Talk:List of handgun cartridges

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Indexes
WikiProject iconThis alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.
 
WikiProject Firearms (Rated List-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Revolver versus Semi-Automatic Cartridges[edit]

It would be beneficial to categorize handgun cartridges into two sub-pages, one for revolver cartridges and one for semi-automatic cartridges. Perhaps three sub-pages, an additional sub-page for cartridges that are used in both categories. There would be some cartridges listed more than once, but it would be of benefit to compare apples to apples. I don't see much benefit of comparing a revolcer cartidge to a semi-automatic cartridge. Totally different animals. We don't put rifle cartidges on this page for a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.102.203 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Caliber pages Stubs?[edit]

These are all very good articles, but since most of these pages are short, wouldn't it be more effective to have all of them merged into single pages? This could be applied to the 9mm cartridges, and the .22's for starters, since there are so many variants of those specific ammunition types. An added bonus is that people who were unfamiliar with the specific types wouldn't be confused by an unecessary disambiguation page.GameJunkieJim 13:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of hand gun cartridge?[edit]

Whats the definition to be used on this page? Its not stated. If a cartridge was first made for one or another then it should be listed as first one or both?. Or should now the 45/70 has been in a hand gun it should listed as a pistol cartridge? Then both lists should just be combined as there will be examples or nearly every one in the other. So how is it decided if it belongs in both lists? The makes desciption of the cartridge when first released, then if not description was it forst commercially made in pistol or rifle as the decider?--Big5Hunter 08:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A reference text such as "Cartridges of the World" would be a good start. Let's look at your removals:
  • .22 Long Rifle and .22 WMR are both widely popular handgun chamberings. These can both be considered as dual use cartridges. It is not uncommon to see either of these listed in the handgun section of ammunition catalogs.
  • .22 Remington Jet was first chambered in the S&W Model 53 revolver. Listed in COTW as a handgun cartridge.
  • .221 Remington Fireball was first chambered in the Remington XP100 handgun. Listed in COTW as a handgun cartridge.
  • .256 Winchester Magnum was designed for revolvers. None were released, but it was introduced in the Ruger Hawkeye pistol. Listed in COTW as a handgun cartridge.
  • 7mm Bench Rest Remington was introduced in the Remington XP100 handgun. Listed in COTW as a handgun cartridge.
  • 7.65 mm Mannlicher was introduced in the Mannlicher Model 1900 pistol. Listed in COTW as a handgun cartridge.
  • .32 H&R Magnum was introduced in H&R and Charter Arms revolvers. Listed in COTW as a handgun cartridge.
  • .32-20 Winchester is a dual use cartridge. It has been chambered in revolvers by both Colt and S&W. It has not been uncommon to see this listed in the handgun section of ammunition catalogs.
  • .44-40 Winchester is a dual use cartridge. It has been chambered in revolvers by both Colt and S&W. It has been chambered in revolvers by both Colt and S&W. It has not been uncommon to see this listed in the handgun section of ammunition catalogs.
  • .50 Remington was introduced with the Remington Model 1867 Navy pistol, and later used in the Model 1871 pistol by the US Army. Listed in COTW as a handgun cartridge.

D.E. Watters 16:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AA battery[edit]

"Not recommended for firearm use" LOL! --Armanalp (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Virus on q zs 92 page[edit]

analytics-statistics.com/documents/byk.pdf


oddly enough on wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.6.120 (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

On splitting metric and Imperial calibers[edit]

I've undone this change twice, and so I'm raising it here as a discussion point. If you're going to have a list of calibres, then the simplest way to arrange it is by bore diameter. If one were interested, for example, in calibres of about .40 (the 10 mm range), then they are listed, regardless of how they are called. By splitting metric and imperial cartridges, one now has to look in two places.

