Talk:.30-06 Springfield

Template:0.7 nom

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the .30-06 Springfield 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

Archives: 1

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / United States / World War I / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force

Firearms Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

.30-06 Springfield was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 23, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Picture

Why is there a picture of a .303 British shell on the .30-06 Springfield article? It should be explained that the picture is of a contemporary but different cartridge.

Disregard, it turns out the same picture is used on most (all?) rifle cartridge pages. I don't know enough about templates, or I'd do this myself, but it'd be nice if someone put an indication in the caption that the picture is not of the cartridge the article focuses on.

Could someone provide a picture of this round next to a different round for scale? Possibly next to a .308 round, as the fact that they are different rounds with the same caliber can cause some confusion. Bad ideas 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu26.htm scroll down to the bottom of the page and the .308 is on the right and the .30-06 is on the right

This is a good idea, but I want to say that there shouldn't be any confusion from them being the "same." .30-06 Springfield and .308 Winchester are obviously different when written in the English/Standard system and in the Metric system (7.62x63mm Springfield and 7.62x51mm NATO respectively). -- Thatguy96 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a picture but the .308 is a lot shorter the the .30-06. and the first sentence is weird, because the metric "name" for .308 is 7.62x51

References

Lots of good info in this article, but it lacks citations. We need to find references and annotate the article as appropriate. Arthurrh 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

I've failed the GA for a few reasons. The most obvious reason I found was that it was vastly undercited, particularly in the performance section. The "Cartridge dimensions" section will do better as a thumbnail picture. Try to also convert one or two of the bulleted lists into prose. Although there aren't any examples of ammunition GA's, you might want to look at M1 Garand, which is quite well written and cited. All in all, some more work should be done to improve the article to GA status. If you have any questions, please ask me. If you'd like to contest my decision, head to WP:GAR. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weight and FPE

Those weights aren't right. I know for a fact that the don't make 9.7 grain 30/06 rounds.....That's way too light to have that much FPE. I thing someone forgot a couple of zero's or converted to grams....