Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Terminology

  1. #21
    come on lads really? go get a cold beer and watch the footie.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesako View Post
    come on lads really? go get a cold beer and watch the footie.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by BryanDC View Post
    I'm not sure he is historically correct. The first integrated cartridges were developed in the 1800s consisting of a base with primer, a brass or paper casing and a bullet. Earlier types of "cartridge" consisted of a paper tube filled with powder and a ball at one end. The base was ripped open and the powder poured down the muzzle with the ball being rammed home using the paper as a wad. later types included a paper "cartridge" with an incorporated ball and a built in primer that was breach loaded.

    On the other hand a round can be fired from a musket that has been loaded from a powder flask. Does that mean a bullet can also be called a round.
    Your first point is exactly what I meant. Your second point is interesting as the bullet or ball on it's own is not a round but should it be called a round once inside the chamber on top of powder and primer/cap/pan? Hmmm who knows? Anyhoo much more interesting than watching a bunch of millionaires kick a bag of wind around on a field. What say you bluesako?
    Last edited by Swedish; 11-07-2018 at 18:48.

  4. #24
    When I was in the US at Uni we had a Cambridge history student living in the same house doing his PHD, his prof constantly corrected his spelling. Might have been a hot-shot in the UK but in USA he couldn't spell for beans.
    I don't take it that serious, my terminology is completely wrong in the most places in this world.
    edi
    Last edited by ejg; 12-07-2018 at 09:00.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Swedish View Post
    Historically you are quite correct.
    However, being even more pedantic the terms 'cartridge' and 'round' have been regarded as interchangeable for many decades since the evolution of self contained ammunition. The container part is now usually referred to as a 'cartridge case'. Thankfully though a bullet has remained a bullet as opposed to a 'head'
    Not so much historically but technically.
    Although some early paper cartridges did contain powder and shot and sometimes called "cartridge" they were still accounted for as "rounds" by the Ordnance Board. I've been professionally involved in the ammunition and explosives industry for over 30 years. ��
    Last edited by flying felix; 12-07-2018 at 02:03.
    The number of posts, like rank is not a measure of intelligence.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitebeard View Post
    The problem with 243 is it is both the name for a commercial cartridge and a calibre, hence the confusion, bullet diametre is a genuine 0,243" or 6,17mm.

    Ian.
    .243" is not the calibre. .243" is the bullet diameter, and groove diameter of the barrel. Calibre is the measurement from land to land, or bore diameter. Thus, a .243 Win is IIRC strictly speaking a .239" calibre, and , strictly speaking, not deer legal (for larger deer) in England and Wales, however, it is regarded as being a nominal .240" calibre, so it's conveniently allowed.
    Like wise, a .308 Win is a .30 calibre round, while the .270 Win is a true .270 calibre, but uses a .277" diameter bullet.
    The waters get muddied because commercial companies like to play around with the numbers to make their .30/.27/.257 cartridge sound different, sexier and better than their competitors' .30/.27/.257 cartridge.
    It gets even more confusing with calibres and cartridges that have some cross-over such as 6.5mm and .25" calibre rifles, where a 6.5mm is actually a .257" calibre rifle because that's the inch measurement of the bore diameter of the barrel, while what we call a .25" calibre uses a .257" bullet (in a rifle). Don't get me started on the various 8mm calibres, I even confuse myself with those.
    You can't say muntjac without saying, Mmmmmm.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by flying felix View Post
    Not so much historically but technically.
    Although some early paper cartridges did contain powder and shot and sometimes called "cartridge" they were still accounted for as "rounds" by the Ordnance Board. I've been professionally involved in the ammunition and explosives industry for over 30 years. ��
    Hence my statement about how the term has evolved since the disbanding of the Ordnance Board in 1855. I agree entirely with your technical argument but stand by the statement that the terms 'round' and 'cartridge' have been freely interchangeable in the world of small arms for well over 100 years. Interestingly though during my years working with the MOD we never referred to self contained artillery ammunition as cartridges, only rounds.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Swedish View Post
    Hence my statement about how the term has evolved since the disbanding of the Ordnance Board in 1855. I agree entirely with your technical argument but stand by the statement that the terms 'round' and 'cartridge' have been freely interchangeable in the world of small arms for well over 100 years. Interestingly though during my years working with the MOD we never referred to self contained artillery ammunition as cartridges, only rounds.
    The use of catridge would have only existed for the period whilst paper wrapped charges where used and dropped when metal cartriges where introduced.
    For artillery ammunition;
    QF fixed - rounds
    QF semi fixed/ separate - Cartridge and Shell/ Shot, or Round if Logistically Batched.
    BL - Charge and Shell/ Shot.
    But we digress.
    Last edited by flying felix; 12-07-2018 at 10:44.
    The number of posts, like rank is not a measure of intelligence.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by flying felix View Post
    But we digress.
    Indeed we do! Interesting discourse though.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesako View Post
    come on lads really? go get a cold beer and watch the footie.
    they are enjoying themselves - its allowed

Similar Threads

  1. Rear Barrel Sight Terminology Needed
    By Dimner in forum Equipment & Accessories
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-02-2018, 23:52
  2. Terminology... Sub Maxillary VS. Sub Mandibular
    By flyingfisherman in forum Diseases, Welfare and Biology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 21:30
  3. Correct Descrption/Terminology
    By bobg757 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 22-01-2015, 09:27
  4. Reindeer terminology
    By Jonher in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 22-06-2012, 00:20
  5. terminology
    By Harry mac in forum Ammunition, Reloading & Ballistics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 25-05-2010, 09:18

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •