Template talk:Infobox firearm cartridge

I'm going to do more work on this template here soon. Make more fields optional, and maybe move it to a better name (and fix the pages that use it of course). Even add an image field for displaying diagrams or photos of cartridges. Unless someone has an objection? Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just spent some time doing lots of work on this template. Unless someone has opinions, I'm going to keep going with stuff as I think of it. Anyone? Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Added new fields for more detailed ballistic data. Going to add a field (or fields) so a source can be included.

<tap tap> Is this thing on? Anyone listening?  ;-) Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

And done. So there's that. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cool template. I just got Category:Ammunition stubs loaded up with a bunch of cartridges, so maybe you can infobox them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oooo... lots of activities to keep me busy. Neat!  ;-) Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great work on the infobox, but I can't help but wonder if there's too much information in there... I mean, for example, is the rim thickness really that important? I'm rather fond of firearm techie specs (as we know), but my first reaction to this template is "Whoa! Far too much minutae!"--Commander Zulu 11:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eh. I suppose it can be argued either way; but, really, what's there to distinguish most cartridges other than dimensions? ;-)

(The infobox isn't that large, at the moment, so I don't think the fields are a practical space concern, for what it's worth.) Kirill Lokshin 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a bit retarded. It assumes we're using inches, however some calibers aren't in inches at all. Tried to enter 6mm and I got an error message. It's nice that it'll calculate everything for you, but it won't calculate from mm to in and that's a big issue. My argument is that this isn't a reloading guide but merely a dictionary. I can also further argue that making it akin to a reloading guide might invite litigation if somebody is stupid enough to believe the precise dimensions presented herein. Besides, SAAMI and the manufacturers have tolerances and anything exact is misleading. All or nothing is not good either. Bullet diameter, base diameter, and cartridge length (SAAMI Max OAL) are more than enough. --Asams10 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Err, the template is designed to take metric input and convert to Imperial; are you sure you're using it correctly? The needed syntax would be:

...
|is_SI_specs=yes
...
|bullet=6
...

Kirill Lokshin 19:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kirill is correct. You may have just inadvertently missed the param that changes it to metric. The auto-conversion changes are relatively new so if you're familiar with the old "pre-autoconvert" template you might just have to breeze over the infobox instructions again. See 9 mm Luger Parabellum for an example or a "metric first" use. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The sample for copy-pasting of this template displays "|case type=". For that field to display properly when Wiki users copy-paste it into an article, it needs to be "|case_type=" (underscore instead of space). In fact, I've noticed several articles where the case type doesn't display in the infobox because of this, and manually corrected them within the articles. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've fixed that now; thanks for catching that! Kirill 13:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know there are already a lot of fields, but aren't we really missing the pressure field, like max CUP or max PSI rating for the cartridge? Arthurrh 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on adding such a field. As well, I'm working on adding a "case capacity" field. I'm sure I'll have concerns though so stay tuned. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Those would be useful. :-) Kirill 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for working on fields. Can you ensure that where non-metric units are provided (e.g. grains, lbf/in³), metric units are also provided (e.g. grams, pascals) please? Regards Lightmouse 11:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why does the template interprete the psi pressure data as MPa in 9×25mm Mauser? I tried to specify that in converted MPa, but then I can't get 35500 psi (either 35499, 35501 or 35500.0). I also tried to comment the SI parameter, which is not used, but nothing changed. Ain92 (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

How do we get the template to use grams? Lightmouse 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion it should be grams for bullet weight by default. Sauer202 (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

For some reason the template is ignoring the number entered in that field, and instead displaying the overall length number as the bullet diameter. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Tra (Talk) 00:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's no way to define the ballistic data to be metric. What about making support for it? SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 17:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does setting "is_SI_ballistics" to "yes" not work correctly? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, SI should be the default and there should be available a parameter is_non-SI_ballistics instead. Sauer202 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The ballistics data tables are difficult to process partly because there are so many abbreviations (e.g. FMJ, LFN P+, WFNGC, XPB, and the list goes on). I would like to request that a link to Bullet#Bullet_abbreviations be placed below this table in the template. This would make the information somewhat more accessible.

Ideally, the abbreviations used would be linked (with a named anchor) to a glossary entry so that clicking on XPB would take the reader directly to the expansion of that acronym, much like Glossary of nautical terms. This would probably be harder to implement and require a new page to be created, but would be much more useful. Attys (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The .300 Winchester Magnum[1] is showing 180grains = 12 g AND 190 grains also equal to 12 g when it should be 12.3 g. Anyone know how to fix this template to NOT use an integer function on gram numbers larger than 10? 97.85.168.22 (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will see if I can fix it. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have added an optional bwround parameter, which can be used to specify the number of digits after the decimal place in the rounded result (e.g., like this). Frietjes (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I created a convert subtemplate for gr H₂O, using a density of water of 1 g per cm³, so basically to converting from cm³ to gr H₂O is the same as converting from g to gr. let me know if you see any problem with the conversions.

