - Initial use of potassium chlorate was as an additive to mercury fulminate to increase incandescent ignition. The editor's change relates to later use of potassium chlorate as a substitute for mercury fulminate. This is already covered in the following paragraph.

3rd - The editor had inappropriately altered the text to be inconsistent with the unchanged reference citation. Such changes should be accompanied by an alternative reference citation.Thewellman (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing sentence of last paragraph

Currently reads: Excepting some .22 and .17 caliber pistol and rifle cartridges, small-bore shotgun cartridges (intended for pest-control), and a handful of antique, mostly obsolete cartridges, most pistol, rifle, and shotgun ammunition used today is centerfire.

Suggested: Pistol, rifle, and shotgun ammunition used today is centerfire excepting some .22 and .17 caliber pistol and rifle cartridges, small-bore shotgun cartridges (intended for pest-control), and a handful of antique, mostly obsolete cartridges.

Currently the list of centerfire ammo is smashed against the list of exceptions, causing slight confusion on first glance. My suggestion moves the lists to opposite ends of the sentence to increase clarity. No information has been added or removed, and other structure holds.

JoeMaster (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

History - the First Centerfire Cartridges

A reference to the first military and civilian centerfire cartridges might be insightful; if the berdan and boxer primers had patents (U.S.) might the cartridges also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Disadvantages?

I very nearly deleted this section, but decided to try and remedy its flaws since it gives balance to the article. The two listed disadvantages of centerfire cartridges were weight and excessive power. My problem is that these are really contrived disadvantages, and not physical limitations of centerfire priming systems. Centerfire cartridges can and have been devised that are nearly identical to rimfire counterparts in both ballistics and weight. For an example, see .22WCF. While current commercial production is a dichotomy of small, light rimfire loads and large, powerful centerfire laods, my understanding is that this is a function of practicality and cost. The only true advantage rimfire ammunition has is it that it less complex and therefore cheaper to manufacture. Any other opinions?23.28.40.163 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I recall reading of some very accomplished subsistence hunters who selected the .22 rimfire because of its low cost. The thing to remember here is that we need a reference citation for any opinions. In the absence of reference citations, perhaps the section should be deleted.Thewellman (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the alleged disadvantages here awaiting an appropriate reference citation to restore them to the article page.Thewellman (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As compared to rimfire cartridges the main disadvantages of centerfire cartridges are:

• Cartridge weight. Rimfire cartridges are much lighter than centerfire.
• Damage to game. Centerfire cartridges, being much more powerful, can result in damage to game.
• Cost of manufacture. Centerfire cartridges require several additional steps to manufacture, and are therefore more costly.

Yeah, I think this is the right choice. As I said, I'm not convinced weight and damage are actually disadvantages. It sounds like the source you read would be perfect to include cost as a disadvantage if you feel so inclined.23.28.40.163 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Centerfire ammunition vs Primer

There is quite a bit more information on Boxer and Berdan primers in this article than in Primer (firearm). It may be more appropriate to move the majority of the content of these sections to the main article on primers and reference them here.

Nomad3000 (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I question if moving this information would be appropriate. This article focuses on centerfire primers while the primer article spans a broad range of ignition systems encompassing the older meaning of priming = preparation or starter. (...priming a muzzle-loading firearm by placing fine powder in the pan under the flint, or placing a percussion cap on the nipple) I suggest the existing main article link in the primer article is the appropriate way to access additional information if the reader wishes. Thewellman (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm here for the same reason as Nomad3000. The lead and first section ("advantages") are 392 words long, by one measure. The sections on "centerfire primers" and "primer chemistry" are 1380 and 958 words long, respectively. The information there is material I'd be looking for if I searched on "primer". Having the thread down to a small section of that article, then know to link to this article, seems like we're making readers jump through hoops. It makes much more sense to me to cover the topic of primers comprehensively in one article, with a suitable summary here. FWIW, I don't see any discussion preceding the move of the material here. Rezin (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• I understand your concern about reader accessibility; but the issue of article length becomes important in that regard. Moving the information as you propose will increase the Primer (firearm) article to over 32K. Finding information in articles of that length becomes difficult because editors with differing organizational concepts insert information (sometimes identical information) at different points in a long article because they haven't taken the time to read the article thoroughly before making their contribution, or if they have read the article thoroughly, they simply disagree with the existing organizational concept but don't take the time to completely reorganize the article because it is so long. Disorganized long articles should be broken into shorter articles consistent with editors' willingness and ability to maintain a structure enabling readers to rapidly find the information they need by using subordinate article links. The foregoing reasoning, as discussed at Talk:Internal ballistics, was the basis for moving information to this article from the Internal ballistics article in September 2010. For similar reasons, the Primer (firearm) article was later created by moving more information from the Internal ballistics article in February 2012.Thewellman (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Further, Rimfire ammunition does not have a similar discussion of chemistry, although there are presumably overlapping issues. Rezin (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• The history of rimfire primer chemistry is somewhat different, but I would encourage any editor to add an appropriately referenced chemistry description to that article. Thewellman (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those responses, and thanks for pointing me to the original discussion. My impression, and I'd have to work a bit to find evidence for this, is that most readers interested in firearms looking up an article about primers would want to find the info in this article. It's the principle of least surprise. As for the length and content of the existing primer article, that's open for discussion. Right now, it devotes considerable space to priming weapons which haven't been used commonly for a hundred years or more. So rather than breaking out this information maybe it'd be better to reduce that material. Let me ponder this a bit and if I think of a solution I'll post a proposal on the primer talk page. Rezin (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• The suggested content movement would reduce the Centerfire ammunition article to stub or start class to create an oversized Primer (firearm) article. Since the primer you perceive as worthy of a direct article name is the centerfire primer designed for centerfire ammunition, a suggested alternative for direct access to a focused article of reasonable article size (for discussion on the Talk:Primer (firearm) article) might be to first change the name from Primer (firearm) to Priming (firearm), then reorganize and change the name of the Centerfire ammunition article to Primer (firearm) with a see also or dablink to Priming (firearm), and finally convert the Centerfire ammunition article to a redirect to Primer (firearm).Thewellman (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that primers should be discussed in the 'primer' article, strange as that may sound. ;) Your idea (if I understand it right) of moving the priming material (i.e. flintlocks, matchlocks, etc.) to a 'priming' article makes sense. I don't see a problem with leaving a short article at 'centerfire'. I suppose it would make the most sense to have one article cover both centerfire and rimfire, comparing and contrasting them, but unfortunately WP doesn't work that way. Rezin (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have no objection to your proposal to expand discussion of centerfire primers in the Primer (firearm) article at the expense of reduced coverage of alternative firearm ignition mechanisms, but I see no reason to remove from the Centerfire ammunition article information related to the evolution of the centerfire primer component of centerfire ammunition. Thewellman (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)