"Bullet Heads"

[Dalua]

A bit of tolerance on an international forum, with all of them/us foreigners taking part, won't go astray either.
edi

I can't see how tolerance of vulgar inaccuracy born of ignorance is going to help any non-British visitors.

Rather, I think we owe it to them to use our own terminology accurately to avoid confusing them; on the off-chance that they've bothered to learn the correct words for the various parts of a rifle-cartridge from Huelsenboden to Geschoss.

 

[ejg]

I can't see how tolerance of vulgar inaccuracy born of ignorance is going to help any non-British visitors.

Rather, I think we owe it to them to use our own terminology accurately to avoid confusing them; on the off-chance that they've bothered to learn the correct words for the various parts of a rifle-cartridge from Huelsenboden to Geschoss.

You know, I know that language evolves. People decide what the language will be, not some dictionary... the dictionary has to adapt.
Maybe one day they will correct the naming of the components of the cartridge.
edi

 

[private fraser]

You know, I know that language evolves. People decide what the language will be, not some dictionary... the dictionary has to adapt.
Maybe one day they will correct the naming of the components of the cartridge.
edi

Thought that had happened .....

SAAMI Newsflash

 

[JabaliHunter]

You know, I know that language evolves. People decide what the language will be, not some dictionary... the dictionary has to adapt.
Maybe one day they will correct the naming of the components of the cartridge.
edi

Its called dumbing down if people don't know the correct words in the first place...

 

[Alantoo]

You know, I know that language evolves. People decide what the language will be, not some dictionary... the dictionary has to adapt.
Maybe one day they will correct the naming of the components of the cartridge.
edi

Maybe it will become regulated, but the evolutionary model is the one that is proven as you say.

Presumably the adoption of "bullet heads" has come about in order to correct / make a distinction from the original confusion of referring to (loaded) cartridges as bullets. Equating both with ammunition?…..Even then I felt I had to put (loaded) in front of cartridge for fear someone might think I meant cartridge case...

I can't see how tolerance of vulgar inaccuracy born of ignorance is going to help any non-British visitors.

Rather, I think we owe it to them to use our own terminology accurately to avoid confusing them; on the off-chance that they've bothered to learn the correct words for the various parts of a rifle-cartridge from Huelsenboden to Geschoss.

I do not think it is necessarily a "vulgar inaccuracy born of ignorance" rather it is often a pragmatic acknowledgement of an existing confusion. "bullet heads" does communicate what one means whether the person you are talking to knows the correct terminology or not.

Alan

 

[private fraser]

There never was or would be any confusion if folk bothered to learn the correct term in the first place.
What creates confusion is when people do not and invent another term.
If you go into an engineering stores or speak to an engineer of any type, it doesn't help if you start inventing new terms for items which already have a term.
That's pretty obvious I would have thought.
Imagine going into a garage and not being able to distinguish between a cylinder head and a cylinder head gasket for example.
They would assume you are a complete numpty.

 

[willie_gunn]

Ufff...reading the paper this morning I couldn't help but think that some of the responses on here are more akin to what we hear from the Academie Francaise when they are trying to stop the French adopting popular Anglicised words like "sandwich", "weekend"or "binge drinking" ("beuverie express" anyone??)

Language evolves. If stamping your feet because others have adopted new terminology makes you feel better, carry on, but Canute found he couldn't hold back the tide a millenium ago.

 

[private fraser]

Engineers tend to like the proper term to be used, it's not sandwiches, it's engineering parts.
What term you use can show your depth of knowledge.
Try going into a B & Q and asking for a thingy...guarantee you'll be there for a while...and may come out with the wrong thingy

I suppose there will always be folk who can be bothered to learn the correct terminology and those who can't.
It's a handy way of determining someone's depth of interest and knowledge so maybe we should welcome it.

 

[willie_gunn]

But we're not talking engineering, we're talking reloading.

"Bullets" or "Bullet Heads" or "Heads"....it really isn't that heretical to use them to mean the same thing.

No wonder new entrants into stalking sometimes think it's elitist!!

 

[Alantoo]

There never was or would be any confusion if folk bothered to learn the correct term in the firdt place.
If you go into an engineering stores or speak to an engineer of any type, it doesn't help if you start inventing new terms for items which already have a term.
That's pretty obvious I would have thought.
Imagine going into a garage and not being able to distinguish between a cylinder head and a cylinder head gasket for example.
They would assume you are a complete numpty.

When a new system is devised and the old terminology is carried over, how can there not be confusion?

I think the point I was making is that the objects themselves are evolving and it is the historic terminology that is being applied to the nearest current equivalent.

I would imagine that a "round" to a musket shooter would still refer to his spherical projectile. Not to me though. I have always understood it to mean either a shot (as in "fire a few rounds down the range") or a complete loaded cartridge, and certainly in shooting terms never thought of a round as referring to a single bullet. My ignorance, but I have never had anything to do with spherical bullets.

The fact that we are using a modified French word for a little ball to describe a pointed cylindrical object does not contribute to sparkling clarity.

We are now using the word describing a thick paper wrapping around a bullet and powder charge "cartridge" to refer to a brass drawing complete with primer, charge and bullet.

I won't bother to answer your analogy to the obtuseness of store men when dealing with the layman. I have been on the receiving end embarrassingly often enough…Four Candles?

Alan

 

[private fraser]

So reloading isn't a kind of engineering ?....hmmm
So what about the press, dies.reamers, tumblers etc etc etc.
Thought they were tools.
Maybe folk will invent new names for each of those.
That'd be fun.
Not forgetting that all the component parts get assembled to precice specifications and tolerances from technical manuals of one sort or another.
Still not engineering?

 

[private fraser]

When a new system is devised and the old terminology is carried over, how can there not be confusion?

I think the point I was making is that the objects themselves are evolving and it is the historic terminology that is being applied to the nearest current equivalent.

I would imagine that a "round" to a musket shooter would still refer to his spherical projectile. Not to me though. I have always understood it to mean either a shot (as in "fire a few rounds down the range") or a complete loaded cartridge, and certainly in shooting terms never thought of a round as referring to a single bullet. My ignorance, but I have never had anything to do with spherical bullets.

We are now using the word describing a thick paper wrapping around a bullet and powder charge "cartridge" to refer to a brass drawing complete with primer, charge and bullet.

I won't bother to answer your analogy to the obtuseness of store men when dealing with the layman. I have been on the receiving end embarrassingly often enough…Four Candles?

Alan

So you didn't know what you were talking about,failed to be precise and it's the storeman's fault?.

 

[private fraser]

But we're not talking engineering, we're talking reloading.

"Bullets" or "Bullet Heads" or "Heads"....it really isn't that heretical to use them to mean the same thing.

No wonder new entrants into stalking sometimes think it's elitist!!

I bet they get peed off when they get corrected for calling a Roe buck a stag too.
Bloody elitist sport, why can't I call stuff what I like .

 

[Alantoo]

So you didn't know what you were talking about,failed to be precise and it's the storeman's fault?.

You mean you have never come across the "Nah, No call for those mate" But I have just called for one...helpful souls in all your experience of engineering storemen?

There was an amazing ironmongers shop in Droitwich in the seventies called Machins. It may still be there. Classic Hair grips to battleships in stock.

Huge queue, finally get to the counter, I asked for hammer handles... "What? 'ere Jim we got any HHHammer Haandels?" "I don't know I'll ask Bert. Bert some bloke wants ammer and eels, do we have any left?" and so on until I pointed out the shelf full of hammer handles "Oh you mean stales...why didn't you say?" The queue behind the wet-behind-the-ears southerner all thought it really funny...

Do you have a funnel? "What? 'ere Jim we got any funnels?" "I dunno, never heard of em, I will ask Bert…and so on when I pointed to the funnels I got "Ah you mean a tun dish, why didn't you say?

Blighters still wrote handle and funnel on the receipt…

Burns deep when you are twenty and want to be a grown up.

Alan

 

[willie_gunn]

So reloading isn't a kind of engineering ?....hmmm
So what about the press, dies.reamers, tumblers etc etc etc.
Thought they were tools.
Maybe folk will invent new names for each of those.
That'd be fun.
Not forgetting that all the component parts get assembled to precice specifications and tolerances from technical manuals of one sort or another.
Still not engineering?

No, not engineering. At least, not unless you want to sound full of your own self-importance.

 

[private fraser]

Ah, reverting to insults.
Sure sign of loss of argument...and sense of humour.

 

[Alantoo]

Ah, reverting to insults.
Sure sign of loss of argument...and sense of humour.

Insults and analogies aside, you have not addressed the point I made regarding the carrying over of historic terminology…an even surer sign of loss of argument…

How do you justify in your "precise" and transparent engineering terms the naming of a brass deep drawing after a bit of paper? Or a pointed cylindrical object after a little ball?

Alan

 

[willie_gunn]

Ah, reverting to insults.
Sure sign of loss of argument...and sense of humour.

Insults? What insults?? You asked me if I thought reloading was a type of engineering and I disagreed.

Would you seriously ever introduce yourself as a "reloading engineer"?? Best of luck with that one

 

[Tim.243]

I would class it as re-manufacturing, which in simple terms has a degree of engineering attached to it as there is a step by step process to finish with a end product to it.
There are a number of measuring and small machining process to the item...

For me it is far to time consuming, despite being a toolmaker from the mid 70's, reloading does not interest me one bit....

Tim.243

 

[private fraser]

When a new system is devised and the old terminology is carried over, how can there not be confusion?

I think the point I was making is that the objects themselves are evolving and it is the historic terminology that is being applied to the nearest current equivalent.

I would imagine that a "round" to a musket shooter would still refer to his spherical projectile. Not to me though. I have always understood it to mean either a shot (as in "fire a few rounds down the range") or a complete loaded cartridge, and certainly in shooting terms never thought of a round as referring to a single bullet. My ignorance, but I have never had anything to do with spherical bullets.

The fact that we are using a modified French word for a little ball to describe a pointed cylindrical object does not contribute to sparkling clarity.

We are now using the word describing a thick paper wrapping around a bullet and powder charge "cartridge" to refer to a brass drawing complete with primer, charge and bullet.

I won't bother to answer your analogy to the obtuseness of store men when dealing with the layman. I have been on the receiving end embarrassingly often enough…Four Candles?

Alan

To continue the debate...


Re your para's 1 and 2
They are bullets. It's as simple as that.
There hasn't been a change in over 100 years, roughly.
So where is the "new system" that requires the invention of another name?.

Para 3.
Not being a musket shooter I can't comment on what a "round" means to them.
I understand a "round" to be a military term for a complete unit of ammunition for a small arm (there's another whole thread right there in that term).

Para 4.
Bullet is the name of the item in question
That should give sufficient "sparkling clarity".
Giving it another name merely introduces obfuscation and confusion, such as is happening now.
The etymology of the term could be interesting but that is probably best left to another thread.
Likewise the etymological history of the other items referred to in para 5 which, together, constitute a complete unit of ammunition.

It's a matter of terms, units and standards.
Standards are set by institutions, in the case of our field of interest, firearms, SAAMI, and bullet is a standard term
I can't see any reference by them to "heads", despite the other thread .

OK, language is a living thing and all that ( Language is a living thing. We can feel it changing. Parts of it become old: they drop... - Gilbert Highet at BrainyQuote) but we are talking technical terms here, it matters more than "a rose by any other name". A rose by another name can get your gun blown up if you see what I mean

The use of language and terms conveys something of the speaker.
As I said before, it can be useful, maybe we should welcome it.

If you look at the names of calibres for pistol and rifle, engineering terms have merged with dates and names to create a world of confusion.

It all adds to the interest though.