Talk:Table of handgun and rifle cartridges

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)

Typo in 10mm Auto heading

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)

Imperial-Metric/SI

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)

I have a rifle marked 5.5 mm.

24.236.77.2 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)from some of the codes i thick it was made in Austria in 1936.some German proofs crown over U crown over B. It is nicely engraved I would just like to know what cal it really is any help would be appreciated. P.S. The 5.5mm is over the number 52 but no line between them. Do you think possible a 6x52 round? as i know some 9.3mm guns are marked 8.8 and some 8 mm guns are marked on the gun 7.7mm

.299 CRUZ, what the hell is it?

I can find no reference anywhere via the powers of google that does not refer right back here, or to a page that rips off here. Whomever added it, or knows of it, can you please verify it exists, and is signifigant enough for mention?

.327 federal magnum

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)

→Done. Eastsidehastings (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bullet Diameter Column

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)

There is a lot of cross-over between this article, all the List_of_cartridges_by_caliber pages, List_of_handgun_cartridges and the Firearm Cartridge Infoboxes. And hardly any of the data is referenced. This needs improvement! StraightAsADie (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

→We've got a diameter column, now. Citation is a slow work in progress! Eastsidehastings (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Winchester .32 Special is missing

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)

→Done. Eastsidehastings (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Totally pointless table

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)

The original point of this table was that it showed the progression of cartridge development over time from the 1850s to the present day. As far as I know it's the only page on Wikipedia which attempts to present a historical record of cartridge development. The recent change to sort-by-name was IMHO a regression, but at least the table can still be sorted by date with a single click. The beauty of Wikipedia is that everyone can spend their time working on the pages which interest them… so feel free to spend your time updating the existing lists of cartridges while other people spend time on pages like this one. StraightAsADie (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

How about replacing muzzle velocity, muzzle energy, and propellant charge with a single column for Max ME, so users can sort on that value. Then add a new column with a link to the Ballistic Performance section of each individual cartridge? Those pages already contain that information for different bullet weights and sometimes manufacturer. Or instead, make that link into a hover-over tool-tip (pop-up) that shows the same Ballistic Performance content. Is there some way to cross-reference both, so when the Ballistic Performance on individual cartridge pages are updated the content on this table is updated also? Derrlf (talk) 10:25, 09 January 2016

Are you saying that there's too much information on the page as it stands, and you'd rather trim it down so that hovering was the way to query it? By Max ME I assume you mean maximum muzzle energy - which is already what is in the Muzzle Energy column. That would lose the sortability and comparitive value - you couldn't ask "What's the most-powerful handgun cartridge?" or "In .308 high-BC bullets, what's my fastest/flattest cartridge?" or "By 1945, was the Kurz cartridge the best candidate for an assault rifle?" Eastsidehastings (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to address the concerns of Thomas.W in his comment above. I agree with him that muzzle energy is largely irrelevant if you don't know the bullet weight. It's not that there's too much information, but it's incomplete and possibly even misleading. Since a wide range of bullet weights exist for each cartridge, then a single value for velocity etc. implies there is only one option. However, if more complete information already exists in another location, with greater granularity, then a link to that location would provide ready access without duplication. I'm not sure what's the best solution... Derrlf (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2016

I haven't any solution on the multiple-bullets problem. Adding a "Bullet Weight" column might partially address the issue, but might further compound the problem. It is definitely potentially misleading to see some of these numbers side-by-side when they can be from different loadings. The Momentum column's calculations actually imply precisely that.

But choosing just a single loading's nice-and-consistent numbers doesn't express the possibilities for the cartridge. 308 Win might most often be loaded with, say, a 150gr bullet at 2800fps for light-medium game, but there's 110gr at 3300fps for varmint and 220gr at 2300fps for medium-heavy game. Which loading is 'most representative'? Some mild factory loadings for 300 Win Mag can make it look like a very similar-performing cartridge to a standard 308 Win load - it's not until you're looking at maximal values that you can really see the difference.

The point about different propellant types is also well-taken, and it'd be nice to sidestep the problem using case water capacity, but there are many cases (especially former blackpowder ones) which are never be loaded to their water capacity because the firearms aren't proofed to the resulting pressure. Actual maximal propellant loads are a very good first-order guide to the potential of the cartridge.

Where available, the CIP's "Proof Kinetic Energy" gives a nice, consistent number for Muzzle Energy, but not all cartridges have the CIP numbers available, and some manufacturers aren't working to CIP standards.

I take the purpose of the table to be comparitive and explorative in nature - made for comparing the qualities of hundreds of cartridges at a glance across the columns listed, and finding similarities/differences. Each cartridge has a link to its own page for more detail. No reader should even begin to consider using the information as a reloading recipe. Perhaps the caveat at the top of the page should read more strongly, or explain better? Eastsidehastings (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate this table and refer to it often, despite knowing that muzzle energy, etc. are not definitive. Thanks, I guess I'll leave finding a solution for the multiple weights for a future day. Derrlf (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2016

Sources, please?

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)

When I have updated the ballistics information on cartridge pages I have tended to use the Nosler reloading manual. I have cross-checked against several other manuals I have on hand, and Nosler generally matches the top end loads of the other manuals. Sometimes CotW is the only source, especially for obsolete cartridges. Ballistic coefficients are posted on the bullet manufacturers' sites. But if you're using the BCs for personal use, the Litz book is the ideal source. The JBM ballistics site has options to generate tables with Litz data. StraightAsADie (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

New Column - Factory Loadings?

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)

Well, I've got a decent pass with RWS, Norma, Winchester, Federal, Remington and Hornady. The table does now have a simple metric of availability, although it doesn't necessarily reflect the 22 LR, 7.62x39mm and 223 Remington popularity. Reading more about the guidance on SYNTH and NOR, I'm comfortable. In fact, more on another channel! Eastsidehastings (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A downside on this approach is just how wide the citations are. The column could be 1 or 2 digits big, otherwise. Eastsidehastings (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

New Column - Momentum?

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)

The listed velocity and ft lbs are not always the same cartridge. The fastest cartridges for a caliber won't always have the most ft lbs. Sometimes the listed data isn't accurate, which would make comparing similar rounds problematic. Even saying that, momentum would be useful information. 2600:1700:8830:8DF0:2CC0:6FF0:C724:9B8F (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

What is mmR?

.. 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)

As part of a cartridge size designation, the R stands for "Rimmed". As in 7.62×54mmR for the 1891-ish Mosin-Nagant cartridge, versus 7.62×51mm for the much-newer rimless NATO cartridge. The table is not entirely consistent in that usage, yet. It might be worth ensuring all rimmed cartridges carry the designation uniformly, as well as, perhaps, adding "SR" for semi-rimmed and "RR" for rebated-rim.Eastsidehastings (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

.327 Federal Magnum typo spotted

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)

The above comment was me, not logged in. Icanhasaccount has an account 10:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks! Eastsidehastings (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing European Cartridges

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)

Although not all European, but I found the following missing cartridges by using the Midway online store. So these should all be in current production also, although many of them say "Out of Stock, No Backorder" so maybe "recent production" would be a better term.

20 Vartarg, 222 Remington Magnum, 25-35 Winchester (WCF), 26 Nosler, 275 Rigby, 28 Nosler, 284 Winchester, 30 TC (Thompson Center), 300 Flanged Magnum, 32 Short Colt, 333 Jeffery Rimless, 338 Norma Magnum, 338-06 A-Square, 338-378 Weatherby Magnum, 340 Weatherby Magnum, 358 Norma Magnum, 360 Number 2 Nitro Express, 375 Flanged Nitro Express, 375 Winchester, 376 Steyr, 38 Short Colt (38 SCF), 40 Super, 400-375 Belted Nitro Express, 41 Long Colt, 416 Ruger, 416 Taylor, 425 Westley Richards, 44 Colt, 44 Russian, 45 Auto Rim, 45 Schofield, 45 Super, 450 Rigby, 450 Short Magnum, 450-400 Nitro Express, 457 WWG, 458 SOCOM, 45-90 WCF, 460 Rowland, 470 Capstick, 475 No. 2 Nitro Express, 5.6x52mm Rimmed (22 Savage High Power), 500 Black Powder Express, 500 Jeffrey, 500 JRH, 500 Nitro Express, 500-416 Nitro Express, 500-416 Nitro Express, 500-465 Nitro Express, 505 Gibbs, 56-50 Spencer, 6.5×47mm Lapua, 6.5×54mm Mannlicher–Schönauer, 6.5-284 Norma, 6.53 Scramjet, 6.5mm Remington Magnum, 6.5x52mm Rimmed, 6.5x57mm Mauser, 6.5x57mm Rimmed, 6mm BR, 6mm Norma BR, 6mm XC, 7.65mm Argentine Mauser, 7.82 Warbird, 7-30 Waters, 7x65mm Rimmed, 8.59 Titan, 8×56mmR, 8mm Gasser (8mm Rast Gasser), 8mm Roth-Steyr, 8x57mm Rimmed J Mauser, 9.3x72mm Rimmed, 9.3x74mm Rimmed, 9.5x57mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 9×18mm Makarov, 9×18mm Ultra, 9×21mm IMI, 9×23mm Winchester, 9×25mm Dillon ... Derrlf (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2016

Oof! There's some big names in there that are still missing. Guess there's plenty of work left in this joint! Eastsidehastings (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking over in the Prvi Partizan lineup: 6.5×54mm Mannlicher–Schönauer, 6.5x57mm Mauser, maybe a disambiguation problem with 7x57 vs 7mm Mauser, 7.65mm Argentine, 8×56mmRS Mannlicher, rimmed and rimless 8x57 and another possible disambiguation problem with 8mm Mauser, 8x60s, 9mm Makarov, 9x21, .45 HP. Eastsidehastings (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

7.62x25 ME

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 ([1]) lists the rounds as closer to 1500-1600 fps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry13 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of this page

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)

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)

Linking the AfD page for the convenience of other users. --pmj (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

.416 Weatherby magnum

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)

momentum column

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)

Citation needed for .223REM and 5.56NATO

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)

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)

5mm Remington

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)

Citation also needed for the 5.56 NATO 1960 and original version

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)

Heading name

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)

.460 rowland missing

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)