Talk:.410 bore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the .410 bore article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Move from .410 gauge to .410 bore

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was to move this article


While ".410 gauge" is about twice as common as ".410 bore" (based on Google hits) the correct term is .410 bore. I propose moving the article to .410 bore, and noting that "guage" is a common, but not technically correct, designation. Shotgun and ammunition makers correctly designate their products as .410 bore (www.mossberg.com, www.remington.com) and I think that is a far stronger basis for naming the article than the common mis-use of the term "gauge". scot 19:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but keep ".410 gauge" as a redirect.The Dogfather 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely--I should have mentioned that. And probalby "410 gauge" as well, since the "real" gauges don't use a decimal. scot 21:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Note that .410 bore is uncommon enough that nobody so far has even felt the need to create a redirect from it. The notion of "technical incorrectness" simply doesn't hold water. Gene Nygaard 13:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
By that argument, the primary pronunciation of "nuclear" should be listed as "nu-kya-lur", not "nu-clear" (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nuclear) because most people mispronounce it that way. And if that arguement doens't work, consider it this way: where are you going to find verifiable, export source information on ".410 gauge"? scot 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
So, why "bore" rather than "caliber"?
Lot's of people talk about "12 bore" shotguns, too. In fact, Google gives more hits for shotgun and "12 bore" than for shotgun and "410 bore" (it doesn't pay any attention to the decimal point). Gene Nygaard 20:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
While the term "12 bore" does show up, there's a 20:1 discrepancy between that and "12 gauge" (17k vs. 364k hits). The term "bore", other than for .410 bore, has fallen out of use by everyone except the British. As to why not "caliber", shotguns just aren't described by "caliber", because "caliber" indicates a precision that just doesn't exist in shotgun barrels. Frankly, ".410 bore" is a gross overstatement, as it's really "somewhere between .40 and .45 bore"--.444 Marlin cases work just fine as all brass .410 shells, albeit at only about 2 1/8" length, and .410 slugs run from under .39" to .43" in diameter.
Of course, I'm still going to state that the fact that the manufacturers all call it ".410 bore" is the clincher. scot 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Move Both Bore and Gauge refer to the diameter (or caliber) of a gun's barrel. However, as the chart on Gauge (bore diameter) shows, the Gauge and caliber are inversely proportional, thus a gun with a ".410 gauge" would have an incredibly large caliber (far larger than .410 inches). Unfortunately, a shotgun with a .410 inch bore is never referred to by its true gauge (it's a 67 gauge shotgun according to our article). As highlighted by external links that have now been added to this article's page, the term .410 gauge is incorrect. I therefore support a move to .410 bore, which will of course mean that a redirect is left at .410 gauge. --Lox (t,c) 16:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.: Two votes for (plus nomination) to one against --Lox (t,c) 11:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not entirely sure how, but I got my dates confused and this page was moved after consensus was reached but before the prescribed 5 days. I don't really know whether I should now revert all my changes (link fixes and page move), or just wait for the end of five days. Apologies again! --Lox (t,c) 12:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.