Talk:Intermediate cartridge

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Original Research

This article like the Full power rifle cartridge is suffering from a lack of sources and gives every appearance of being original research. Can someone help? It's not clear to me that this article should even be kept. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

conflicting statements

"The first cartridge fullfilling this requirement was the 7.92x33mm Kurz round developed by the Germans, which was a shortened version of the standard 7.92x57mm Mauser round, and was used in the first assault rifle, the STG-44.[1]. While not being the first intermediate cartridge, it was one of the first mass-produced versions."

Both can't be true. I've removed the second sentence for now. If anyone can cite evidence showing that the 7.92x33mm Kurz was not the first intermediate cartridge, please add it to article. Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, but the Fedorov Avtomat was the first assault rifle and it fired 6.5x50 Arisaka, which while not developed with the goal of being an intermediate cartridge, it certainly filled the role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.250.209 (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be some misunderstanding here: The 8mm Kurz is the first intermediate cartridge to enter mass production and see military use beyond trials. The Federov in 6.5 Arisaka was/is not an assault rifle per the definition in the article. 6.5 Arisaka is a full powered rifle cartridge and is not an intermediate cartridge. The trial examples however did/do meet the definition of an assault rifle as they used a shortened version of the cartridge but these versions did not enter production.

I do not understand why some people are so insistent on calling the Federov the first assault rifle when it is quite literally up to debate since it does not meet the technical definition of an assault rifle.

The roots of the assault rifle concept are found in the First World War but resulted in two lines of thinking. One being the "rifle for the assault" and the other being the "Sturmgewehr" ("storm rifle" - what we today would call an assault rifle) for a lack of better terms. The first envisioning an automatic rifle/ (light) machine gun to provide supporting fire during the assault. While the latter sees the automatic weapon to be directly used in the assault akin to the submachine guns during WW1 and the late WW2 and post-WW2 assault rifles were results of developments seeking to remedy the shortcomings of SMGs. 2A02:8388:C80:6280:D0BE:C351:6231:149D (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.30 carbine a magnum handgun round

.30 carbine is not an intermidiate round. 1# It is straight walled like a traditional pistol round. 2# it is more similar balistically and design wise to pistol rounds than to rifle or intermediate rounds 3# Many magnum pistol rounds out do it in every way and are very similar in design 4# it is used in pistols, not pistol sized rifles like 5.56 or 5.45 5# unlike the others it was not made for an assault rifle. It was made origionally as a side arm then into pretty much a pistol caliber carbine. (The M1 Carbine in .357 mag would be pretty much identical) 6# It looks like a pistol round. Just look at it next to other pistol rounds .357,.44 mag .454 casul it fits right in.

If it looks like a duck,acts and flys like a duck its probably a duck.

I've seen no expert commentary calling this an intermidate round. It is design wise,ballistically,cosmetically and functionally a magnum or supermagnum pistol round. Something that could not be said of other intermediate rounds. It is currently linked to both pistol and rifle pages and I propose we clasify it as a pistol round used in pistol caliber carbines and pistols. I'll give this a couple days if no one objects I will edit this page and the .30 carbine page --Youngdrake (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article states several requiresment and then goes on the mention cartridges that do not meet the definitions listed. 2A02:8388:C80:6280:D0BE:C351:6231:149D (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; The .3Ø caliber simply isn’t a duck. It’s parent case is in fact a pistol round, but that’s as ridiculous as claiming the 5.56ᴍᴍ is a pistol round because the .223 caliber was a pistol round because it in turn came from the .22 caliber.

HISTORY SECTION ERROR

I'm not an editor and dont really know how this works.. ..But there's a statement in this article that makes little sense:

"The resulting cartridge would have the accuracy of the former for typical combat ranges, and the firepower of the latter at short ranges."

This literally translates to, "has the accuracy of a rifle and the firepower of a pistol at short ranges." This is (i assume) not the intention of the sentence, because it's not true and it doesn't make sense... Because a rifle round does not 'lose its power' and become a pistol round at short ranges...

...I assume its supposed to read:

"The resulting cartridge would have the accuracy AND FIREPOWER of the former for typical combat ranges, and the increase of controllability (ease of use) of the latter at short ranges." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.185.70 (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible Claims

As their recoil is significantly reduced compared to full-power cartridges, fully automatic rifles firing intermediate cartridges are relatively easy to control. However, even though they are less powerful than a traditional full-power cartridge, the external ballistics are still sufficient for an effective range of 300–600 metres (330–660 yd), which covers most typical infantry engagement situations in modern warfare.

This is based on an OPINION piece form the 197Ø’s. Meanwhile the US Army’s new assault rifle is already slated to reach 2,ØØØ yards.

https://www.govconwire.com/articles/xm7-vs-m4-which-rifle-reigns-supreme/