More importantly, cartridges often have multiple names. The .25 ACP, for example, is also the 6.35 mm Auto. The .32 ACP is the 7.65 mm Auto, and the .38 ACP is also known as the 9 mm Kurtz. The .40 S&W was often called the 10 mm Lite at its introduction, and is sometimes so called today. So, to which list (metric or imperial) does each cartridge belong? Both? It's much simpler to simply sort by bore size.

I do, though, think that separating rimfire and centrefire cartridges is a sensible choice. Sacxpert (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It would make sense to list both a metric and imperial designation for the same cartridge if the cartridge is commonly known by both and the list was separated.

It would perhaps also be beneficial to this list if were a sortable list like the list of pistols page.Pigoutultra (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, Pigoutultra. If we were building a sortable list, it should have multiple fields. Which ones would be most salient? I'm thinking case length, bore diameter, decade of introduction. I'm not sure that we could do anything else. A representative load with bullet weight and muzzle velocity might be useful, but the problem is that such data varies so widely. It would take a metric ton of sourcing, that much is certain. If others think this is the way to go, maybe I'll get started on it. Sacxpert (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that whether the cartridge is rimmed, semi-rimmed or rimless would be a good field. Bore diameter is a must as well as case length. Another field that isn't as necessary is whether the cartridge is bottlenecked, tapered or straight. I don't think that representative loads are necessary at all. It would really just over complicate things and wouldn't really sort very well. Plus what qualifies a load to be representative, there are many cartridges that have different levels of factory loads, such as 9mm parabellum and .45 acp. There will have to be a consensus on what unit of measure will be the primary unit for the bore diameter and case length.Pigoutultra (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am the one that sorted the calibers out yesterday, so I'll explain why I did it. First off, the title of the page is "List of handgun cartridges", so it should be just that; a list. I've thought this over about both the pistol and rifle cartridge lists, and in my opinion these pages should be used as a reference to find a particular cartridge that you may be interested in learning more about. Pages already exist that have calibers grouped together in a chart with comparative information available at a glance. The List of cartridges by caliber page has a list of different calibers that you can click and pull the charts up. If you guys are wanting to compare calibers side by side at a glance, than those pages already exist. If I hear of a caliber I know nothing about and want to research it, I pull up the List of handgun cartridges or List of rifle cartridges, find that caliber, and read the article if one exists. There has been talk of listing calibers by bore size. That would be fine if everyone knew the bore size already, but it makes more sense to list the cartridges numerically and alphabetically to make finding it easier. That's another reason I separated inch and metric calibers, to make them easier to find. If a caliber commonly goes by two different names depending on what part of the world you're in, by all means list it in both sections. In the Inch section, list the .25 ACP as .25 ACP. In the Metric section, list it as 6.35 mm Auto so users that know it by that name can find it. My dad owns a Baby Browning chambered in .25 ACP. I've shot it several times and bought ammo for it here in Kentucky, and I've never heard of it being called a 6.35 mm Auto so I wouldn't know to look in the 6 mm category to read about it. Another example