Note on Ammunition Cartrage Designations: Edit

The second number in a cartridge designation does not necessarily indicate it's length. For some rounds it is the bullet wieght, or powder charge as in the 45-70 a US service cartridge from the late 19th century and for some like the 30-'06 it stands for the year of its military adoption 1906 and some cartridges have no second number like the 308 Winchester (7.62 Nato) or the 45ACP. It can also be just a naming nod to the origins of the round like the 7mm-08 Remington that was originally a wildcat cartridge made from 308 Winchester brass. Also there are lots of rifle cartridges that exceed 9mm even the above mentioned 45-70. Dagger133 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

7.62mm NATO is 7.62x51mm. .45 ACP is measured metrically as 11.43x23mm. ALL rounds have a metric measurement. Not all of them are referred to in common speech. The .30-06 round is 7.62x63mm if I remember correctly - hardly exceeding 9mm. The second digit ALWAYS designates the length; the first digit designates the diameter of the bullet at the wide end (NOT the cartridge itself, the actual bullet!) Smoke My pageMy talkMy Editcount 18:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, if the designation is formatted in any way other than "(number)x(number)(unit of metric measurement)", then that is not a metric measurement, and I was not referring to that particular second number (the "06" in .30-06, for instance - I'm well aware that the .30 is inches, and the 06 (there is no ') is the year). Ammunition, when written in the format I just outlined, is generally measured in millimeters. SmokeSound off! 07:44, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

I have managed to find a direct reference to the ammunition used in the BR55 in 'The Art of Halo 3'. It lists the cartridge as 9.5mm x 40 KURZ, leading to the conclusion that the final number is the case length after all, as the current day KURZ ammo has a similar ratio of bullet diameter to casing length. I can also scan in the image (which has all of the ammunition on scale next to each other) and measure off that if need be.
Diaboy 00:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

YesMan48 01:58, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Analysing damage based on real life muzzle energies? I think not... Edit

Most of this article seems to be devoted to comparing the muzzle energies of real life weaponry and ammunition to the damages to characters in Halo. For one, no accurate comparison can be made as the weapon damages in the game are purely for gameplay balance. The already inaccurate comparisons are made worse that there is no accounting made for headshot modifiers, etc. etc. I do not have time to change this now but will do so later. Anyone who is willing to do it before then is welcome. Diaboy 17:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Edit

When a cartridge is designated metrically, such as 5.56 x (45)<---- this number DOES designate length, just like the battle rifle's ammo type. Griever0311 02:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had this argument several times with people on this site. Some won't listen. Smoke My pageMy talkMy Editcount 18:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

the second number only indicates the case length in metric designations NOT in all designations if it dosn't say mm it may not be a metric designation! The original discussion about this round centered on the size of a battle rifle's magazine, and "How could you fit 36 rounds in x amount of space if they are 40mm long?" The discussion concentrated on the length of this fictional round in a fictional magazine.[[1]] see link 9.5mm x40 Dagger133 06:57, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Read what he said. He said when a cartridge is designated METRICALLY. If it is not designated metrically, then of course it's not going to be measured as such. The picture in the article is obviously measured in millimeters - however, Bungie screwed up the designation and put the "mm" in FRONT of the "x 40", instead of behind the 40 as they should have.
However, usually when it is formatted in that manner in reference to ammunition, it IS a metric designation, and it's usually in millimeters (any other measurement would be ridiculously small/large for a bullet). SmokeSound off! 07:23, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Hold up guys. Read what I said, read what Bungie wrote. My reasoning is based on what Bungie acctually wrote, 9.5mm x40 Kurz, not what the fanboys interpreted, believing the original author didn't screw anything up, the 40 could be anything (even the case length in mm). This is suposed to be an encyclopedia you're not supposed to edit source material for the sake of an argument.Dagger133 08:48, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. They wrote the 7.62x51mm NATO designation the same way - incorrectly (7.62mmx51 NATO). They DID screw it up, plain and simple. It's really obvious they went for the metric designation; aside from caliber (inches), there really isn't any other logical way to measure the dimensions of the round. It's a minor screw-up, that's it.
If it is the case length in mm (which it is, as I stated above - it's obviously designated metrically), then the "mm" goes BEHIND the 40, NOT in front of it, as was done on this round, and the measurements of EVERY OTHER ROUND they used! This isn't "editing source material for the sake of an argument", this is correcting an obvious mistake on the part of the developer. SmokeSound off! 18:50, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

