Talk:7.92x57mm Mauser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 7.92x57mm Mauser article.
Article policies
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Question

Shouldn't this be called the "7.92x57 Mauser"? My understanding is that is the usual name for it. -- Cabalamat 15:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. 8x57 is the American designation, the rest of the World calls it 7.92x57 (or 7,92x57mm). Like any very successful, century-plus old cartridge, it has a multitude of designations, not to mention loads. I'm trying to update this as I have time. Even the J/I dichotomy is all screwed up. It was originally "I". US Intelligence (sic) in WWII mistranslated this as "J". SAAMI calls it "J". Now even the CIP calls it "J". HangFire 20:05 December 13, 2005 (EST)
Shouldn't all the "7,92x57"s be "7.92x57"? --ejail 00:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No. The original military designation used a comma, and the CIP standards body still uses a comma. It is only the English speaking countries that use a period. Since this is a cartridge of European origin, and exact nomenclature is an important part of any cartridge's history, it is important to retain the original nomiker when referring to it in historical context. HangFire 02:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, is it not? Thus, the english-language form should be used, even though it is a german cartridge.

-Alex, 74.133.188.197 03:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

The Wikipedia style page refers to ISO31-0, and this norm clearly states comma as the preferred decimal separator. For the time beeing, rumors about the dot as an equal to comma are just that - rumors! Other norms tolerate the decimal point only in conjunction with obsolete, though still used, English units. So it is what it has been from the beginning: 7,92x57 mm Mauser.

--Dutchguy 07:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The designations of the different countries should be recognised. The cartridge could say german and british sources one below the other so that way both would say, becose it is not fair to convert the original name, and is much better if it would say both german and english designation of the cartridge. Thank you. -Nemesis1000 83.131.149.119 10:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

8mm Mauser is never referred to as 7.92x57 Mauser. The actual dimensions are left in mm, or 7.92x57mm, or 8mm Mauser, not the combination of the two. Brenden 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This comma versus period for the decimal point has been argued on other places before and the result can be seen by looking at the categories. Note also that despite User:Dutchguy's comment about the MoS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) clearly and explicitly rejects the ISO 31 rule. Yet for some strange reason, even after the discussion above there had never even been a redirect from the "7.92" version, before I moved it to that now. Gene Nygaard 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, User:Dutchguy isn't paying attention, still making false claims about the comma being proper for Wikipedia style. Gene Nygaard 16:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, the Wikipedia style for numbers is in opposition to international norms, and should be changed. We should be aware of the fact that an English language encyclopedia is international, and not a document for exclusive American home market. An American born habit of writing things is not necessarily international standard. International standards like ISO 32 only tolerate the decimal point to avoid interdiction of products of American origin using this sign on other markets. It is also tolerated for us in conjunction with obsolete units like inches and pounds. But fact remains that comma is the preferred decimal separator, and the use of comma for grouping numbers is forbidden. Also, cartridge naming of metric calibers obviously included comma’s, and changing comma’s for points is giving incorrect information. An encyclopedia should provide correct information, even if it hurts the feelings of those who are convinced for one reason or another that their habits are better, and that history should be rewritten accordingly. Dutchguy 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

The entire comma vs. dot history can be found at Decimal_separator. I agree with Nemesis1000 that redirects should be developed for alternate spellings such as "7.92 x 57", "7.92x57", "7,92 x 57", "JS", "IS", "8mm Mauser", etc.--Raprat 15:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet you obviously did not create such redirects. Gene Nygaard 21:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

The following should have either a citation or a technical justification: "The bullet has the best ratio of energy compared to the weight of the powder loaded in all commercial hunting cartridges." --Raprat 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see some attention given to this article.

This statement is of the few remaining parts of the original stub. The statement might be true if narrowly constrained, such as, bottleneck major caliber service rifle cartridges from that era. That's rather complicated. I think the actual best cartridge as described would be the 45 Colt revolver cartridge in a modern smokeless loading, which gets about 1/4 of the energy of the Mauser cartridge with 1/9 of the powder weight. Anyway, rather than sort it all out, the best thing to do is probably delete the sentence or completely rewrite it. HangFire 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging this page with 7x57 would be as pointless as merging the geographical pages of Germany and Spain. Once fleshed out, both the 7,92x57 page and the 7x57 page will be very large entries indeed and the discussion will be whether they each need to be broken down into smaller pages. HangFire 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article renaming