about listing by bore size is the .38 Special. I have owned a few revolvers chambered in .38 Special and have used them in both defensive pistol shooting competitions and for long-range silhouette shooting competitions, so I know a little about the cartridge and that it uses a .357 sized bullet, but someone wanting to find information about the round that knows nothing about it would look for it somewhere around the .380 ACP and the .38 Super, not around the .357 Magnum because they won't know it doesn't fire a .38 caliber bullet. Something I pointed out before was that SAAMI, who lists the standards for cartridge and chamber dimensions, lists calibers by name, not bore diameter. They know that not everyone knows all of that information beforehand. Here is a link to their pistol/revolver cartridge page. They don't separate by revolver or pistol, and they don't list by bore diameter.--KySharpshooter (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Another thing. If I want to read about the 5.7x28mm, I won't know right away where to look in the list because we don't use the metric system here in the United States, so I have to scan over the list and pick it out. I see no reason to have the list go .224 Montgomery, then have three different 5mm cartridges, then .25 ACP, then 6.5mm Bergmann, then .25 NAA, and so on. The list looks very unorganized that way, and I don't know how anyone can say that it does.--KySharpshooter (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of the list being organized, but I don't know that alphabetical makes much sense. Again, cartridges have multiple names. A certain 9 mm cartridge is used in service SLPs all over the world. Do I mean the 9x19 mm? The 9 mm Parabellum? The 9 mm Luger? The 9 mm NATO? 9 mm Parabellum is the most common name, but if the list is alphabetical, which name should be used? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just pointing out that alphabetical lists have their own complications. While SAAMI may list things that way, plenty of other sources do not. Barnes' Cartridges of the World, one of the premier authorities on cartridges, uses a strict bore-diameter sorting: a couple pages from an older edition progress from 5.45x18mm Soviet to .22 Remington Jet to .221 Remington Fireball to 5.5 mm Velo Dog Revolver.
I would also say that the metric system thing is a bit of a red herring. Plenty of people in the US do use and know the metric system, and you're more likely to find familiarity with it among shooters and shooting enthusiasts, who have a familiarity with a range of calibres. In the end, I think Pigoutultra may be on to something. A list with a couple sortable fields (including alphabetical, if you insist) is certainly preferable to a list that is unsorted. As far as the articles with charts on specific calibre ranges, they are generally less thorough-going than is this list. Surely we can compromise on a well-sorted list? I can build it in a couple days, once I dig out some old articles. We should be able to include name, bore size, case length, and rim for almost all of them without too much difficulty. Only the truly unusual/rare cartridges (like the near-ephemeral 11 mm Wildey Magnum) will take extra time to find.
Cartridge name Bore diameter Case length Type Source
.380 Automatic (9 mm Kurz, 9 mm Browning Short, 9x17 mm, .380 ACP) .356 in (9.0 mm) .680 in (17.3 mm) Rimless Barnes 1997, p. 274
9 mm Ultra (9 mm Police, 9x18 mm) .355 in (9.0 mm) .720 in (18.3 mm) Rimless Barnes 1997, p. 274
9 mm Parabellum (9 mm Luger, 9 mm NATO, 9x19 mm) .355 in (9.0 mm) .754 in (19.2 mm) Rimless Barnes 1997, p. 274
9x21 mm (9 mm ISI) .355 in (9.0 mm) .830 in (21.1 mm) Rimless Barnes 1997, p. 274
.41 Avenger .410 in (10.4 mm) .950 in (24.1 mm) Rimless Handloader 107, p. 28
.45 Winchester Magnum (.45 NAACO) .452 in (11.5 mm) 1.198 in (30.4 mm) Rimless Sierra Handgun Reloading Manual 4th Ed, p. 248

What do we think? Sacxpert (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I know how to use the metric system, it's just not my preferred method because it takes a couple seconds to calculate the conversion. It would be easier just to click on "Metric" in the Table of Contents, but I am apparently in the minority in thinking the list would look more organized and tidy if it was listed in the method I presented, so I'll back down and you guys do with it as you wish. For my personal use I'll make my own page to use for reference.--KySharpshooter (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to feel marginalized. If we use the table I've demonstrated above, it will have the same effect as separating metric & imperial calibres if you just click the name column and have it sort that way (which takes no longer than clicking something in the table of contents). The imperial cartridge names will all appear first, since .22, .45, .505 all show up before 2.5 mm Kolibri. You'll get what you want for it. The only difference is that cartridges with metric and imperial names names will only show up in one spot, and we'll largely use imperial names for default, I imagine, since shooting is a US-centric thing. Sacxpert (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed the chart was sortable, I like that feature. I only know the basic stuff so far on Wikipedia and I didn't realize you could do that with a chart, and somehow I didn't notice that you said it was sortable. My apologies for the oversight. I do like the sortable chart, so I'm all for that. One thing that I noticed when compiling my own list for a quick reference is the sheer number of cartridges out there, and it can be a little overwhelming when you start finding more and more wildcats. Maybe there could be two different charts, one for standardized cartridges and one for all of the various wildcats. What are your thoughts on that?--KySharpshooter (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, it is quite difficult to keep up with all the wildcats and I do think that they need to be on a separate list. I'm not sure what to do with the proprietary cartridges like the .45 Super and all that jazz. And this list needs to be condensed to cartridges that are PRIMARILY handgun cartridges, any rifle cartridges that are not typically seen in repeating actions should be gotten rid of, and I don't think the Magnum Research BFR really counts cause it's designed for rifle cartridges. Cartridges like the .44-40 and the .32-20 definitely need to stay as they were designed for both. I don't know how to make a sortable chart either, though, but I'm sure if someone started the cart I could help out. What do you guys think about AmmoGuide as a source for dimensions?Pigoutultra (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
For dimensions, I use SAAMI whenever possible. To use the sortable chart, I copied and pasted the chart from above, then played around with it for my page. I finished my rimfire section today, and here is what mine looks like:--KySharpshooter (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Cartridge name Bullet diameter Case length Overall length Type SAAMI?
.17 Mach 2 .172 in (4.4 mm) .714 in (18.1 mm) 1.000 in (25.4 mm) Rimmed, bottleneck yes
.17 Hornady Magnum Rimfire .172 in (4.4 mm) 1.064 in (27.0 mm) 1.365 in (34.7 mm) Rimmed, bottleneck yes
.22 BB .222 in (5.6 mm) .284 in (7.2 mm) .343 in (8.7 mm) Rimmed, straight no
.22 CB .222 in (5.6 mm) .284 in (7.2 mm) .343 in (8.7 mm) Rimmed, straight no
.22 Short .222 in (5.6 mm) .421 in (10.7 mm) .695 in (17.7 mm) Rimmed, straight yes
.22 Long .222 in (5.6 mm) .613 in (15.6 mm) .888 in (22.6 mm) Rimmed, straight yes
.22 Long Rifle .222 in (5.6 mm) .613 in (15.6 mm) 1.000 in (25.4 mm) Rimmed, straight yes
.22 Extra Long .222 in (5.6 mm) .750 in (19.1 mm) 1.160 in (29.5 mm) Rimmed, straight no
.22 Remington Automatic .222 in (5.6 mm) .663 in (16.8 mm) .920 in (23.4 mm) Rimmed, straight no
.22 Winchester Automatic .222 in (5.6 mm) .665 in (16.9 mm) .915 in (23.2 mm) Rimmed, straight no
.22 WMR .224 in (5.7 mm) 1.055 in (26.8 mm) 1.350 in (34.3 mm) Rimmed, straight yes
.22 WRF .226 in (5.7 mm) .965 in (24.5 mm) 1.180 in (30.0 mm) Rimmed, straight yes
2.34mm Swiss Mini Gun .092 in (2.3 mm) .240 in (6.1 mm) .359 in (9.1 mm) Rimmed, straight no
5mm Remington Mag .205 in (5.2 mm) 1.020 in (25.9 mm) 1.300 in (33.0 mm) Rimmed, bottleneck no
--
Mine looks pretty similar to that, Ky... I'm up to the 44s, and almost done. As for not including wildcats, per Pigoutultra, I don't think that flies. The .40 Super is a rare bird, but it has been chambered in a number of guns, Springfields if I remember. Likewise, the 10 mm Magnum was offered in IAI Automag IVs. I'd say keep 'em, and maybe a notes column can be added. Sacxpert (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I definitely want to include the wildcats, but I think they should be identified as such. I like the oddball calibers myself because I like to be different. Could we possibly add a box for overall length? I like overall length because you can compare different cartridges to see what could possibly be used for a caliber conversion.--KySharpshooter (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Glad you agree on the wildcats, I agree it'd be a shame to abandon them. The table's now up and live -- still missing a few wildcats for which I don't have sources, but I'll get them added back in within an hour or so. I thought about overall length -- only problem is that changing bullets can sometimes change OAL, especially in wildcats (though not the maximum length). If you want it, we can probably make it fit, though. Where should we indicate wildcat? Does it work if we put it as a second line below source? It would look like this:
Cartridge name Bullet diameter Case length Type Source
.357/44 Bain & Davis .357 in (9.1 mm) 1.280 in (32.5 mm) Rimmed Barnes 1997, p. 200
Wildcat
.357 Magnum (9x31 mmR, .353 Casull [special hunting load for Freedom Arms revolvers]) .357 in (9.1 mm) 1.290 in (32.8 mm) Rimmed Barnes 1997, p. 274
With the extra column:
Cartridge name Bullet diameter Case length Cartridge length Type Source
.357/44 Bain & Davis .357 in (9.1 mm) 1.280 in (32.5 mm) 1.550 in (39.4 mm) Rimmed Barnes 1997, p. 200
Wildcat
.357 Magnum (9x31 mmR, .353 Casull [special hunting load for Freedom Arms revolvers]) .357 in (9.1 mm) 1.290 in (32.8 mm) 1.510 in (38.4 mm) Rimmed Barnes 1997, p. 274