You know, I just finished writing an essay on ammunition. You know what I learned? The people who make designations for ammunition are oblivious to the rest of the world. The people who designate in inches, don't realize there is such a unit as mm, and same with the reverse. The inch people also forget units - 45(hundredth of an inch) x 70(Pounds? Ounces? Gallons? Inches? Feet? Etc, etc.). This became very annoying to write about in my paper, so I resorted to NATO rounds. At least they have something resembling a standardized system.

(YesMan48 02:12, February 10, 2010 (UTC))

Dude, you do realise that the .45-70 originates from the 19th Century? Long before there was any kind of cartridge standardisation in the US forces, and longer before the NATO-accepted metric-standard notation for rifle cartridge nomenclature. First number denotes the round diameter at lands, second number denotes the case length. Not overall length. Always in millimetres, if NATO/metric designation, always that format. .45-70 Government is an archaic notation for an archaic cartridge, and is actually designated similarly to the modern notation - the use of round diameter plus cartridge length is an indicator of round size and cartridge power - as is the use of the mass of powder, in graints (.45-70 of course denotes a .45 cartridge with 70gr of powder). Thebigyeash (talk) 17:31, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Remove disputed facts banner?, clean-up Edit

I agree with Smoke on the metric ammo designation. Regardless of his new authority as an Administrator, he was a Marine! I would trust a Marine on guns and ammunition over just about anyone (except a higher-ranking Marine, that is). Plus, it's pretty obvious, and anyone arguing the point should simply google "metric ammo designation". Is it OK if I remove the disputed facts tag and clean-up this article? -- Nutarama 22:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously get a grip, just because he is a Marine dosn't make him an expert on ammunition designations outside of the USMC armoury, it dosn't give him a diploma in firearms repair or a bookself of reference material on hundreds of metalic cartrages. Dagger133 07:16, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

I'm no gunsmith/armorer, but I at least know that much. The USMC isn't my only experience with firearms, and a metric designation is a metric designation, no matter what armory the round came from. SmokeSound off! 07:20, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

True, Dagger133, but it does mean he knows his ammunition better than a lot of people. And Nutarama, I don't think a marine officer will know very much about ammunition. Your idea is correct for the most part in the enlisted. And sure, you can remove disputed facts - but don't think people won't complain.

YesMan48 02:16, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Smoke? A marine? I doubt it. Just because he says he is doesn't mean he is, you can claim to be anything on the internet. Don't believe him. My evidence:

1. He knows nothing about shot placement. He actually recommends headshots, which is something ANY marine knows is a dumb idea. I already went into why lower on the page.

2. He doesn't know a thing about recoil. Read what he said on the talk page for Talk:M7/Caseless Submachine Gun when talking to me. IE: "Recoil is dependent not on the size of the round, but on the amount (and type) of propellant used and on the weight and design of the weapon in question" The size of the bullet has EVERYTHING to do with recoil, or at least the mass does. More mass means more momentum for the same energy. More momentum mean more recoil impulse. Propellant makes little difference, propellant is too light to transfer much momentum, hence why there is so nil recoil when you fire a blank. The only thing that matters is the momentum transferred to the bullet and the weight of the weapon.

3. He actually thinks energy transfer equates to stopping power. Look lower on the page. (It's hard to be dummer. A baseball bat transfers an order of magnitude more energy than a 9mm, does that mean it does an order of magnitude more damage?) The ONLY thing a bullet does is punch a hole in the target, that's its ONLY job. The size of the hole, which is the extent of the physical damage done, is what determines the damage. The only ways to do more damage are to either put a hole through something more important (The heart, not the head. The HEART.) or to leave a bigger hole, preferably both. A bigger hole bleeds faster, takes longer to seal, and therefore leads to more blood loss. It also means more damage to tissue, especially when it comes to muscles, like the HEART, because muscle's flexibility means it so it won't tear as easily as skin.

