Rationalizing cartridges?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Warren

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
2,454
Location
Northern California
Is there any way the gun community could rationalize the naming of cartridges?

As many of you lnow I'm new to actually shooting and the associated disciplines therein (been pro-gun for decades just recently started actually shooting and carrying) and was seeking to increase my knowledge. So I set about reading a book about various cartidges. The first few pages dealt with how they came to named.

I had no idea. I understand that gun and round design can be highly individualistic pursuits and this leads to people naming their cartirdge however they want, I have no problem with that at all. What i would like though is some sort of easy to remember code so that someone who has learned a simple key can decipher exactly what the specs of any given round are without having to remember a whole bunch of cartridges seperately.

So if gun sage is talking to gun noob and says this round is XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX the gun nood knows that the bullet in question is .35" around, weighs 180 gr. and is in a belted, centerfire semi-rimless necked case that is 3.34 in. long.

Is there anyway to do this?

I'm not advocating tossing out the old names, just saying maybe there is a better way that could be used to help people along. Once they get knowledgeble enough they will be able to use both naming conventions interchangably.

Just an idea.
 
A rose by any other name...

I really doubt there's any hope for consolidating names or making too much sense out of cartridge names. Especailly since so many of the best ones are more than 75 years old. Complicate the matter with ones like the "45 Long Colt" which some purists can't stand -- there wasn't a 45 "short" Colt, just the 45 Schofield.

There seems to be more marketing behind modern names than clarification. Old black powder rounds (45-70, 45-90, etc.) reference caliber and charge, and some smokeless ammo references diameter and length (9mm x 15mm, 9mm x 19mm, 9mm x 23mm, 7.62mm x 51mm).

Take what you can get. After some time, the names become familiar like old friends in a way that wouldn't happen if there was too much sense behind them.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the British system of designating artillery by round weight (e.g. 24-pounder, 17-pounder, etc.) irrespective of bore size - turns out their WW2 25-pounder was almost identical in bore diameter to the German 88mm. Flak gun, but with rather different characteristics!

Then you have the classic Sharps rounds, which should really be identified by case length rather than powder charge...
 
7.62X39 in the metric system means the bore is 7.62 mm in diameter and the case is 39 mm long. The 7X57R has a 7 mm bore and a Rimmed 57 mm case. That system works, but you have to get the gun makers to follow the rules, and they don't want to. Why call a new round a yyXzz when you can use a sexy name like the 23 super duper short fat magnum?
 
So if gun sage is talking to gun noob and says this round is XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX the gun nood knows that the bullet in question is .35" around, weighs 180 gr. and is in a belted, centerfire semi-rimless necked case that is 3.34 in. long.
Click to expand...


To fully describe a loaded round like you're suggesting, you'd have to include alot of information (like bullet shape, type and jacketing, case material, primer size and type etc.). Most probably, everyone would just use some short-hand, like saying the caliber of the round.

Telling someone that a round is of a certain caliber, should tell them quite a bit, but trying to come up with a universal code that would work for all configurations of all cartridges would be near impossible. Even if you did, it might make sense to you but there would be others who would be just as confused as they are with the labels we have today.
 
Metric / NATO standards are the way to go. It would be nice if new ammunition followed the rules on new cartridges... It'll probably happen about the time we switch to the metric system...
 
If nature had intended us to use the metric system, we'd have been born with ten fingers. :)


I don't think there would really be any way to try to simplify the system without making it more complicated. Unless there were some sort of great BC-to-AD shift where everything got renamed under the new system, which, with a group as contentious and individualistic as shooters tend to be would probably happen at roughly the same time the US switches over to the metric system.
 
The metric system is actually pretty good from an engineering standpoint.

Nevermind though. We don't need that French stuff like the SI system or "mini"balls.
 
When a subject is new to you then you have to learn the accepted definitions. Making new definitions just to please those trying to learn will just create even more confusion as they still will have to go back and learn the original definitions.
As they say, when in Rome do as the Romans do. Learn what's accepted rather than try to change something that still won't make any sense to someone new to the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top