Talk:.327 Federal Magnum: Difference between revisions
→Well done!: new section |
→Well done!: new section |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
sbryant [[Special:Contributions/69.226.99.253|69.226.99.253]] ([[User talk:69.226.99.253|talk]]) 17:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
sbryant [[Special:Contributions/69.226.99.253|69.226.99.253]] ([[User talk:69.226.99.253|talk]]) 17:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Well done! == |
|||
This is an above average quality article! Only gripe is the oft quoted "free lunch" statement which usually implies a particular (favorite) round hits harder while simultaneously has less recoil & muzzle blast. Perception is one thing, laws of physics quite another. Yes, this is slightly oversimplified ('hit harder' may imply a bullet expends all it energy in the target while a compared round's bullet may over penetrate leaving much energy effectively unharnessed), but statements like that are always overly optimistic. |
|||
Still, it is a great article! It covers the material well. |
|||
sbryant [[Special:Contributions/69.226.99.253|69.226.99.253]] ([[User talk:69.226.99.253|talk]]) 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:39, 15 July 2010
 | Firearms Start‑class  | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Six in a 5-shot sized cylinder
I suggest that the article explain that there is interest in the cartridge because its chambering allows six rounds in cylinders that hold five rounds of .38/.357, such as S&W J-frames and the Ruger SP-101. The introduction does indicate that the round is designed to fit in a six-shot compact revolver, but it should be made clearer that six .32 cartridges can fit into a five-shot .38/.357 sized cylinder. After all, what other reason is there really for this round?--Ana Nim (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added a bit in the into paragraph. That enough, or do you think it's worthy of more discussion in the body? scot (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think that makes it clear. Thank you.--Ana Nim (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed the parent cartridge from .32 S&W to .32 H&R Magnum. Anharmyenone (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Shameless advertising
I removed the Ruger ad copy that was found under the 'firearms' section. Also, I don't see any mention of this round's well-known ability to put cancer into remission and revive the recently dead. Perhaps someone could work that in somewhere. --71.54.208.211 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well done!
This is an above average quality article! Only gripe is the oft quoted "free lunch" statement which usually implies a particular (favorite) round hits harder while simultaneously has less recoil & muzzle blast. Perception is one thing, laws of physics quite another. Yes, this is slightly oversimplified ('hit harder' may imply a bullet expends all it energy in the target while a compared round's bullet may over penetrate leaving much energy effectively unharnessed), but statements like that are always overly optimistic.
Still, it is a great article!
sbryant 69.226.99.253 (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Well done!
This is an above average quality article! Only gripe is the oft quoted "free lunch" statement which usually implies a particular (favorite) round hits harder while simultaneously has less recoil & muzzle blast. Perception is one thing, laws of physics quite another. Yes, this is slightly oversimplified ('hit harder' may imply a bullet expends all it energy in the target while a compared round's bullet may over penetrate leaving much energy effectively unharnessed), but statements like that are always overly optimistic.
Still, it is a great article! It covers the material well.
sbryant 69.226.99.253 (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)