As per the general consensus from the team at Wikiproject: Military History, it would seem that this article really ought to be named "7.92x57 Mauser", with no spaces- and using a decimal point instead of a comma. Regardless of whether or not the comma is "correct", it looks like a typo to 99.99% of Wikipedia readers. I thought I'd give people a chance to comment before arbitrarily changing the title, however. --Commander Zulu 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support move to 7.92x57 Mauser or 7,92x57 Mauser, I can argue the decimal point or comma either way and am happy with either. Andrewa 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the article to 7.92x57 Mauser. —Mets501 (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been argued many times and the consensus has been reached many times; the name of the cartridge originally had a comma, still does in all countries covered by the CIP; the American name does not use a period, or a comma for that matter- the American name is 8mm Mauser or 8x57 JS, and there are already redirects in place to cover those conventions. I'm sorry if this foreign name looks like a "typo" to you; perhaps you would like to Americanize everyone's foreign-sounding name by changing the spelling, too? See how far you get with THAT. HangFire 04:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not American, you know. --Commander Zulu 08:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So what? HangFire 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So please don't accuse me of being on a quest to "Americanise" anything. If I wanted to Americanise this article, I would have proposed calling it "8mm Mauser" instead of a simple Anglicisation to 7.92x57 Mauser. Based on your "But that's what it was originally called!" argument, perhaps we should rename the Oxygen article dephlogisticated air and the Hawaii article Sandwich Islands as well? --Commander Zulu 01:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, who moved the article the 7.62x57 mm Mauser? That's not even the correct measurement designation for this calibre! --Commander Zulu 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Nobody ever blew up an action shooting the Sandwich Islands out of a I-bore barrel. HangFire 00:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article titled as it stands is wrong. It is either 7.92x57mm or 8mm Mauser. Not the combination of the two. Brenden 03:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Calibre designations generally have the designer, manufacturer, or commissioner's name after them- 7.62x51 NATO, .455 Webley, 9 mm Para, 30-30 Winchester, etc. There are exceptions, but generally the name is included as a kind of disambiguator, if that makes sense- to a non-shooter, "7.92x57mm" could refer to the title of an album by a heavy metal band, an engineering equation, or a piece of timber. My concern with this article, ironically, isn't the presence or absence of a disambiguator, but the (incorrect) use of a comma in place of a decimal point separator. --Commander Zulu 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes they do. That is why 7.92x57mm is also referred to as 8mm Mauser. Suggesting that a "disambiguator" is needed in the title due to non-shooters makes no sense. A page with multiple listings is then needed, not a change in title. I am pretty sure any real fan of a band called "7.92x57", if there is such a thing, or ".38 Special", would know where the band's name comes from. I also don't recall the local hardware stores selling 8mm wide pieces of wood. No one can assume it's an engineering equation either. Is this the only argument that exists for not just using the proper designation, 7.92x57mm? It's merely grabbing at straws. Brenden 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "7.92x57 mm"; there should be a space between a number and a unit symbol according to measurement standards organizations and WP:MOSNUM. Gene Nygaard 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Military Firearm calibres use a different nomenclature- the calibre designation is a name, not a measurement, if that makes sense. --Commander Zulu 23:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, I moved the article back to 7.92x57mm Mauser. This is where it will stay, unless a consensus is reached to move it. This is the accepted decimal separator in English, and this is the English WP. Thanks, chaps. Geoff B 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now look what you all have done. "Now known in Europe as the 7.92x57mm JS"... but it is NOT known in Europe as the 7.92x57mm JS! You've also changed the HISTORICAL REFERENCES of this this many-named cartridge to something IT WAS NEVER CALLED. HangFire 04:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We are, as far as I'm aware, using Wikipedia conventions for cartridge naming. This means using a full stop, not a comma. Geoff B 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again! The Wikipedia style for numbers is in opposition to international norms, and should be changed. We should be aware of the fact that an English language encyclopedia is international, and not a document for exclusive American home market. An American born habit of writing things is not necessarily international standard. International standards like ISO 32 only tolerate the decimal point to avoid interdiction of products of American origin using this sign on other markets. It is also tolerated for us in conjunction with obsolete units like inches and pounds. But fact remains that comma is the preferred decimal separator, and the use of comma for grouping numbers is forbidden. Also, cartridge naming of metric calibers obviously included commas, and changing commas for points is giving incorrect information. An encyclopedia should provide correct information, even if it hurts the feelings of those who are convinced for one reason or another that their habits are better, and that history should be rewritten accordingly. Dutchguy 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard enough keeping this page on its historically correct naming convention, you've got a tough row to how to convert ALL numbering to ISO 32. (ISO is great; remember when TP4 and all those other great new standard ISO protocols was going to replace funky old TCP/IP?) To put the EU's ISO in perspective, the whole of the EU has an economy the size of any three mid-size US states. Anyway, you missed a decimal. HangFire 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, DutchGuy, we on Wikipedia decide Wikipedia's style, and it has been decided that the full stop is the accepted decimal separator. Nor am I changing this article for 'the American home market'. I am not American, and perhaps you should not assume that everyone who edits this article in regards to the decimal separator issue is American. This is the English Wikipedia, and the full stop is the accepted decimal separator in English. Thank you. Geoff B 02:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What the smeg is it with people assuming everyone on WP is American? I agree completely with Geoff B. The only English-speaking country that I know of that uses the comma instead of the decimal point is South Africa. The UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the rest of the English-speaking world uses a decimal point. We may have to take this to arbitration if this article keeps getting moved back to the title involving a comma. --Commander Zulu 07:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a tough job indeed to keep the historical correct title correct, and the correct name of the cartridge historical correct is 7,92x57 mm Mauser. There is a serious HangFire about ISO and the European Union. First of all, the affirmation that “the whole of the EU has an economy the size of any three mid-size US states” is complete nonsense; “ … as a single entity, the European Union has the largest economy in the world.” Secondly, ISO is not an obscure hobby of a few Europeans, but a worldwide organization of which English speaking countries like the United States and Great-Britain are members. Those countries are moving towards the implementation of the metric system to replace obsolete systems. I am aware that it is a slow and painful process to shed old habits. So, the use of decimal points and number grouping commas is part of the good old days whose days are fading in the light of metric prescription of the decimal comma as the preferred writing style. In conclusion, reference to English language and clinging to old habits for emotional reasons are no objective arguments to wrongly rename cartridges. An encyclopedia should provide correct information, and changing commas that historically always have been commas to points on emotional grounds is unacceptable. In the same way that it would be completely stupid to replace points to commas in cartridge names like .45 ACP or .300 Winchester Magnum. -- Dutchguy 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted Dutchguy's unilateral move again, since the consensus seems pretty strong to keep it at the name used in English. It may be worth monitoring Dutchguy's changes, or possibly bringing up a mediation/arbitration case, since he seems to be on a crusade to change all Wikipedia articles to use commas as a decimal separator. I've recently had to revert his edits to the manual of style itself, which should probably also be watched. --Delirium 14:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Delirium doesn’t even want opposition of the proposed writing style to ISO 31-0 be mentioned on the Manual of Style page. Dutchguy got him/her without an answer to the remark where Dilirium got the idea that ISO norms are only for scientists. And suddenly, Delirium gets deeply interested in Mauser cartridges, while warning against this dangerous Dutchguy who wants, how dare he, write cartridge names and even numbers the right way! It is difficult to assume good faith in this case. -- Dutchguy 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dutchguy has reverted the article name. Again. I hope people will stop assuming they know the motivation of others and we can talk reasonably about this, but that does not appear to be the case so far. Whether this takes dispute resolution, mediation or arbitration to sort out, I'm quite willing. Geoff B 17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration might make sense. I do not agree with DutchGuy that all decimals should be moved to ISO notation. I only want the title to reflect the original notation and original standard name for the cartridge. Really, if this were the American English Wikipedia, it WOULD be 8mm Mauser, but it's the International English Wikipedia. What irks me about the whole thing is the dozens of articles that take you through 3 or more manual redirects to get to the page-name-of-the-day for this cartridge. The changers and reverters don't bother to go clean up the rest of the articles or even the hanging redirects. Most of them (which is to say, most of YOU) DON'T EVEN CONTRIBUTE to the page! You just move it back and forth. Seriously, though, the size of the biggest economy in the EU, Germany, is almost identical to that of the state of New York. You can work down from there, but hold California in reserve, because there is nothing to compare it to in the EU. And don't forget to deduct points for Portugal and R.o. Ireland. 69.137.35.23 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is time for 69.137.35.23 to learn to read numbers. The European Union economy is with 13, 4 trillion USD the largest in the world. The German economy is with 2,72 trillion USD about the size of California (1,62 trillion) and New York (0,96 trillion) together. What has this economy story to do with the irresistible need of some to discard the historical correct designation of 7,92x57 mm Mauser and to replace it with a point thing? Learn to keep to the facts before taking part in a discussion about facts, and keep emotional outburst about Portugal an Ireland (both fast-growing economies, by the way) to yourself. -- Dutchguy 12:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

