Talk:7.92×57mm Mauser/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question

Shouldn't this be called the "7.92x57 Mauser"? My understanding is that is the usual name for it. -- Cabalamat 15:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. 8x57 is the American designation, the rest of the World calls it 7.92x57 (or 7,92x57mm). Like any very successful, century-plus old cartridge, it has a multitude of designations, not to mention loads. I'm trying to update this as I have time. Even the J/I dichotomy is all screwed up. It was originally "I". US Intelligence (sic) in WWII mistranslated this as "J". SAAMI calls it "J". Now even the CIP calls it "J". HangFire 20:05 December 13, 2005 (EST)

Shouldn't all the "7,92x57"s be "7.92x57"? --ejail 00:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No. The original military designation used a comma, and the CIP standards body still uses a comma. It is only the English speaking countries that use a period. Since this is a cartridge of European origin, and exact nomenclature is an important part of any cartridge's history, it is important to retain the original nomiker when referring to it in historical context. HangFire 02:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, is it not? Thus, the english-language form should be used, even though it is a german cartridge.

-Alex, 74.133.188.197 03:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

The Wikipedia style page refers to ISO31-0, and this norm clearly states comma as the preferred decimal separator. For the time beeing, rumors about the dot as an equal to comma are just that - rumors! Other norms tolerate the decimal point only in conjunction with obsolete, though still used, English units. So it is what it has been from the beginning: 7,92x57 mm Mauser.

--Dutchguy 07:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The designations of the different countries should be recognised. The cartridge could say german and british sources one below the other so that way both would say, becose it is not fair to convert the original name, and is much better if it would say both german and english designation of the cartridge. Thank you. -Nemesis1000 83.131.149.119 10:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

8mm Mauser is never referred to as 7.92x57 Mauser. The actual dimensions are left in mm, or 7.92x57mm, or 8mm Mauser, not the combination of the two. Brenden 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This comma versus period for the decimal point has been argued on other places before and the result can be seen by looking at the categories. Note also that despite User:Dutchguy's comment about the MoS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) clearly and explicitly rejects the ISO 31 rule. Yet for some strange reason, even after the discussion above there had never even been a redirect from the "7.92" version, before I moved it to that now. Gene Nygaard 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, User:Dutchguy isn't paying attention, still making false claims about the comma being proper for Wikipedia style. Gene Nygaard 16:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the Wikipedia style for numbers is in opposition to international norms, and should be changed. We should be aware of the fact that an English language encyclopedia is international, and not a document for exclusive American home market. An American born habit of writing things is not necessarily international standard. International standards like ISO 32 only tolerate the decimal point to avoid interdiction of products of American origin using this sign on other markets. It is also tolerated for us in conjunction with obsolete units like inches and pounds. But fact remains that comma is the preferred decimal separator, and the use of comma for grouping numbers is forbidden. Also, cartridge naming of metric calibers obviously included comma’s, and changing comma’s for points is giving incorrect information. An encyclopedia should provide correct information, even if it hurts the feelings of those who are convinced for one reason or another that their habits are better, and that history should be rewritten accordingly. Dutchguy 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer

The entire comma vs. dot history can be found at Decimal_separator. I agree with Nemesis1000 that redirects should be developed for alternate spellings such as "7.92 x 57", "7.92x57", "7,92 x 57", "JS", "IS", "8mm Mauser", etc.--Raprat 15:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet you obviously did not create such redirects. Gene Nygaard 21:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

The following should have either a citation or a technical justification: "The bullet has the best ratio of energy compared to the weight of the powder loaded in all commercial hunting cartridges." --Raprat 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see some attention given to this article.

This statement is of the few remaining parts of the original stub. The statement might be true if narrowly constrained, such as, bottleneck major caliber service rifle cartridges from that era. That's rather complicated. I think the actual best cartridge as described would be the 45 Colt revolver cartridge in a modern smokeless loading, which gets about 1/4 of the energy of the Mauser cartridge with 1/9 of the powder weight. Anyway, rather than sort it all out, the best thing to do is probably delete the sentence or completely rewrite it. HangFire 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging this page with 7x57 would be as pointless as merging the geographical pages of Germany and Spain. Once fleshed out, both the 7,92x57 page and the 7x57 page will be very large entries indeed and the discussion will be whether they each need to be broken down into smaller pages. HangFire 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article renaming

As per the general consensus from the team at Wikiproject: Military History, it would seem that this article really ought to be named "7.92x57 Mauser", with no spaces- and using a decimal point instead of a comma. Regardless of whether or not the comma is "correct", it looks like a typo to 99.99% of Wikipedia readers. I thought I'd give people a chance to comment before arbitrarily changing the title, however. --Commander Zulu 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support move to 7.92x57 Mauser or 7,92x57 Mauser, I can argue the decimal point or comma either way and am happy with either. Andrewa 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the article to 7.92x57 Mauser. —Mets501 (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been argued many times and the consensus has been reached many times; the name of the cartridge originally had a comma, still does in all countries covered by the CIP; the American name does not use a period, or a comma for that matter- the American name is 8mm Mauser or 8x57 JS, and there are already redirects in place to cover those conventions. I'm sorry if this foreign name looks like a "typo" to you; perhaps you would like to Americanize everyone's foreign-sounding name by changing the spelling, too? See how far you get with THAT. HangFire 04:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not American, you know. --Commander Zulu 08:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So what? HangFire 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So please don't accuse me of being on a quest to "Americanise" anything. If I wanted to Americanise this article, I would have proposed calling it "8mm Mauser" instead of a simple Anglicisation to 7.92x57 Mauser. Based on your "But that's what it was originally called!" argument, perhaps we should rename the Oxygen article dephlogisticated air and the Hawaii article Sandwich Islands as well? --Commander Zulu 01:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, who moved the article the 7.62x57 mm Mauser? That's not even the correct measurement designation for this calibre! --Commander Zulu 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever blew up an action shooting the Sandwich Islands out of a I-bore barrel. HangFire 00:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article titled as it stands is wrong. It is either 7.92x57mm or 8mm Mauser. Not the combination of the two. Brenden 03:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Calibre designations generally have the designer, manufacturer, or commissioner's name after them- 7.62x51 NATO, .455 Webley, 9 mm Para, 30-30 Winchester, etc. There are exceptions, but generally the name is included as a kind of disambiguator, if that makes sense- to a non-shooter, "7.92x57mm" could refer to the title of an album by a heavy metal band, an engineering equation, or a piece of timber. My concern with this article, ironically, isn't the presence or absence of a disambiguator, but the (incorrect) use of a comma in place of a decimal point separator. --Commander Zulu 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes they do. That is why 7.92x57mm is also referred to as 8mm Mauser. Suggesting that a "disambiguator" is needed in the title due to non-shooters makes no sense. A page with multiple listings is then needed, not a change in title. I am pretty sure any real fan of a band called "7.92x57", if there is such a thing, or ".38 Special", would know where the band's name comes from. I also don't recall the local hardware stores selling 8mm wide pieces of wood. No one can assume it's an engineering equation either. Is this the only argument that exists for not just using the proper designation, 7.92x57mm? It's merely grabbing at straws. Brenden 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "7.92x57 mm"; there should be a space between a number and a unit symbol according to measurement standards organizations and WP:MOSNUM. Gene Nygaard 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Military Firearm calibres use a different nomenclature- the calibre designation is a name, not a measurement, if that makes sense. --Commander Zulu 23:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, I moved the article back to 7.92x57mm Mauser. This is where it will stay, unless a consensus is reached to move it. This is the accepted decimal separator in English, and this is the English WP. Thanks, chaps. Geoff B 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now look what you all have done. "Now known in Europe as the 7.92x57mm JS"... but it is NOT known in Europe as the 7.92x57mm JS! You've also changed the HISTORICAL REFERENCES of this this many-named cartridge to something IT WAS NEVER CALLED. HangFire 04:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We are, as far as I'm aware, using Wikipedia conventions for cartridge naming. This means using a full stop, not a comma. Geoff B 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again! The Wikipedia style for numbers is in opposition to international norms, and should be changed. We should be aware of the fact that an English language encyclopedia is international, and not a document for exclusive American home market. An American born habit of writing things is not necessarily international standard. International standards like ISO 32 only tolerate the decimal point to avoid interdiction of products of American origin using this sign on other markets. It is also tolerated for us in conjunction with obsolete units like inches and pounds. But fact remains that comma is the preferred decimal separator, and the use of comma for grouping numbers is forbidden. Also, cartridge naming of metric calibers obviously included commas, and changing commas for points is giving incorrect information. An encyclopedia should provide correct information, even if it hurts the feelings of those who are convinced for one reason or another that their habits are better, and that history should be rewritten accordingly. Dutchguy 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard enough keeping this page