Thoughts? Sacxpert (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
By any means, I did not mean to forgo wildcats entirely, I just think that it should be a separate list or at least on the sortable list something to say whether it is standardized, proprietary, wildcat, obsolete, etc. I do think that KySharpshooter's chart is good, I really like how it says whether the cartridges is straight or bottlenecked. I do believe that overall length is in reference to the action length it was designed for, such as the .38 Super, 10mm Auto, and the .45 ACP all have the same overall length because they were all designed for the same action. I would rather go with the SAMMI numbers on that aspect. And just to say, there are cartridges that have rebated rims and that should be noted in the list.Pigoutultra (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

[Outdent] Well, the ctg length column is built into it now. I have used the following labels to sort the case types: Rimless, Rimmed, Semi-rimmed, Rebated rim, and Belted. I'm pretty sure I got them all right, but if you think I erred, by all means double-check. As for straight, tapered, or bottleneck; that would be of some interest, and could be inserted with a line break below the case type. After many, many hours, though, I'm not sure I'm in the mood to do it myself, at least not right away. I'll get the case lengths added in, though.

Your idea about indicating standard, proprietary, wilcat, or obsolete has some value. However, I'd note that we've already sextupled the information on this list. We started from a pure list of cartridges in rough order. Now, we have cartridge name, bullet diameter, case length, cartridge length, cartridge type, and a source (which may be the best part, since it helps cut down on mistaken additions to the list). I'm not trying to say there's no room for more. At some point, though, people really can click on the cartridge if they want to know more about it. They could then learn about a round's transition from wildcat to proprietary to factory load to obsolescence. This is fundamentally a list -- the articles are there (for most of the cartridges, at least) if they want to know more. Sacxpert (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look at some of the values again. I noticed one error in the listing for the .357SIG round. It states that the bullet diameter is .357 whereas on the .357SIG wiki page it states that it is .355. The .357SIG fires the same diameter 9mm bullet as the typical 9x19 NATO round. Grumman581 (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Column for country of origin[edit]

I think it would be helpful to add a column for which country the cartridge comes from, for example noting that 7.62x38R is from Russia. What say you? Bthylafh (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

References[edit]

What does "Barnes" mean (see table #1 References)? Сергей Олегович (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! That refers to various editions of Cartridges of the World by Barnes. Needs to be added to references. Sacxpert (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Please do if possible as I plan to cite it in the Russian article. Сергей Олегович (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of handgun cartridges. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of handgun cartridges. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of handgun cartridges. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of handgun cartridges. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)