• 1.00 grains water (0.065 cm³)
• 1.00 cubic centimetre (15.4 gr H₂O)
• 1.00 grain (0.065 g)
• 1.00 gram (15.4 gr)

I am also working on a simplified version of this template in the sandbox (using infobox), but it's not quite ready to deploy at the moment. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The most important thing for me is that case voulume is also shown in milliliters to accomodate metric users. Sauer202 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

How do i go about getting the link used in the "Primer" parameter corrected? It currenly points to Percussion cap, which is a kind of a priming system, but not a primer in relation to modern firearm cartridges as used by this infobox. The parameter should point to either Primer (firearm), or more specifically to primer. I am Infobox-illiterate, so i'm not sure how one goes about fixing them. BeadleB (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I changed it to "Primer (firearm)". Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes states: the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. These firearm cartridge infoboxes usually contain information which does not appear in the article. I feel therefore that there should be a way to reference the information in the infobox, particularly the cartridge dimensions and specifications.

I have tried adding references to Pressure data (to either SAAMI or CIP publications), and I cannot get it to work; If I add the reference to the max_pressure field it breaks unit conversion function, if I add it to the pressure_method field the reference shows up as gobbledygook. Perhaps we need another field to contain the reference for pressure data? Or perhaps I should insert a paragraph into every article containing the pressure and reference.

Similarly, there is no way to add a reference to the cartridge dimensions without breaking the unit conversion. I considered adding the reference to the text field case_type, but then it appears that the reference only applies to that field. Again, perhaps an additional field could be added into which the dimension references could be entered. But then it wouldn't be clear which dimensions come from which reference. I'm particularly concerned about the "case capacity" field. Most of the dimensions for standard cartridges would come from SAAMI or CIP, but they don't publish case capacities. Where they don't appear in the text of the article, these case capacity data really need a reference.

This infobox is a great resource, but still has some room for improvement, I think. I will probably continue to crystallize my ideas for enhancing this box as I enter more data into it for various cartridges.

StraightAsADie (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I added |max_pressure_ref= and similar parameters for all the parameters passed through unit conversion. let me know if I missed one. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wow, fast work. Thanks for doing that. StraightAsADie (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am fighting this fallacy all the time. please help. CorvetteZ51 (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think I agree with you. Please state clearly your assertion. Thanks! Steve SteveOak (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

While a cartridge does not have "a" twist rate, a cartridge often has at least one recommended twist rate, for example by SAAMI and CIP. The optimal twist rate will however depend on th bullet length (not bullet weight, as is a common misunderstanding, but heavier bullets also tend to be longer..). Anyway, my opinion is that twist rate(s) should be included. It is very common knowledge what twist rates are "typical" for a given cartidge. It should be included so that it is easier to compare cartridges for a given caliber. Sauer202 (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

A suggestion could be to include "Common twist rates". Of course with the ability to format both metric and imperial correctly. For example, 1:220 mm is not a correct designation. Examples of correct designation would be:

a) 220 mm (1:8.66"), and

b) 1:8.66" (220 mm) Sauer202 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can we add bore diameter to the template? This would make it easier to compare metric and imperial cartridges, since metric cartridges are often based on the bore land diameter rather than bullet diameter. More specifically, I hereby suggest the template should include both:

• Bore diameter (aka. bore land diameter),
• Groove diameter (aka. bore groove diameter), and
• Grooves contour, usually the number of grooves. For example, with conventional rifling "number of grooves" can be specified, for polygonal rifling the type lik "hexagon", "pentagon", etc. may instead be specified, while for smoothbore this field is not applicable. (I don't know if polygonal rifling is ever specified in cartridge standards, or if this is in practice is just something firearm manufacturers may choose to use.)

Anyway, a recommandation on the three mentiond parameters is normally specified for each cartridge by CIP and SAAMI, see for example .260 Remington#Design and specifications. Sauer202 (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

At this point, the infobox contains information about (kinetic) bullet energy for listed example loads. Energy can easily be calculated based on the muzzle velocity and bullet mass by the formula 0.5*m*v*v, where m stands for mass and v stands for velocity. I hereby suggest we add bullet momentum to the infobox, which can easily be calculated from the formula m*v. The metric unit for momentum is newton-seconds (N⋅s), while the imperial measurement is slug-foot per second (slug⋅ft/s). Momentum is the most important measurement of recoil, see Power factor (shooting sports). If recoil gases could be accounted for, momentum would be the amount of recoil from a cartridge. Momentum is also the most important measurement in shooting sports to be able to knock down steel targets, and is informally known as "knock down power" in the self defense community.

The reason I stated "bullet" in front of energy and momentum above, is that powder gases also contribute to the total energy and momentum, but these are difficult to account for. To clarify this for our readers, "energy" in the template should be renamed "bullet energy", and momentum should be added to the infobox as "bullet momentum". Sauer202 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

When recently looking at the differences between 9x19mm and .357 Magnum rounds, I noticed something odd about the information presented in the Infobox on each page. On the 9x19mm page, the bullet diameter is listed as .355 in (9.01 mm). When looking at the same information on the .357 Magnum page, the listing shows .357 in (9.1 mm). In actuality, .357 inches is 9.0678 mm. It appears that when entered as a metric value (is_SI_specs= yes) the calculation is giving the converted value (.355) with the expected precision, but converting from .357 to metric, it is rounding in a gross manner. I would prefer to see the calculation presented with at least two digits to the right of the decimal, for more precise measurements. Mgg4 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It looks strange to see in 105×617mm to see "bullet diameter" as a label. Is it possible to have a switch for a more suitable term. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Many pistol cartridges, when used in SMGs with longer barrels, have shown quite different ballistics with the same loadings. Why can't we provide more than one test barrel length data in the template? Ain92 (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

• And BTW, test barrel length doesn't convert from inches to mm and back automatically, it has to work just like all the other parameters. Ain92 (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply