Jump to content

Talk:Handloading

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleHandloading was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 11, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 9, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Safety

[edit]

Someone with more knowledge on the subject than I should include information about reloading safety; there are, as we gun owners know, significant risks, even for experienced reloaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.124.121 (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same exact thing. on articles like this it is almost mandatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.178.64 (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annealing

[edit]

An anonymous user at 69.243.38.8 removed the information on heating and quenching the brass to anneal it, with the following comment:

(→Maximizing case life - Removed bad science on annealing.. quenching does not stop the annealing process... it prevents it.. annealing requires the item cool s-l-o-w-l-y, quenching causes hardness)

While slow cooling is the processed used to anneal steel (since you want the grain strucutre in the annealed steel as large as possible), brass is a different matter. Once the brass reaches 660F, the work hardening has been undone, and the cooling doesn't really have an impact on the hardness of the case mouth. The quenching is done to prevent heat transfer to the base of the case, which should remain harder than the mouth. Calling this process "annealing" is slightly misleading; what is really happening is a from of controlled heat treatment. Just like tempering steel, you carefully raise the temperature to the level which will reduce the hardness to the desired level, then you quench immediately; leaving the metal at the tempering temperature too long will "age" the metal, and reduce the hardness further. In fact, quenching doesn't really stop the softening process, it merely slows it down by many orders of magnitude. Even at room temperature, metals will loose their hardness over time, but as the time/temperature curve is exponential, it will take thousands of years at least before the loss of hardness becomes noticable. scot 14:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another plagiarized article?

[edit]

I cleaned up the brief intro, and reordered some sections; but I hesitate to further edit for brevity something that is uncommonly well-written for Wikipedia, and reads like it was lifted directly from what may be a copyrighted source. Comments? -- Mukrkrgsj 08:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to take my word on it, but I started editing the article at this point, compare that to the end of my first run at the article here. Since I know I didn't copy anything (wrote a bunch of it from memory, in fact) I'll take this as a compliment.  :) scot 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed references to Speer Gold Dots being plated bullets. Gold dots are bonded jacketed hollowpoints, not plated.

If you read the description, they "bond the copper jacket to the lead core one molecule at a time"; this is done via an electroplating process. See here for the patent number applicable to the Gold Dot bullets, and here for the patent description. scot 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a lot of cleanup for little inaccuracies and inconsistencies, but overall is good. I don't think it's plagiarized; it's just similar to what most folks write on the subject, because there's really only one way to do it right.

Cbyrneiv 17:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Chris Byrne[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

I know I added a lot of pictures, but I think many of the things described in the article are unfamiliar and hard to picture for those who aren't experienced with handloading. If someone wants to take a better crack at layout, please do. Plus if you need any additional or slightly different pictures, please suggest such. I'll give it a try. Arthurrh 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've got the image handy on your computer, why not rotate the top image (bullet, powder, case, primer) 90 degrees, and set it opposite the TOC in the top paragraph? scot 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It does look better. Thanks. Arthurrh 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
  1. Broadness: Pass
  2. Well-written: Pass
  3. Images: Pass
  4. Factually accurate: Pass
  5. Neutral POV: Pass
  6. Stable: Pass

Great job on the article. Passed easily.Mitch32contribs 20:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the article was passed, but I have some concerns about the lack of in-line citations. The majority of the sections go completely unreferenced. At the risk of second-guessing the original reviewer, I hesitate to say this article passes GA criteria. Drewcifer3000 21:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:scot was contacted on this subject and will begin inkining the citations.--SidiLemine 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'll hold off on a GA review for a while then. Drewcifer 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My error, sorry about that.Mitch32contribs 21:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GA criteria is in the process of changing at the moment, and the requirements for in-line citations are being relaxed a bit. So, I'm happy to say that the in-line citations thing is no longer a problem. Drewcifer 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see what I see?

[edit]

The citations are coming up: {{cite}} Whassup? Trekphiler 07:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific regarding the improvement of this article. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The times, they are...?

[edit]

Somebody want to add something on the history of handloading? When did it go from a necessity (paper cartridges?) to a "hobby"? Trekphiler 07:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea. I'll start looking for references. Here's one:
scot 19:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps

[edit]

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of May 11, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

  • Large parts and even entire sections are unreferenced, e.g., Primer pocket tools and Accuracy tips.
  • The use of personal pronouns as in: "Die-based trimmers allow you to ..." should be avoided.
  • There has been a {{fact}} tag in Presses since September 2007.
  • Reference #10 is a dead link
  • Many of the references appear to be to commercial web sites. WP:RS says that: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  • Text should not be squeezed between left- and right-aligned images.
  • The article appears to rely very heavily on one book, Nonte's Basic Handloading. As that book has 185 pages, it would be better to put the book citation in a separate Bibliography and for each citation to state which page or pages are being used. For instance <ref>Nonte (1978), p. 56.</ref> It's better to do that for all printed sources, as it makes it easier for a reader to check the accuracy of what's being claimed.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done some work on this.
  • I've changed all the Nonte references to point to specific chapters that contained the appropriate supporting information.
  • I've reworded the personal pronoun sections, and changed some of the process information to a less "how-to" format.
  • I fixed the .56-50 picture link to point to another page on the manufacturer's wesite; can't find a picture any more, so I changed the link description as well.
  • I've added some {{fact}} tags on things that still need references; I'll work on filling those in later.
  • The statement "Articles should rely on..." is not equivalent to the statement "Articles should rely solely on...". Manufacturer information is self-published information, and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves". The sources are manufacturers of handloading equipment and supplies, who may be presumed to be experts in the field, and the references are used to back up specific claims about equipment of the type made by the cited manufacturer.
More to come later... scot (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list of statements that need citations:
  • X Low cost of shotshells makes reloading them less popular
  • X (removed section, found conflicting reference) Balance scales more accurate for a skilled user
  • Scoring on bullet surface does not impact accuracy
  • X Uniforming of flash holes increases consistency and accuracy
  • X Small base dies for semiautomatics and minimum chamber rifles
  • X Use of hard primers to prevent slamfires
  • X Roll crimps increase chamber pressure and produce more power with slow powders
  • X Fitted neck in benchrest rifles improves case life
  • X Low pressure loads increase case life
scot (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The legal section is misleading. Firearms manufacturers don't advise against using handloads, but rather everyone advises sticking to SAAMI pressure specifications. You should be able to easily handload to the limit of the pressure capacity of the weapon. The way the section was previously worded shows ignorance to the fact that most handloading is done to lessen the pressure of the charge. This is touched upon elsewhere in the article so I cannot figure out how any other interpretation could be considered. To make it short and sweet - the manufacturers are saying that the only loads they approve of are loads which have been tested. Exceed the recommended maximum load and they won't promise anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.11.25 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and how are you going to prove that that load that you just fired, which blew up your gun, was within SAAMI specs? Are you personally ISO 9000 certified? Ruger flat out says "do not use", and Remington and Smith and Wesson both state that handloaded ammunition must be pressure tested, which is beyond the abilities of most handloaders. This is the same reason you're not supposed to use handloads in a defensive gun, because of the lack of provability. Just because most handloaders are competent isn't relevant, when there are the rest of them that will keep pushing until (if they're lucky) the blow out primer pockets or (if they're not so lucky) blow up guns. I once made the utterly idiotic mistake of trusting someone else's handloads, and got a face full of powder blowby from an XP-100, and ended up having to pry the brass from the bolt face with a pair of pliers--the primer pocket was blown out so far, the case head pressure formed around the extractor. scot (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most manufacturer's state in their manuals not to use reloaded ammo. I do, but I take that chance. One thing to discuss as well in this legal section is the part about using handloads for defensive purposes. Have not seen anyone who was wrongfully prosecuted because they used handloads and the coroner and or crime scene investigator couldn't make heads or tails of what happened. Madcapmag (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The only "problem" with using handloads for defensive purposes is the self-serving claims of Massad Ayood. Who just coincidentally is a salesman for alleged high-performance defense ammunition. Ayoob has never substantiated his claims, and as marketer of both ammunition and "expertise" has a clear conflict of interest that prevents him from being taken seriously as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.130.77.128 (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Handloading/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Handschuh-talk to me 09:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC) This is my first attempt at an Good Article review so here goes;[reply]

  • The sub heading Legal aspects/Situation in Germany deviates from manual of style with respect to references and wording (e.g. "As an example for a european country...", reference to DEVA website, etc.) This section also has spelling/grammar issues (e.g. capital 'E' for European, etc.) German terms with their English translations are formatted inconsistently (e.g. "Beduerfnispruefung" in both brackets and quotes next to it's English translation but "Deutsche Versuchs- und Prüfanstalt für Jagd- und Sportwaffen (DEVA)" in quotes next to its English translation in brackets.
  • Personal pronouns are still being used (e.g. "he can apply for a permit...")
  • The subheading Bullets/Purchased Bullets still has no references.
  • Overall, article still reads like a manual in heading/subheading structure, especially the subheadings Materials Required, Reloading Process and Accuracy Tips.

Placing a hold on this one pending a response to the above issues. Handschuh-talk to me 09:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance there seems to be a few errors that need fixing and a few additions that that need to be included. I am working on an article at present and will read through and make some suggestions. DeusImperator (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on this GA review? There haven't been any updates in a month. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original nominator's concerns still apply to this article, and since both sides seem to have disappeared, I'm going to fail this article as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Wikipedia Talk pages are not forums for general discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section cites the 2008 election of President Barack Obama as being the cause of particularly high ammunition sales. I remember the reports of spiked rate of firearm sales the days following the election. These reports didn't even mention that it was the week hunting season started in most of the US. I believe that mentioning this supposed correlation between Obama's election (or even candidacy) is relying on poorly researched sensationalist journalism. I am not making any immediate edits to the page, but would like to see the comment about Obama's election and any reference to it struck if there is level of consensus (and plenty of verbose responses would be appreciated).Ghosteditior(nocomputer) (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Virtually the day after Trump was elected, firearms and ammunition sales fell dramatically. Vista Outdoors has recently reported a dramatic decline in sales. There have been NO mass shootings in the USA since Obama left office. With Obama in office, crime rose 40% in anti-gun urban areas. The majority of people don't care about drug dealers killing each other. There is widespread outrage over innocents being harmed. But that outrage has been used to damage the ability of the citizen to protect himself, something that a 45 minute Police response time (average in most of the country) does not do. Cities in the USA that have mandatory firearms possession laws have virtually no violent crime.
  • There is no need to discuss any of this on a page related to handloading. Obama was definitely responsible for a major sales increase. The industry misses that. But the people haven't yet realized that the mass shooting have stopped (not 1 since the election), I'm sure there will be more soon as the emphasis shifts from street demonstrations back to terrorizing the people.Digitallymade (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comment you're responding to was placed 6 years ago, so I think it's safe to let this one drop. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point of discussion is still current. The election showed that the item that this person doubted, was true. I don't think there should be a limit on disproving an erroneous viewpoint.Digitallymade (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long article - split?

[edit]

This is a very interesting article. However it's very long. There are several ways it could be split into multiple articles without losing any text. For example, the whole "equipment" could standalone. The material on "bullets" could be moved to that article. Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Rezin (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
  • The concept created here that there is a difference between handloading and reloading (the same thing actually) has no merit. The statement that handloaders buy all components new, is typically untrue.
  • Mentioning boxer primed cases in the first paragraph, is out of order and unnecessary and is inaccurate without mentioning also Berdan primed cases.
  • There is no historical context in this article and the statement that "handling referred to the private manufacture of cartridges and shells from new components" is false. The equipment to enable handloading did not exist for quite some time after metallic cartridges were put in production. Handloading is primarily the activity of an individual who has as it's reason for accomplishment several possible reasons most of which are a factor in the activity.
  • There is no sourcing or retrievable references for these comments. A mention of a McPherson has no merit as it's unsupported.
  • There is a great deal of variance with commercial, not handloaded, ammunition, some is good and some is mediocre. Similarly handloads are variable in quality depending on the person who makes them. The unreferenced claim appears to be biased.
  • As a handloader for several decades, I reject that there is a distinction between handloads and reloads. Whether loaded once or more the quality will not change because of the number of loadings. It can change due to the quality of the reloader, who might not be achieving a good consistent result. As a general rule, a properly assembled handload is as good in quality as the GOOD commercial ammunition. But if a handloader is careless a handloaded cartridge may be as bad as a BADLY loaded commercial cartridge.
  • The name McPherson being unreferenced has not authority or purpose.
  • Looking at references:
    • Reference 1: nonte Not properly specified, source is not found, cannot be verified
    • Reference 2: Taffin - Not found, cannot be found searching Guns Magazine web site
    • Reference 3: nonte See ref1
    • Reference 4: nonte See ref1
    • Reference 5: dead link
    • Reference 6: Security violation link
    • Reference 8: not found
    • Reference 9: see ref 1
    • Reference 10: book reference cannot be verified
    • Reference 11: Incorrect reference to Forster Resizing dies. correct is: Forster Sizing and Seater Dies Catalog
    • Reference 12: not found
    • Reference 13: see ref1
    • Reference 14: Incorrect reference Correct is Forster Case Trimmers
    • Reference 15: see ref1
    • Reference 16: Citation not found
    • Reference 17: Reference points to wrong area should be Flash Hole Burr
    • Reference 18: see ref 1
    • Reference 19: Citation Not Found
    • Reference 20: "
    • Reference 22: Text doesn't relate directly to the reference
    • Reference 23: Citation not found
    • Reference 24: Citation not found
    • Reference 25: Citation not found Obviously FALSE since Remington is a major supplier of components.
    • Reference 26: Not found, also biased use of source. Ayoob recommended the Cor-Bon 115gr 135p fps 9mmx19mm Parabellum as the best defense load. It EXCEEDS the performance of almost all handload recommendation for 9mm Par.
    • Reference 28: Not found
    • Reference 29: Citation not found
    • Reference 30: Citation not found
    • Reference 33: Not found This refers to reloading rimfire cartridges which is a totally disreputable concept. The section mentioning this should be removed.
    • Reference 35: see ref1
    • Reference 36: a: Contradicts the text of the article, assumptions are made in the article that are not truly supported by the reference
    • Reference 37: see ref 1
    • Reference 38: book reference cannot be verified
    • Reference 39: book reference to an encyclopedia, usually not a good reference
    • Reference 40: Citation Not found
    • Reference 41: Citation Not found prejudicial to one brand of powder BIAS
    • Reference 42: see ref1
    • Reference 43: Not found
    • Reference 44: see ref1
    • Reference 46-7: Not found probable bias toward one brand of bullet
    • Reference 48: Not found
    • Reference 50: Not found

