Talk:Rimfire ammunition

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rimfire ammunition article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Clean-up

Lots wrong. Rimfire isn't a cartridge type (.22 LR is a cartridge type), it's an ignition method. And it goes on from there....

On the contrary, go to any ammunition maker's website or catalog, and you'll see it's split into categories with "rimfire" as a category. Generally centerfire is split into "handgun" and "rifle" sections, and "shotshell" or "shotgun" will be a forth category. Other types that cartridges are often broken down into are straight walled or bottlenecked; rimmed, semi-rimmed, rimless, or rebated rim; and belted. A specific chambering is generally just referred to as a "caliber"--again, look at any firearms manufacturer's website and they'll list them by "caliber" or "gauge"--"type" is, as with ammunition, still often used to differentiate between centerfire and rimfire. scot 16:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original comment. Rimfire describes the ignition method of these particular cartidges, yes, but it is not the type of cartridge. For example, if I were to catalog paints, I could split them into "matte," "glossy," and "metallic" categories. However, those words are not types of paints, they are different finishes. Rimfire is the ignition method, and rimfire cartridges are those that are set off by striking the rim of the cartridge. However, the article's title is Rimfire ammunition, and so I think it is correct in describing rimfire cartidges. It only needs a minor clean-up. Wixteria 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the introduction to clarify that rimfire may mean the ignition method or the cartridge. Nomad3000 20:35, 15 September 2014 (EST)

Resolved

Additional Picture

I think a picture showing the rim end of the round would be illuminating for this article. Perhaps one that compares the end to a center fire round? 204.191.24.19 14:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea--ideally a "before" and "after" of each, showing the firing pin hit. scot 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

a kind of reloading for rimfires

Apparently, there is a kind of reloading done for rimfires. Perhaps there should be a discussion of it, but it differs from traditional reloading, in that it is done before the ammo has been fired, substituting a different bullet, if I am interpreting it correctly. However, I don't know enough about this to know if it is significant enough to mention. This link seems well written and authoritative [1]--68.35.158.218 (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does exists rimfire amnution with aluminum cases?

Does exists rimfire ammunition with aluminum cases?Cartridges with aluminum cases are unreloables, but this isn't a problem with rimffire ammunition.Agre22 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Why does this exist?

I can't guarantee I didn't miss something and am sure there's a reason but wouldn't it be better if the firing pin hits a .22 on the center? In the center means less of the expensivish priming substance. Even if it makes no difference where it hits on the very large full-diameter priming area aren't there enough gunmakers OCD enough that this would bother them? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The article doesn't do the best job explaining it, but the lead stipenate (or other priming material) only ignites because the rim crushes it. Centerfire primers require the lead stipenate to be crushed against an anvil to get reliable ignition. The gif illustrates the point nicely.23.28.40.163 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I get it now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Economics - B.S.

I deleted the line saying .17 HMR was 'currently double the cost' of .22 WMR, and edited the next sentance to fit. In fact for all recent prices i have seen in the US and US based online retailers they are in fact basicaly the same price, within a dollar or two up or down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.202.87 (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of an entry that while being properly supported, is still wrong. "As of 2014... .22 cal ammo going for $12 - $18 for a box of 50". That .24¢ to .36¢ per round. That's bullshit. A quick look at any of the many online bulk ammo retailers shows you can buy .22LR ammo, from 50 round boxes up to 1500 round buckets for as little as .05¢ per round. - ^theWOLFchild 22:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia policy:

"Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers."

I reworded the paragraph removing the reported prices. The articles on other ammunition typically don't include prices. An interested reader can read the cited article or do his own price checking.MartinezMD (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]