Talk:.30-378 Weatherby Magnum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Most of the content I've added, such as muzzle enegies, velocities, and the intention of this round can be sourced from the book "Cartridges of the World" but for the life of me I cannot seem to remember the Wikipedia format for citing from a written work instead of another website. Klauth 18:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what version of COTW you have, and I'm not sure if this is exactly right, but this is what I use. Cartridges of the World 11th Edition, Book by Frank C. Barnes, Edited by Stan Skinner, Gun Digest Books, 2006, ISBN 0-89689-297-2. Arthurrh 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison claims[edit]

There were a lot of comparisons in the article that seemed to be quotes from Weatherby marketing material. I added charts for reference to evaluate these claims. Arthurrh 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the article still sounds to me like more marketing material than fact. (It "outclasses"...??) Please continue with your efforts to 'neutralize' it, if at all possible.

Ballistic performance and test barrel length[edit]

Due to this cartridge very large case capacity in relation to its bore size a 26 in (660.4 mm) long barrel as used in the “info box - ballistic performance” section gives not the most realistic examples of the .30-378 Weatherby Magnum or its ballistic twins ballistic potential, though the stated performance figures in this article are very credible. Barrels that are too short in relation to the employed cartridge will produce sub standard muzzle velocities, unnecessary recoil and lots of muzzle flash, smoke and report. The main cause for these effects is unburned propellant. Custom made rifles for these kind of super magnum cartridges generally sport 762 mm (30 in) or longer barrels to take advantage of the ballistic potential of these overbore cartridges. Francis Flinch 13:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Weatherby created the cartridge, and Weatherby recommends and uses 26" barrels. Even though longer barrels can be used and would provide higher velocity, the 26" is a more realistic number since that is what you'd get if you bought a rifle from Weatherby. Arthurrh 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Energy Comparisons[edit]

I returned the original comparison statement of the capabilities of the .30-378 vs. .458 Win Mag and .338 Lapua. The figures and testing are taken from "Cartridges of the World" and expert Dick Metcalf via "National Rifleman" I would add the citations myself but being a bit of a wiki amature I do not know for sure how I need to do that. If someone would leave me a note here telling me how to list said references I will be glad to do so.

Klauth 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Need pictures[edit]

Please attach some pictures to this article. Also need some one to copy edit this. DeusImperator (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Also .30-378 is capable of exceeding the .458 Win Mag by a high degree however this requires bullets in a weight over 220 grains which are hard to come by factory loaded, and I am not positive if Weatherby still offers them. I will double check and see because if this is something only handloaders can do now, I will change the edit to reflect that.

Apart from being cartridges, what does the .30-378 Wby have to do with the .458 Win Mag? A table comparing the two becomes meaningless when there is nothing to relate to in the comparison. The .30-378 is a big game and long range target shooting rifle. The .458 Win Mag is a dangerous game rifle cartridge. Far more germane would be a comparison of say 1000 yard bench rest cartridges or perhaps a comparison of other .30 caliber rifle cartridges or perhaps even a comparison of "sniper rifle" cartridges. DeusImperator (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on .30-378 Weatherby Magnum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)