The Reference to Nonte is repeated 43 times. That makes the VAST majority of "information" on this page from a single source which is copyrighted and inaccessible. Of the 50 reference headers, 26 are either not found of the page pointed to does not support the text.Digitallymade (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standard procedure, if you find a piece of information with no reliable source, is to add {{citation needed}} to the piece of information. Unless you're the copyright holder, there's no reason to focus on the copyrighting - and facts can't be copyrighted anyway. Note - I have no intention of getting into a protracted discussion about this. I've explained the procedure. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No comment are more than half the sources being bad or that 1 source is used so often. I could put [citation needed] and {{not found}} and [dubious – discuss] all over this page. I could also rewrite it to be correct. But, I don't feel that I know enough wikipedia "style" to do so. Digitallymade (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be accessible on line. They merely have to be reliable. while many books and magazine, newspaper or journal articles are available online, many more are not. Just because a particular page does not show up on Googlebooks on a particular day does not mean that it is a dead link, either.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the inaccessible source is reliable or not. At this point I'm just checking for dead links and bad references. There is too much reliance on a single source. Have YOU ever heard of someone who handloads all new components as a regular action? I have not.Digitallymade (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, partner, you can examine the source. Was it put out by a reiable publisher? (not so much on ammo or gun articles, but for history sciences, biography I look to those published by University presses as the top of the line). For our purposes in these types of articles I look for things published by the military, Jane's, etc as top tier. As for reloading: Some folks do that, buy all new components all the time. I have done it a few times (when I started 338 Lapua, 500 S&W, etc. but yeah after that first shot, it's all used brass again). I do not see the long term logic in it, but some people like to waste their money.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to understand, and understand quickly, is that the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors aren't important. What matters is the sourcing - read through WP:RS. The sources do not need to be online, and if, as you say, you don't know if a source is or isn't reliable then why are you intent on removing the reference to it? I suggest you discuss your sourcing concerns at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, instead of attempting to get information removed willy-nilly. Approach Wikipedia editing from the "adding information" side, rather than the "removing information" side - look for a source you think is reliable, rather than removing sources that you don't even know aren't reliable, and there'll be much less need for you to explain yourself all the time. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about removing it. What I said was that the authority cannot be examined, and since the editor who created it seems to have had a problem with posting sources which are inaccurate, this creates a doubt about his use of that source as well. The claim that there is a difference between handloading and reloading coupled with the claim that people buy all new components to handload, casts doubt on the neutrality of the writer. Digitallymade (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those sources can be verified, sometimes a trip to the local library or local bookstore can help you out.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So add {{POV}} to the top of the article, and move on. When someone comes along with reliable sources that contradict the statements, it'll be sorted. There's no rush - Wikipedia has no deadlines so just leave it there. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Handloading. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Handloading. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When us recent?

[edit]

The article uses the word “recent” referring to events 10 years ago. Suggest rewriting to add specific dates. Exampke - “ recent increases in lead prices..” should read “ Rising lead prices in <date> Twarr12000 (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Handloading&oldid=1202570868"