on its historically correct naming convention, you've got a tough row to how to convert ALL numbering to ISO 32. (ISO is great; remember when TP4 and all those other great new standard ISO protocols was going to replace funky old TCP/IP?) To put the EU's ISO in perspective, the whole of the EU has an economy the size of any three mid-size US states. Anyway, you missed a decimal. HangFire 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, DutchGuy, we on Wikipedia decide Wikipedia's style, and it has been decided that the full stop is the accepted decimal separator. Nor am I changing this article for 'the American home market'. I am not American, and perhaps you should not assume that everyone who edits this article in regards to the decimal separator issue is American. This is the English Wikipedia, and the full stop is the accepted decimal separator in English. Thank you. Geoff B 02:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What the smeg is it with people assuming everyone on WP is American? I agree completely with Geoff B. The only English-speaking country that I know of that uses the comma instead of the decimal point is South Africa. The UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the rest of the English-speaking world uses a decimal point. We may have to take this to arbitration if this article keeps getting moved back to the title involving a comma. --Commander Zulu 07:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a tough job indeed to keep the historical correct title correct, and the correct name of the cartridge historical correct is 7,92x57 mm Mauser. There is a serious HangFire about ISO and the European Union. First of all, the affirmation that “the whole of the EU has an economy the size of any three mid-size US states” is complete nonsense; “ … as a single entity, the European Union has the largest economy in the world.” Secondly, ISO is not an obscure hobby of a few Europeans, but a worldwide organization of which English speaking countries like the United States and Great-Britain are members. Those countries are moving towards the implementation of the metric system to replace obsolete systems. I am aware that it is a slow and painful process to shed old habits. So, the use of decimal points and number grouping commas is part of the good old days whose days are fading in the light of metric prescription of the decimal comma as the preferred writing style. In conclusion, reference to English language and clinging to old habits for emotional reasons are no objective arguments to wrongly rename cartridges. An encyclopedia should provide correct information, and changing commas that historically always have been commas to points on emotional grounds is unacceptable. In the same way that it would be completely stupid to replace points to commas in cartridge names like .45 ACP or .300 Winchester Magnum. -- Dutchguy 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted Dutchguy's unilateral move again, since the consensus seems pretty strong to keep it at the name used in English. It may be worth monitoring Dutchguy's changes, or possibly bringing up a mediation/arbitration case, since he seems to be on a crusade to change all Wikipedia articles to use commas as a decimal separator. I've recently had to revert his edits to the manual of style itself, which should probably also be watched. --Delirium 14:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Delirium doesn’t even want opposition of the proposed writing style to ISO 31-0 be mentioned on the Manual of Style page. Dutchguy got him/her without an answer to the remark where Dilirium got the idea that ISO norms are only for scientists. And suddenly, Delirium gets deeply interested in Mauser cartridges, while warning against this dangerous Dutchguy who wants, how dare he, write cartridge names and even numbers the right way! It is difficult to assume good faith in this case. -- Dutchguy 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dutchguy has reverted the article name. Again. I hope people will stop assuming they know the motivation of others and we can talk reasonably about this, but that does not appear to be the case so far. Whether this takes dispute resolution, mediation or arbitration to sort out, I'm quite willing. Geoff B 17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration might make sense. I do not agree with DutchGuy that all decimals should be moved to ISO notation. I only want the title to reflect the original notation and original standard name for the cartridge. Really, if this were the American English Wikipedia, it WOULD be 8mm Mauser, but it's the International English Wikipedia. What irks me about the whole thing is the dozens of articles that take you through 3 or more manual redirects to get to the page-name-of-the-day for this cartridge. The changers and reverters don't bother to go clean up the rest of the articles or even the hanging redirects. Most of them (which is to say, most of YOU) DON'T EVEN CONTRIBUTE to the page! You just move it back and forth. Seriously, though, the size of the biggest economy in the EU, Germany, is almost identical to that of the state of New York. You can work down from there, but hold California in reserve, because there is nothing to compare it to in the EU. And don't forget to deduct points for Portugal and R.o. Ireland. 69.137.35.23 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is time for 69.137.35.23 to learn to read numbers. The European Union economy is with 13, 4 trillion USD the largest in the world. The German economy is with 2,72 trillion USD about the size of California (1,62 trillion) and New York (0,96 trillion) together. What has this economy story to do with the irresistible need of some to discard the historical correct designation of 7,92x57 mm Mauser and to replace it with a point thing? Learn to keep to the facts before taking part in a discussion about facts, and keep emotional outburst about Portugal an Ireland (both fast-growing economies, by the way) to yourself. -- Dutchguy 12:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

