Talk:.41 Short

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the .41 Short 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

Firearms Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

Why was this page removed?

Please remember to sign your posts. Kartano (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

I've requested permission to use an image of the .41 short from the Ammo One online store. Hopefully I'll hear back soon from the author with permission to use the image. Kartano (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon: the 52 foot-pounds force in the intro should really be changed 52 foot-pounds energy. joules is the metric equivalent so thats fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.160.174 (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Article?

I found this in Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.41_rimfire

Are these the same? Jokem (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arithmetic error?

"According to Cartridges of the World, the .41 Rimfire consisted of a 130 grain (8.4 g) lead bullet propelled by 13 grains (0.8 g) of black powder in its original load. The round produced a muzzle velocity of 425 feet per second (130 m/s) and a muzzle energy of 52 foot-pounds force (71 J). However, more recently firearms writer Holt Bodinson has disputed these findings. He states that his testing showed the 130 grain bullet traveled at 685 feet per second (209 m/s) so producing 111 foot-pounds force (150 J) of energy - a significant difference in ballistic energy from the earlier tests. The difference in findings can potentially be attributed to variances in the specific ammunition fired or measuring equipment used."

The equation for Kinetic Energy is 1/2 mv^2.

For the first calculation of the energy: 1/2 x 0.0084 kg x (130 m/s)^2 = 70.98 Joules ... so "71 J" is correct.

For the second calculation of the energy: 1/2 x 0.0084 kg x (209 m/s)^2 = 183.46 Joules ... so "150 J" is incorrect.

[I do not have access to the original data to know whether the result (150 J) is wrong or the stated velocity (209 m/s) is wrong.]

Atpollard (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the error. In the source article, the "685 feet per second (209 m/s)" was for the .38 S&W and not the .41 Short. The correct velocity from the article cited should be 621 fps (189 m/s) which yields 111 ft-lbs (150 J). Atpollard (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]