I can go on all day. Smoke is NOT a marine, or he'd know better than to shoot somebody in the head, Smoke does NOT have weapon experience, or he'd know more about recoil, and, most importantly, Smoke does NOT know terminal ballistics, or he'd know energy transfer is meaningless. Avianmosquito 01:43, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, read my DD214 and tell me I'm a fake. Go tell that to my recruiter, the Drill Instructors who trained me, and the many friends I met in the Marines. Also, as for weapon experience: I have a Taurus PT145 Millennium Pro pistol next to me, chambered in .45 ACP, and I've put well over a thousand rounds through it. I have an AR-15 leaning against the wall, and several hundred rounds put through that (I just recently got it). I was issued an M16A2 service rifle in recruit training, serial number 6527152. I have fired quite a few weapons (AK-47, AR-15 pistol, Kimber .45, Ruger Mk III .22 LR, Cz 75 9mm pistol, and a few others) because I make frequent visits to the range. By all means, present all "evidence" that I am a fake. I'd love to hear it. SmokeSound off! 02:07, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Fine then, assuming you're telling the truth, did you forget everything the corps. taught you? I apologize for exploding on you, (and for making the assumption you would delete my comment. Since you didn't, I'll remove the accusation that you would.) but you have to understand my skepticism. I have no desire to read your DD214 or talk to your instructer, I can't really do either at the moment. A document on the internet is worthless, and I can doubt anybody who claims to be your instructer for the same reason. Unless I met you or them in person, my doubt will remain.

Never the less, I was wrong to assume you a liar for my admittedly limited, and flimsy, evidence.

My questions: Your drill sergeant certainly trained you NOT to aim for the head, as I know mine did, (even if he didn't explain why, I found that out later) why in the hell would you recommend something you know is a bad idea? Has it just been so long you forgot? (As evidenced by your claim to have used an M16A2) Has videogame culture infected you, as it has so many others? What was it, then?

How can you have fired so many weapons and not know a thing about recoil? (Although, by your own testimony, you've had experience with far fewer weapons than I have, so I might be jumping the gun here.) Or did you just fire the weapons without doing any research on the matter? (I can understand not wanting to do it. I only did it because I had to. My staff sergeant was adamant about knowing your weapon, so every time I picked up something new he'd throw the user's manual at me, or at least a translation of it. I liked to salvage enemy weapons, so it was a frequent thing. After I got home it was just a habit.)

Finally, what in the hell makes you think energy transfer means a damn thing? Again, think of the baseball bat and the 9mm. An full-powered adrenalin-driven swing can pack up to 4500j, 10 times the energy of the 9mm they issued me (I hate that thing) and all will transfer. Does that mean it will do 10 times the damage? I think not. A 9mm from a Glock will do 90% of the damage a 9mm from an MP5K will, yet it only transfers 70% of the energy. If energy transfer was the impotant part, the pistol would do 70% of the damage the SMG did. What makes you believe something so obviously untrue?

Please answer me, I want to know how somebody who claims to be a marine (whether you are or not) can be so far off in what should be a marine's area of expertise. I will still doubt your validity, but at least I should doubt you less. Avianmosquito 04:47, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding why shots shouldn't be fired to the head: just common sense here but the the head has a very small surface of area as opposed to the abdomen. With that said, the infantryman would save much time and effort in taking down an enemy by focusing at the enemy's chest first. If the enemy is still alive and fighting back, then take another shot to the body again or to the head. Also, every enemy can provide vital intel to the military, so infantryman are assumed to suppress the enemy and take them in for "questioning", not killing them off entirely (unless situation is against the infantryman).(7alk) 04:58, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
You've got it backward. I know exactly why you don't aim for the head. It's actually mostly because the heart is more vital target, and if you miss it you still hit a lung. For a more thorough explanation, read what I said to him below. He's the one who advocates the headshot, not I. Avianmosquito 05:02, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is really disorganised... >.> (7alk) 05:09, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Avianmosquito 05:52, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

It's because I didn't spend very long in the Marine Corps. Only a few months. That's recruit training and MCT, and in my case, part of MOS school - which isn't enough to give you experience in everything there is to know about war (only the basics). Now, I don't know what experiences with weapons you have, and I might have (from the sounds of it, most likely) far less experience than you do. What I say here is stuff I've learned from tidbits I remember from my DIs, my PMI, range officers from the range I go to (I'm applying for a concealed carry permit - the "two to the chest, one to the head" deal is the Mozambique drill - look it up), and my own research. Admittedly, because it's been almost two years now, I don't remember every single detail. I may very well be wrong on some things. If I'm adamant on something, however, that means I've done some reading and possibly some experimentation as well. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but how about discussing it instead of going off on tangents and calling my integrity into question. I will be sure to pay you the same respect.
About the weapons I've fired, I have the field manual for the M16A2 and I use it for my AR-15 (aside from a couple of parts missing in the lower receiver and inability of my particular rifle to take 5.56x45mm NATO, they are completely identical), and I made sure to thoroughly get to know my pistol before ever firing it. The other weapons were fired when I got opportunities to do so at the range - hardly a chance to research them as thoroughly as I'd like (I like knowing my weapons as well - the better you know your weapon, the better you can care for it, and in turn, the better it will take care of you if you ever need it to). So yes, while I have quite a bit of time behind the trigger, my hands-on experience with different weapons is a little limited. It's amplified when we're here talking about fictional weapons - in which case you can't get hands-on experience, there IS no field manual for it, and the properties of the round may not even be plausible in the real world.
As for aiming for the head: Never did I say aim directly for the head without shooting anywhere else. Note that I said two to the chest and one to the head; I made reference to the technique in the above wall of text. Personally, if you can't aim well enough to hit the head, or don't have the confidence to do so, I wouldn't be aiming for it - aim center mass, like you are taught to do in ANY marksmanship instruction course - civilian or military.
By the way, we train with A2s in recruit training, even now. Some of those things are upwards of 20 years old. We use A4s in the fleet. SmokeSound off! 05:24, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

The Mozambique drill is well-designed, but not the way you think. It is designed for the typical green as grass soldier who can't reliably hit the heart. This way, you can inflict damage to the target's lungs and brain. The result is that they are dazed (and possibly blinded) from the headshot and cannot breath, rendering them incapacitated while they slip into hypovolemic shock or die of hypoxia from their combined inability to breath and blood loss. One shot to the heart will do twice the damage of all three of those shots put together and leave somebody dead before they hit the ground.

Not much experience in the USMC, only taught the Mozambique drill... that explains the lack of knowledge as far as terminal ballistics and shot placement. Lack of knowledge of recoil physics... somewhat covered.

If you want to research a weapon you can't get the manual to, try finding a digital copy on the internet. If that doesn't work, look on Wikipedia. It doesn't have as much information as the manual, but the information will be less biased and include criticism, something you will not find in a manual.

As for my experience with weapons, that's simple. The USMC gave me 4. 1 M16A4, one MP5N, one Baretta M9, and one Sig-Saur P220 Combat (Compliments of my staff sergeant.) I picked up 6 insurgent weapons. 3 kalashnikovs (2 Ak-47's and one AKM) an IMI Uzi, an RPG-7 (I only had it for about 2 weeks.) an FN-FAL. I've fired 22 other weapons since I got back, only kept 3. (Another .45, an M14, and a Benelli M3) Now you know. I'll be putting a complete list on my user page sometime tomorrow. Avianmosquito 05:52, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily lack of knowledge, (shot placement is more or less common sense - center mass is where most vital organs are; since that's the case, that's where you place your shots), but simply wrong conclusions drawn from other research. As it is, I have a good foundation, but I don't know everything. If you see misinformation from me, by all means, talk to me. Correct me. SmokeSound off! 12:33, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Glad to, in fact, I'm pretty sure that's what I started off doing before I exploded on you. By the way, if you want a complete list of the weapons I have fired, it can now be found on my profile. The total comes to 31. (Not counting duplicate weapons, of course.) Avianmosquito 00:54, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

And for that I do apologize; I would have put more thought into your words had I known you had experience. I will keep that in mind from this point on. SmokeSound off! 01:34, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Size comparison of 9.5x40 and 7.62x51 Edit

The article suggests that the 9.5x40 is a smaller cartridge than the 7.62, this is clearly not true.

Case capacity of 7.62x51: >9 cubic centimetres.

Case capacity of 9.5x40: >11 cubic centimetres.

The 9.5x40 is actually 20% bigger, meaning it should have 20% greater muzzle energy, but then add on the new propellant and longer barrel, and it makes the 7.62 look like a 5.56. Add that to a greater bore diametre, and that means by far greater stopping power. —This unsigned comment is made by (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Not necessarily. It means a faster muzzle velocity, but this round is semi-armor-piercing. In reality, that would mean less than impressive terminal ballistics against a live target, as the round would pass right through them. It'll make a larger hole (two holes, due to its penetrative power) - this round is about two millimeters wider than the 7.62 - but your target will not be stopped. SmokeSound off! 20:38, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
The 7.62mm ammunition used ingame is FMJ-AP, it has the same weakness, in fact it is worse in this regard, hence why you have to land 4-5 shots centre mass to stop a kig-yar. As such, just compare the size of the hole they leave. Compared to a 10mm (it's a good baseline) the 9.5mm should leave a hole ~91% the size, the 7.62 should leave a hole ~58% the size. Even an MP5 beats that. (81%) In other words, if a 10mm does 10 damage, the 9.5 should do 9, and the 7.62 should do 6. A regular 9mm should do 8. If a 10mm does 20, then... you see where this is going. Keep in mind none of these rounds is going to yaw after passing through any less than a full fireteam of marines, if they make it that far, so we don't really need to take the length of the round into consideration. 06:16, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Pistol rounds typically only have half the initial muzzle velocity of a rifle round and do not have the mass or kinetic energy of a rifle round. The size of the hole left doesn't really matter if you're talking about stopping an enemy. How much damage a round does isn't necessarily dependent on its size. A bigger round doesn't always mean your target is just going to drop. You want your target to "stop"? I'll tell you what gives you stopping power: shot placement. Center mass; if that fails to stop them, put one in the head. Hell, that's easier to pull off with less recoil. SmokeSound off! 12:16, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
We're looking for actual damage done, not pain felt. A high-velocity rifle round is painful, true, and pain is what generally causes somebody to stop, but rifles generally leave a tiny hole, (as is expected of a long, thin bullet) meaning it causes less damage to organs and muscles struck, the wounds bleed less and seal up faster. The reason they are more painful is the energy transferred, which has next to no influence on the lethality of the round. (Increased velocity means a bigger exit wound, but not much bigger.) A low-velocity pistol round, on the other hand, will be far less painful, but generally leave a larger hole, (as is expected of a short, wide bullet) and therefore do more damage to whatever it may strike. It won't "stop" the target like a rifle, but it will be more likely to kill them and do so faster if it does.
As far as shot placement, the chest is actually more likely to stop somebody than the head. A bullet through the lung is dibilitating, as it can make it hard to breathe, and one through the heart with anything bigger than a .32 will leave them dead before they hit the ground. NEVER aim for the head. Only a small section of it is worth hitting, the cerebellum to be specific, and even then you would be better of hitting the heart, a larger, more important target that takes less penetration to reach from most angles. Shooting any lower than the target's eyes will do no more damage than a shot to the shoulder, and the skull is quite tough, often stopping smaller rounds, such as .32 calibre rounds and birdshot, from penetrating even at a perfect angle, and even a battle rifle, such as my M14, will ricochet off at an oblique angle. The head is never a good target for any penetrating or lacerating weapon outside of a hostage situation, and even then only the tiny little section at the base of the skull. The entire headshot principle is remedial.
As far as recoil, it only really matters if you have to land a second shot, and you never should if you place the first shot right. What does it matter where the second round lands, or even if it hits the target at all, if the first round passed through the heart? Avianmosquito 01:50, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

^ Thank goodness somebody finally said that. In the military, soldiers are trained not to aim for the head. But in terms of rifle vs pistol ammunition, rifle ammunition usually has better range, speed, accuracy, and penetration. Pistol rounds, however, are much better at close quarters because they don't need as long of a barrel, they have better power than a rifle at short range, and usually have an easier kickback and muzzle climb.

YesMan48 02:25, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is why submachine guns were invented. Everything you said was true, but as far as range, that only if the pistol rounds are fired from a pistol. From a submachine gun, the same rounds can have the accuracy of a rifle, and comparaple effective range to a carbine. Even from the short barrel of an MP5, expect to see as much as 800j from a 9*19, which generally only gets 500j from the barrel of a pistol. It has a maximum effective range of ~100m. (Partially due to the weapon's well-made aperture sights) Compare that to the M4A1. It gets ~1650j from the weapon's much longer barrel, and has a maximum effective range of ~100m. It would be longer, but you can't hit a damn thing with the weapon's shitty sights. (Hence why most people choose to attach different sights right off the bat.)
As far as the weapons of Halo, however, I don't know. You never see the iron sights of any of the weapons you use, which is a major component in their effective range, and some weapons don't even have them. (Although I do believe the MA5 series uses a holographic sight, the M6 series has adjustible rear sights, and the M6G has a laser, but only the latter is confirmed.) Avianmosquito 15:05, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Back to leathality for a moment, apparently the .44 magnum(?) has enough power to cause Hydrostatic Shock; if the bullet itself doesn't kill the target, it will send shockwaves through the body like ripples in a pond.

YesMan48 02:06, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hydrostatic shock doesn't exist. (Or, more accurately, it doesn't do any real damage.) All it does is cause a little more pain, that's it. Avianmosquito 18:58, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. On the other hand, have you seen anyone survive a .44 magnum to the centre of mass? I do not claim this is because of the hydrostatic shock, but the hydrostatic shock couldn't have lessened the survival rate.

YesMan48 22:04, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

SORRY! I meant increased, not lessened.

YesMan48 22:06, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have, an Iraqi no less. He was a tough one, looked suprisingly well-nourished for somebody in a third world country. This was 2004, so he could've been military.

He was a bit too agressive for his own good. He attacked a group of guardsman with an ak-47, he wounded 3, two seriously, although only one succumbed to their injuries. The third one shot him with a revolver and he shot them back, both survived. We found him the next day 2km down the road, he was hurt but still functioning. The Bradley fired on him and nearly removed his left hand. He collapsed about 3 metres away, he pulled a gun on us but dropped it before he could fire, I finished him off with a burst to the left side of his chest and looked him over to see how he survived.

The .44 FMJ passed through his chest, as expected, and even through a lung, but the wound had been properly treated, somebody had fixed him up good, but he had to be one tough son of a bitch to make it to a doctor with a bullet through his lung. He couldn't of gotten far with a wound like that, and sure enough, he'd been treated not 2 blocks from where he'd fired upon the guardsmen. It was from him I got my first Kalashnikov. Avianmosquito 01:03, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Okay. Well, you know, I got that from Wikipedia. Anyways...
Wait... You said it was a .44 FMJ, not the .44 Magnum. Are they basically the same? I always thought that FMJs were better against light armour, and Magnums just had more gunpowder.
YesMan48 02:57, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

no offence but try agin

You're wrong on both counts. A .44 FMJ IS a .44 magnum. All the FMJ means is that it uses a full-metal jacketed, non-expanding bullet as opposed to a JHP (the standard) which is a semi-jacketed expanding bullet. This means more penetration at the expense of stopping power. Either way it's still the same cartridge, it's still 11*33mm. Either way I don't really like it, too little stopping power for it's amount of recoil. I prefer the .454 Casull myself. Avianmosquito 04:49, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect cartridge diagram Edit

The diagram is 'correct', as in it is source. However, the diagram does not denote a cartridge of 9.5x40mm nomenclature. If the case is 40mm long, then the cartridge is not 9.5mm in diameter, and vice versa. Also note that the actual dimension of the bullet will be greater than 9.5mm, due to rifling.

I was hoping to derive some cartridge dimensions to turn them over to a friend who would be able to calculate the power of the cartridge, to try and settle all the debate over whether or not this would be a more powerful cartridge than 7.62x51mm NATO. Personally, I don't think the round will be effective. It shortens the cartridge, but greatly increases the bulk of each round, affecting the size and capacity of a magazine. The fatter cartridge will also have greater chance for wounding, I'm merely doubtful of the ballistic qualities of the cartridge for 'battle rifle' use. I sincerely doubt its ability for 900m engagements, especially since that's a difficult range to reach with a 7.62x51mm round. It's well in excess of what is considered 'sniper ranges' in most western militaries (600m+).Thebigyeash (talk) 18:30, December 23, 2012 (UTC)