@HangFire - We don't do that because we need this article to be stable before we can sort out all the redirects. If we sort out all the redirects, then the page gets changed back again, all our work would have been pointless. And please, stop bringing up economy size comparisons. They have nothing to do with what is going on here. If you want to compare whose 'economy' is the biggest, please go elsewhere, and no-one, apart from you, it seems, is awarding or deducting points. Bizarre.

@Dutchguy - Using full stops as a decimal point is A) Still standard usage in English and B) Is the WP convention for the decimal point, so it will be used. This has nothing to do with emothion, or 'old' habits, but everything to do with current language use. Geoff B 03:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I think this is the problem. The vast, vast, vast majority of users on the English WP are from the USA, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In these English-speaking countries, the comma is almost NEVER, EVER used by everyday people to denote a decimal place. Call it an Anglophone conspiracy if you like, but it's a conspiracy willingly engaged in by the entire former British Empire and the current Commonwealth of Nations. The "historical correct" designation of this calibre is only "correct" in a foreign language Wiki. In English, we use the decimal point. This article is in the English language WP, ergo, the decimal point is the "correct" decimal indicator for the title. And what on earth does the relative size of the various EU economies have to do with the name of a military rifle cartridge? It's so surreal I wouldn't be at all surprised if we don't find ourselves debating the relative airspeed velocities of African and European Swallows, and whether or not they can carry coconuts between continents during their annual migration. --Commander Zulu 12:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely sympathize with Commander Zulu, and have changed internal content to match. JVkamp 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would note that Dutchguy is simply incorrect in his views of the International System of Units, which makes no requirement to use the comma or prohibition of the full stop. To quote our article on said system: "The 10th resolution of CGPM in 2003 declared that 'the symbol for the decimal marker shall be either the point on the line or the comma on the line'." So both are equally acceptable in the view of the CGPM, and therefore the SI. --Delirium 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Delirium, your description is misleading , while you leave out essential parts of the resolution like these main point in the declaration:
" however, some international bodies use the comma on the line as the decimal marker in their English language documents,
furthermore, some international bodies, including some international standards organizations, specify the decimal marker to be the comma on the line in all languages, "
The focus of the decision is to reaffirm that: "Numbers may be divided in groups of three in order to facilitate reading; neither dots nor commas are ever inserted in the spaces between groups", as stated in Resolution 7 of the 9th CGPM, 1948.
Why? - because both commas and dots are used in practice as decimal markers. This conclusion only stipulates the reason for forbidding the use of dots and commas as grouping symbols. It is only to reaffirm the position declared in resolution 7:
“In numbers, the comma (French practice) or the dot (British practice) is used only to separate the integral part of numbers from the decimal part. Numbers may be divided in groups of three in order to facilitate reading; neither dots nor commas are ever inserted in the spaces between groups.”
The issue is, once again, forbidding the use of commas and dots for grouping numbers. The conclusion that the purpose is to put dots on equal footing with commas is sheer nonsense, and wishful thinking on behalf of nostalgias of the obsolete ways.
Reference in resolution 10 to “international standards organizations” who “specify the decimal marker to be the comma on the line in all languages” applies to ISO 31-0 that indeed says so. Sorry, to hurt the feelings of some people, but facts are facts, and my views are perfectly right.
In normalization, one thing always prevails over the other in order to standardize. Putting two different ways on equal footing is in sheer opposition with the goal of normalization, and supposing that norms do so is ridiculous. - Dutchguy 21:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as the even the SI realizes---it's telling that nowhere in there does the SI endorse the ISO 31-0 decision, nor make it binding, nor even recommend it. Nonetheless, you're welcome to your crusade to change the English language, so long as you wage it outside Wikipedia. --Delirium 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Dutchguy, saying things like "my views are perfectly right", "comma is king", "nostalgias of the obsolete ways" and "Come back when you know something about cartridges" betrays the fact that the only person here letting their feelings motivate them is you. 1) The full stop, or point, is the accepted decimal point in English. 2) This is the English Wikipedia. 3) It is also the accepted Wikipedian convention to use the full stop as the decimal point. That this is at odds with usage in other languages and ISO-Whatever is irrelevant. It's the way Wikipedia does it. I can't explain it any clearer. Geoff B 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

GeoffvB is right. Dutchguy, you can jump up and down about the comma as a decimal separator (which, to me and the rest of the English-as-a-mother tongue-speaking world looks either like a typo or lazy translation). Look, in conventional English, the comma is used as a kind of mini-pause, if you will, denoting things in a list (amongst other uses). So, to almost all English speakers, "7,92" would be read as "Seven, Ninety-Two", with a tone indicating that one might expect another number after that. Alternatively, it might also be interpreted as "Seven and Ninety-Two". However, with the decimal point it immediately becomes clear to the English reader that it is "Seven Point Nine Two", and therefore some kind of precise measurement. As others have said, you're welcome to lobby the entire English-speaking world to change the way they write (Good luck!), but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. As a comparison, the Metric System has been officially in use in the US for many, many years- but it's not in actual common use amongst the general populace there in their everyday lives, at least as I understand it. --Commander Zulu 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Warning Text

I have issues with: "To avoid potentially serious accidents, it is impossible to over-stress the vital need for distinguishing clearly between cartridges loaded for these two different bullet diameters, and only firing them in appropriately chambered/barrelled rifles."

PO Ackley's (Engineer and Dean of the Colorodo School of Gunsmithing) post-WWII published experiments with overbore bullets in 8mm Mausers conclusively debunked this myth. Not to mention that Germany used JS bore bullets in J bores between 1905 and WWI by simply reaming the chamber and leade to allow the larger cartridge to be chambered, with no problems. There is substantial evidence that the sub-pressure 8x57 Mauser (American loading) cartridge exists primarily to keep Americans buying higher performing American loadings of domestic calibers, in other words, to keep surplus Mausers from competing with US made rifles.

Unless you can find some published research substantiating your assertion, we must consider Professor Ackley's scientific experiments to be the conclusive word on this subject, more conclusive than the usual gun writer blather- the same gun writers that depend on free gear and hunts from manufacturers interested in selling new rifles and new cartridges. This so-called data falls in the same class as CZ-52's being the strongest 7.62x25 chambered handgun, when in fact it is the weakest due to having the thinnest chamber wall. It is simply gun writer lore that gets repeated without substantiation or research. HangFire 02:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Having added the following to the article -- "To avoid potentially serious accidents, it is impossible to over-stress the vital need for distinguishing clearly between cartridges loaded for these two different bullet diameters, and only firing them in appropriately chambered/barrelled rifles" -- I'd like to stick to it.

With all due respect to Parker Ackley (whose work in general I much admire), I cannot agree that the two types of cartridge with deiffering buller diameters can be mixed with impunity, for the simple reason that I have seen a perfectly good European-made sporting rifle ruined - and its firer miraculously escape serious injury - when the incorrect diameter of bullet was inadvertently fired in it. The bullet stuck in the bore and the rifle shattered into pieces. This happened in Surrey, England, at the UK's NRA ranges there, in the 1980s. I know "one swallow doesn't make a summer", but in correspondence with various gunsmiths in Europe I was able to collect a good deal of evidence that such serious mishaps are by no means uncommon when the two types of 7.92x57 ammo are mixed.

Alas, P.O. Ackley also gets things wrong when he writes with withering condemnation about the .244 Holland & Holland Magnum. Sadly, he appears to have committed a very extreme opinion to print, without having anything more than rather perfunctory personal experience of this calibre. In my recent work on the .244 Wikipedia article, I have tried to put the record straight - especially as regards the rifles that blew up with this cartridge. It was the rifles' owners' fault, not that of the ammunition, which is perfectly fine - so long as the user appreciates that it is very extreme ammo. Various details, including material from the archives of David Lloyd (who invented the cartridge, and made rifles for it) and H&H, will be added as soon as I have fully verified them, and gone through the necessary courtesies with copyright owners etc. Clmckelvie 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It amuses me that no one looks at the most important contributing factors when spontaneous disassembly occurs in the field. They put anecodotal experiences ahead of real research. Let's review-

First of all, I was wrong in my original discussion, Ackely's research involved firing 8mm/7.92 bullets IN 30 CALIBER BARRELS. This DID produce high pressure signs, but not nearly what was expected. As long as the rest of the system had integrity- if and only if- it was not a major safety factor IN AND OF ITSELF.

Throw in some combination weak or brittle brass, excessive headspace, unsupported head area due to improper rebarreling, handloading with the bullet seated hard against the lead, etc., and catastrophic results can certainly follow. Fine sporters made from other receivers can be found fragrmented everywhere, without tight bores being a factor, because the more important safety factor is not bore size, as conclusively proven by Ackley. The most important factors are: brass integrity, brass support, receiver integrity and gas handling. As certain as you are about the cause of your anecdote, I am certain there were other contributing factors besides bore size.

When you examined the receiver pieces, could you determine pre-catastrophe headspace? Unsupported case head protrusion? Receiver damage from sight mounting? Quality of heat threatment? A sound Mauser receiver will survive case head seperations (mine have), simply because they were designed to do so... provided their design parameters haven't been transgressed by time or bad gunsmithing (especially rebarrelling leaving incorrect bolt face/breech distance, which can be wildly wrong while having proper headspace), improper sight mounting (damaging receiver ring integrity), etc., etc.

Although totally irrelevant to this topic, PO Ackley was bang-on about the .244 H&H- It was a difficult cartridge to reload with the American powders at the time, did not make its performance claims, and had very short barrel life. That did not stop its popularity from its users who enjoyed the mild recoil, flat trajectory, and remarkable killing power. A wealthy person could tolerate a 600 shot barrel life shooting factory ammo for these benefits- Ackley's perspective was too value-oriented to tolerate the drawbacks.

Anyway, I'll give it another few days before I moderate your overblown warning, unless you care to do it yourself. Once again I must state, Ackley did the conclusive research on this topic, and just because someone blew up an action at a range once, doesn't invalidate controlled sample set research. HangFire 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If we can find a source for it, it can be included in the article. If we can't, it can't. Geoff B 13:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The "spontaneous disassembly" of the Mauser-actioned sporting rifle which blew up at Bisley when different nominally 7.92mm bullet diameters got mixed was specifically caused by a bullet which lodged in the rifle's bore some 8in forward of the receiver ring. The barrel rearward of that point bulged and burst. The bolt and all of the action held firm - the only reason the firer escaped serious injury or death. My correspondence with various mainland European gunsmiths and ballisticians lists a number of other instances in which the disastrous rifle failure was due to an over-sized bullet lodging in the bore. On the basis of the data before me, I am satisfied that a strong cautionary warning ought to be given, to alert rifle/ammunition users to this hazard.

As a more general principle - and re your "before I moderate your overblown warning" - I think one can never "over-blow" the matter of firearms safety. Guns have a bad enough name already in some quarters without shooters being over-confident or cavalier and thus courting yet more criticism. It behoves everyone who writes about firearms anywhere, including Wiki, to caution care and advocate the precautionary principle at all times. It can save lives and prevent serious injury.

Parker Ackley's animadversions on the .244 H&H Magnum actually far outran the limited US-domestic parameters you refer to. He castigated it for faults that he fancied were there, but which actually aren't, and eventually dismissed it as "hopelessly overbore". His failing, alas, was to jump to extreme theoretical conclusions that went far beyond his actual, personal experience of the cartridge, which was rather limited. In any event, P.O.A. would certainly (like most US handloaders at that time) have had access to surplus .50BMG powders, and those can make the .244H&H perform pretty well, although they're perhaps not perfect.

Bill Ruger owned, used and admired the .244, and more importantly so too did Roy Weatherby, for whom it was the inspiration for the .240 Wby. As above stated, I much admire most of Ackley's work, but the man wasn't infallible (and he'd not have claimed it), and occasionally he got something wrong (as we all can).Clmckelvie 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Amusing. Consider this. The BMG powders that Ackley had access to were slower and more progressive than H&H's Cordite, and Weatherby's .240 has smaller case capacity than the .244, even though Weatherby consistantly sought higher performance than any other production firearm in his designs... and got it. When he didn't, he discontinued the chamberering, as he did with the 220 Rocket. Now, why would he make the case capacity smaller than the competition? He had access to larger parent cases....

HangFire 03:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derivative Cartridges?

I wonder if something should be mentioned about the derivative cartridges made from this one. Examples: 9x57mm, 10x57mm, 10.5x57mm, et al.


COMMENT: It would be helpful is this article depicted both the SAAMI and CIP drawings of this cartridge. They are not identical. Also, the drawing dates should be included. These sporting arms standards (SAAMI & CIP) have been revised over time. Since this cartridge was originally developed for military purposes, original dated milspec cartridge drawings should be included as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.228.118 (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)