Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Internal ballistics was copied or moved into Centerfire ammunition with this edit on 14 September 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Percussion cap was copied or moved into Centerfire ammunition with this edit on 13 October 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Centerfire ammunition article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
"Berdan priming is used by nearly all militaries and most civilian manufacturers (with the exception of those in the United States) to discourage reloading of ammunition."
No. Berdan is not used to discourage reloading. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find Berdan primers in the U.S., but they're available in Europe, where Berdan priming is the most frequently encountered. I'm removing this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.239.184 ( talk) 00:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
"Because the Berdan primer is difficult to remove from the case without damaging the anvil, Berdan priming is used by nearly all militaries and most civilian manufacturers (with the exception of those in the United States)."
Why should the difficulty of removal be a criterion for military adoption (or indeed civilian adoption). The Berdan system is cheaper to manufacture because the primer is simpler and there is one less assembly stage. The diferent cartridge design is a non issue, because either design can be easily produced on the cartridge press. Now that may be a valid criterion.
Unless a valid cite for the above extraordinary claim can be produced, I intend to remove it as unsourced. 86.166.66.41 ( talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I am reverting three segments of recent primer chemistry edits for reasons described below:
1st - The decomposition of mercury fulminate in storage, as described by the reference citation, occurs through a slow physical chemical change causing decreased energy. The editor alleged, without reference citation, a change causing increased sensitivity. Such an edit should include a supporting reference citation.
2nd - Initial use of potassium chlorate was as an additive to mercury fulminate to increase incandescent ignition. The editor's change relates to later use of potassium chlorate as a substitute for mercury fulminate. This is already covered in the following paragraph.
3rd - The editor had inappropriately altered the text to be inconsistent with the unchanged reference citation. Such changes should be accompanied by an alternative reference citation. Thewellman ( talk) 19:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently reads: Excepting some .22 and .17 caliber pistol and rifle cartridges, small-bore shotgun cartridges (intended for pest-control), and a handful of antique, mostly obsolete cartridges, most pistol, rifle, and shotgun ammunition used today is centerfire.
Suggested: Pistol, rifle, and shotgun ammunition used today is centerfire excepting some .22 and .17 caliber pistol and rifle cartridges, small-bore shotgun cartridges (intended for pest-control), and a handful of antique, mostly obsolete cartridges.
Currently the list of centerfire ammo is smashed against the list of exceptions, causing slight confusion on first glance. My suggestion moves the lists to opposite ends of the sentence to increase clarity. No information has been added or removed, and other structure holds.
JoeMaster ( talk) 05:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
A reference to the first military and civilian centerfire cartridges might be insightful; if the berdan and boxer primers had patents (U.S.) might the cartridges also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 ( talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I very nearly deleted this section, but decided to try and remedy its flaws since it gives balance to the article. The two listed disadvantages of centerfire cartridges were weight and excessive power. My problem is that these are really contrived disadvantages, and not physical limitations of centerfire priming systems. Centerfire cartridges can and have been devised that are nearly identical to rimfire counterparts in both ballistics and weight. For an example, see .22WCF. While current commercial production is a dichotomy of small, light rimfire loads and large, powerful centerfire laods, my understanding is that this is a function of practicality and cost. The only true advantage rimfire ammunition has is it that it less complex and therefore cheaper to manufacture. Any other opinions? 23.28.40.163 ( talk) 01:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There is quite a bit more information on Boxer and Berdan primers in this article than in Primer (firearm). It may be more appropriate to move the majority of the content of these sections to the main article on primers and reference them here.
Nomad3000 ( talk) 21:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Internal ballistics was copied or moved into Centerfire ammunition with this edit on 14 September 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Percussion cap was copied or moved into Centerfire ammunition with this edit on 13 October 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Centerfire ammunition article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
"Berdan priming is used by nearly all militaries and most civilian manufacturers (with the exception of those in the United States) to discourage reloading of ammunition."
No. Berdan is not used to discourage reloading. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find Berdan primers in the U.S., but they're available in Europe, where Berdan priming is the most frequently encountered. I'm removing this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.239.184 ( talk) 00:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
"Because the Berdan primer is difficult to remove from the case without damaging the anvil, Berdan priming is used by nearly all militaries and most civilian manufacturers (with the exception of those in the United States)."
Why should the difficulty of removal be a criterion for military adoption (or indeed civilian adoption). The Berdan system is cheaper to manufacture because the primer is simpler and there is one less assembly stage. The diferent cartridge design is a non issue, because either design can be easily produced on the cartridge press. Now that may be a valid criterion.
Unless a valid cite for the above extraordinary claim can be produced, I intend to remove it as unsourced. 86.166.66.41 ( talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I am reverting three segments of recent primer chemistry edits for reasons described below:
1st - The decomposition of mercury fulminate in storage, as described by the reference citation, occurs through a slow physical chemical change causing decreased energy. The editor alleged, without reference citation, a change causing increased sensitivity. Such an edit should include a supporting reference citation.
2nd - Initial use of potassium chlorate was as an additive to mercury fulminate to increase incandescent ignition. The editor's change relates to later use of potassium chlorate as a substitute for mercury fulminate. This is already covered in the following paragraph.
3rd - The editor had inappropriately altered the text to be inconsistent with the unchanged reference citation. Such changes should be accompanied by an alternative reference citation. Thewellman ( talk) 19:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently reads: Excepting some .22 and .17 caliber pistol and rifle cartridges, small-bore shotgun cartridges (intended for pest-control), and a handful of antique, mostly obsolete cartridges, most pistol, rifle, and shotgun ammunition used today is centerfire.
Suggested: Pistol, rifle, and shotgun ammunition used today is centerfire excepting some .22 and .17 caliber pistol and rifle cartridges, small-bore shotgun cartridges (intended for pest-control), and a handful of antique, mostly obsolete cartridges.
Currently the list of centerfire ammo is smashed against the list of exceptions, causing slight confusion on first glance. My suggestion moves the lists to opposite ends of the sentence to increase clarity. No information has been added or removed, and other structure holds.
JoeMaster ( talk) 05:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
A reference to the first military and civilian centerfire cartridges might be insightful; if the berdan and boxer primers had patents (U.S.) might the cartridges also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 ( talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I very nearly deleted this section, but decided to try and remedy its flaws since it gives balance to the article. The two listed disadvantages of centerfire cartridges were weight and excessive power. My problem is that these are really contrived disadvantages, and not physical limitations of centerfire priming systems. Centerfire cartridges can and have been devised that are nearly identical to rimfire counterparts in both ballistics and weight. For an example, see .22WCF. While current commercial production is a dichotomy of small, light rimfire loads and large, powerful centerfire laods, my understanding is that this is a function of practicality and cost. The only true advantage rimfire ammunition has is it that it less complex and therefore cheaper to manufacture. Any other opinions? 23.28.40.163 ( talk) 01:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There is quite a bit more information on Boxer and Berdan primers in this article than in Primer (firearm). It may be more appropriate to move the majority of the content of these sections to the main article on primers and reference them here.
Nomad3000 ( talk) 21:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)