@HangFire - We don't do that because we need this article to be stable before we can sort out all the redirects. If we sort out all the redirects, then the page gets changed back again, all our work would have been pointless. And please, stop bringing up economy size comparisons. They have nothing to do with what is going on here. If you want to compare whose 'economy' is the biggest, please go elsewhere, and no-one, apart from you, it seems, is awarding or deducting points. Bizarre.

@Dutchguy - Using full stops as a decimal point is A) Still standard usage in English and B) Is the WP convention for the decimal point, so it will be used. This has nothing to do with emothion, or 'old' habits, but everything to do with current language use. Geoff B 03:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I think this is the problem. The vast, vast, vast majority of users on the English WP are from the USA, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In these English-speaking countries, the comma is almost NEVER, EVER used by everyday people to denote a decimal place. Call it an Anglophone conspiracy if you like, but it's a conspiracy willingly engaged in by the entire former British Empire and the current Commonwealth of Nations. The "historical correct" designation of this calibre is only "correct" in a foreign language Wiki. In English, we use the decimal point. This article is in the English language WP, ergo, the decimal point is the "correct" decimal indicator for the title. And what on earth does the relative size of the various EU economies have to do with the name of a military rifle cartridge? It's so surreal I wouldn't be at all surprised if we don't find ourselves debating the relative airspeed velocities of African and European Swallows, and whether or not they can carry coconuts between continents during their annual migration. --Commander Zulu 12:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely sympathize with Commander Zulu, and have changed internal content to match. JVkamp 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would note that Dutchguy is simply incorrect in his views of the International System of Units, which makes no requirement to use the comma or prohibition of the full stop. To quote our article on said system: "The 10th resolution of CGPM in 2003 declared that 'the symbol for the decimal marker shall be either the point on the line or the comma on the line'." So both are equally acceptable in the view of the CGPM, and therefore the SI. --Delirium 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Delirium, your description is misleading , while you leave out essential parts of the resolution like these main point in the declaration:

" however, some international bodies use the comma on the line as the decimal marker in their English language documents,

furthermore, some international bodies, including some international standards organizations, specify the decimal marker to be the comma on the line in all languages, "

The focus of the decision is to reaffirm that: "Numbers may be divided in groups of three in order to facilitate reading; neither dots nor commas are ever inserted in the spaces between groups", as stated in Resolution 7 of the 9th CGPM, 1948.

Why? - because both commas and dots are used in practice as decimal markers. This conclusion only stipulates the reason for forbidding the use of dots and commas as grouping symbols. It is only to reaffirm the position declared in resolution 7:

“In numbers, the comma (French practice) or the dot (British practice) is used only to separate the integral part of numbers from the decimal part. Numbers may be divided in groups of three in order to facilitate reading; neither dots nor commas are ever inserted in the spaces between groups.”

The issue is, once again, forbidding the use of commas and dots for grouping numbers. The conclusion that the purpose is to put dots on equal footing with commas is sheer nonsense, and wishful thinking on behalf of nostalgias of the obsolete ways.

Reference in resolution 10 to “international standards organizations” who “specify the decimal marker to be the comma on the line in all languages” applies to ISO 31-0 that indeed says so. Sorry, to hurt the feelings of some people, but facts are facts, and my views are perfectly right.

In normalization, one thing always prevails over the other in order to standardize. Putting two different ways on equal footing is in sheer opposition with the goal of normalization, and supposing that norms do so is ridiculous. - Dutchguy 21:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as the even the SI realizes---it's telling that nowhere in there does the SI endorse the ISO 31-0 decision, nor make it binding, nor even recommend it. Nonetheless, you're welcome to your crusade to change the English language, so long as you wage it outside Wikipedia. --Delirium 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dutchguy, saying things like "my views are perfectly right", "comma is king", "nostalgias of the obsolete ways" and "Come back when you know something about cartridges" betrays the fact that the only person here letting their feelings motivate them is you. 1) The full stop, or point, is the accepted decimal point in English. 2) This is the English Wikipedia. 3) It is also the accepted Wikipedian convention to use the full stop as the decimal point. That this is at odds with usage in other languages and ISO-Whatever is irrelevant. It's the way Wikipedia does it. I can't explain it any clearer. Geoff B 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

GeoffvB is right. Dutchguy, you can jump up and down about the comma as a decimal separator (which, to me and the rest of the English-as-a-mother tongue-speaking world looks either like a typo or lazy translation). Look, in conventional English, the comma is used as a kind of mini-pause, if you will, denoting things in a list (amongst other uses). So, to almost all English speakers, "7,92" would be read as "Seven, Ninety-Two", with a tone indicating that one might expect another number after that. Alternatively, it might also be interpreted as "Seven and Ninety-Two". However, with the decimal point it immediately becomes clear to the English reader that it is "Seven Point Nine Two", and therefore some kind of precise measurement. As others have said, you're welcome to lobby the entire English-speaking world to change the way they write (Good luck!), but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. As a comparison, the Metric System has been officially in use in the US for many, many years- but it's not in actual common use amongst the general populace there in their everyday lives, at least as I understand it. --Commander Zulu 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

New Warning Text

I have issues with: "To avoid potentially serious accidents, it is impossible to over-stress the vital need for distinguishing clearly between cartridges loaded for these two different bullet diameters, and only firing them in appropriately chambered/barrelled rifles."

PO Ackley's (Engineer and Dean of the Colorodo School of Gunsmithing) post-WWII published experiments with overbore bullets in 8mm Mausers conclusively debunked this myth. Not to mention that Germany used JS bore bullets in J bores between 1905 and WWI by simply reaming the chamber and leade to allow the larger cartridge to be chambered, with no problems. There is substantial evidence that the sub-pressure 8x57 Mauser (American loading) cartridge exists primarily to keep Americans buying higher performing American loadings of domestic calibers, in other words, to keep surplus Mausers from competing with US made rifles.

Unless you can find some published research substantiating your assertion, we must consider Professor Ackley's scientific experiments to be the conclusive word on this subject, more conclusive than the usual gun writer blather- the same gun writers that depend on free gear and hunts from manufacturers interested in selling new rifles and new cartridges. This so-called data falls in the same class as CZ-52's being the strongest 7.62x25 chambered handgun, when in fact it is the weakest due to having the thinnest chamber wall. It is simply gun writer lore that gets repeated without substantiation or research. HangFire 02:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Having added the following to the article -- "To avoid potentially serious accidents, it is impossible to over-stress the vital need for distinguishing clearly between cartridges loaded for these two different bullet diameters, and only firing them in appropriately chambered/barrelled rifles" -- I'd like to stick to it.

With all due respect to Parker Ackley (whose work in general I much admire), I cannot agree that the two types of cartridge with deiffering buller diameters can be mixed with impunity, for the simple reason that I have seen a perfectly good European-made sporting rifle ruined - and its firer miraculously escape serious injury - when the incorrect diameter of bullet was inadvertently fired in it. The bullet stuck in the bore and the rifle shattered into pieces. This happened in Surrey, England, at the UK's NRA ranges there, in the 1980s. I know "one swallow doesn't make a summer", but in correspondence with various gunsmiths in Europe I was able to collect a good deal of evidence that such serious mishaps are by no means uncommon when the two types of 7.92x57 ammo are mixed.

Alas, P.O. Ackley also gets things wrong when he writes with withering condemnation about the .244 Holland & Holland Magnum. Sadly, he appears to have committed a very extreme opinion to print, without having anything more than rather perfunctory personal experience of this calibre. In my recent work on the .244 Wikipedia article, I have tried to put the record straight - especially as regards the rifles that blew up with this cartridge. It was the rifles' owners' fault, not that of the ammunition, which is perfectly fine - so long as the user appreciates that it is very extreme ammo. Various details, including material from the archives of David Lloyd (who invented the cartridge, and made rifles for it) and H&H, will be added as soon as I have fully verified them, and gone through the necessary courtesies with copyright owners etc. Clmckelvie 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It amuses me that no one looks at the most important contributing factors when spontaneous disassembly occurs in the field. They put anecodotal experiences ahead of real research. Let's review-

First of all, I was wrong in my original discussion, Ackely's research involved firing 8mm/7.92 bullets IN 30 CALIBER BARRELS. This DID produce high pressure signs, but not nearly what was expected. As long as the rest of the system had integrity- if and only if- it was not a major safety factor IN AND OF ITSELF.

Throw in some combination weak or brittle brass, excessive headspace, unsupported head area due to improper rebarreling, handloading with the bullet seated hard against the lead, etc., and catastrophic results can certainly follow. Fine sporters made from other receivers can be found fragrmented everywhere, without tight bores being a factor, because the more important safety factor is not bore size, as conclusively proven by Ackley. The most important factors are: brass integrity, brass support, receiver integrity and gas handling. As certain as you are about the cause of your anecdote, I am certain there were other contributing factors besides bore size.

When you examined the receiver pieces, could you determine pre-catastrophe headspace? Unsupported case head protrusion? Receiver damage from sight mounting? Quality of heat threatment? A sound Mauser receiver will survive case head seperations (mine have), simply because they were designed to do so... provided their design parameters haven't been transgressed by time or bad gunsmithing (especially rebarrelling leaving incorrect bolt face/breech distance, which can be wildly wrong while having proper headspace), improper sight mounting (damaging receiver ring integrity), etc., etc.

Although totally irrelevant to this topic, PO Ackley was bang-on about the .244 H&H- It was a difficult cartridge to reload with the American powders at the time, did not make its performance claims, and had very short barrel life. That did not stop its popularity from its users who enjoyed the mild recoil, flat trajectory, and remarkable killing power. A wealthy person could tolerate a 600 shot barrel life shooting factory ammo for these benefits- Ackley's perspective was too value-oriented to tolerate the drawbacks.

Anyway, I'll give it another few days before I moderate your overblown warning, unless you care to do it yourself. Once again I must state, Ackley did the conclusive research on this topic, and just because someone blew up an action at a range once, doesn't invalidate controlled sample set research. HangFire 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If we can find a source for it, it can be included in the article. If we can't, it can't. Geoff B 13:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The "spontaneous disassembly" of the Mauser-actioned sporting rifle which blew up at Bisley when different nominally 7.92mm bullet diameters got mixed was specifically caused by a bullet which lodged in the rifle's bore some 8in forward of the receiver ring. The barrel rearward of that point bulged and burst. The bolt and all of the action held firm - the only reason the firer escaped serious injury or death. My correspondence with various mainland European gunsmiths and ballisticians lists a number of other instances in which the disastrous rifle failure was due to an over-sized bullet lodging in the bore. On the basis of the data before me, I am satisfied that a strong cautionary warning ought to be given, to alert rifle/ammunition users to this hazard.

As a more general principle - and re your "before I moderate your overblown warning" - I think one can never "over-blow" the matter of firearms safety. Guns have a bad enough name already in some quarters without shooters being over-confident or cavalier and thus courting yet more criticism. It behoves everyone who writes about firearms anywhere, including Wiki, to caution care and advocate the precautionary principle at all times. It can save lives and prevent serious injury.

Parker Ackley's animadversions on the .244 H&H Magnum actually far outran the limited US-domestic parameters you refer to. He castigated it for faults that he fancied were there, but which actually aren't, and eventually dismissed it as "hopelessly overbore". His failing, alas, was to jump to extreme theoretical conclusions that went far beyond his actual, personal experience of the cartridge, which was rather limited. In any event, P.O.A. would certainly (like most US handloaders at that time) have had access to surplus .50BMG powders, and those can make the .244H&H perform pretty well, although they're perhaps not perfect.

Bill Ruger owned, used and admired the .244, and more importantly so too did Roy Weatherby, for whom it was the inspiration for the .240 Wby. As above stated, I much admire most of Ackley's work, but the man wasn't infallible (and he'd not have claimed it), and occasionally he got something wrong (as we all can).Clmckelvie 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Amusing. Consider this. The BMG powders that Ackley had access to were slower and more progressive than H&H's Cordite, and Weatherby's .240 has smaller case capacity than the .244, even though Weatherby consistantly sought higher performance than any other production firearm in his designs... and got it. When he didn't, he discontinued the chamberering, as he did with the 220 Rocket. Now, why would he make the case capacity smaller than the competition? He had access to larger parent cases....

HangFire 03:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The barrel diameter is irrelevant--the old barrels were toleranced from .315 to .321. The newer barrels from .320 to .327. So a .323 bullet (tolerance, IIRC from .320 to .325) might STILL be "Too large" for a modern barrel. The reason for the caution/change is that the THROAT DIAMETER is smaller in the J barrels. Those rechambered (NOT "Rebored") to S specs fire .323 just fine. All that was done was to ream the throat a little larger. Some had rifling recut a little deeper. Most were simply new barrels. The Turks fired "high power" 8mm through their 88s and 93s in WWII with no issues. People still fire them today. And I've yet to see a photo of one of these old rifles that has exploded and ripped a hole in the space-time continuum. There are a lot of shooters (including myself(yes, I realize WP:OR) who have been shooting milsurp ammo in the antiques for decades. It's a nonissue, as long as the proper CHAMBER is in the rifle. I have corrected this misinformation and internet rumor with a comment on chamber size. I will find a source when I have some time. Meantime, anyone perpetuating the "larger barrel" myth needs to provide their OWN citation for it.Mzmadmike (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Derivative Cartridges?

I wonder if something should be mentioned about the derivative cartridges made from this one. Examples: 9x57mm, 10x57mm, 10.5x57mm, et al.

COMMENT: It would be helpful is this article depicted both the SAAMI and CIP drawings of this cartridge. They are not identical. Also, the drawing dates should be included. These sporting arms standards (SAAMI & CIP) have been revised over time. Since this cartridge was originally developed for military purposes, original dated milspec cartridge drawings should be included as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.228.118 (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

REPLY: SAAMI drawings are copyrighted. RCBS went to the lengths of hiring their own draftsman to recreate SAAMI drawings in their reloading manual, even though they are a SAAMI member. Don't know about CIP. HangFire (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Re derivatives - it would be fine to have a section with them all in it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"German origin"

Just a little annotation: The German flag ist black-red-gold not black-white-gold as shown in this article. user: tabalooga (German Wikipedia) 2th Oct 2010 9:37 CEST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.84.193 (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As you should know from Geschichtsunterricht, the German Flag from 1888, when this cartridge was created, was black-white-red (black-white from Prussia, red for the Hansestädte). --Dingo (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Citation needed" - Tags

Removed two Template:cn-Tags by GraemeLeggett. Reasons:

Sometimes, the cartridge is called 7.92x57mm IS; this, however, seems to be a misnomer as no sources can be traced to Germany.

That there are an awful lot of references to the 8x57 JS cartridge as "7.92" (or other 8mil cartridges, like 8x33 Polte etc.) seems to be above any doubt.

I can, however, not provide proof that "no sources can be traced to Germany", and that's also not how it works.

I know of no sources in pre-war Germany that call the 8mil "7.92", and the C.I.P. dimensions do not include 7.92 mm (0.312 in) anywhere. Sources calling the cartridge "7.92" until now all have proved to be translations from US literature, quotations of US literature, or rip-offs of US literature. Neither C.I.P. nor SAAMI know of "7.92" as an official designation.

No one must provide quotations that show that there are NO sources calling something this-or-that. That's neigh impossible. One must provide, however, proof that there ARE sources calling something this-or-that. No such proof was found (and believe me, I did search) that 8x57JS was EVER called "7.92" in Germany w/o above exceptions in any context. Prove me wrong, and I am VERY MUCH oblieged, as it is a great mystery to me where the frack this "7.92" comes from.

So, this is no viable place for a "Citation needed"-Tag. A place where somebody explained where the 7.92 came from would be; and a good source for that would solve a real mystery.

The 8x57mm ("8 mm Mauser") and 7x57mm ("7 mm Mauser") cartridges are not interchangeable; attempts to do so may cause damage or potential injury.

Please reread the paragraph; it is trivial. Of course, two calibres that differ in one whole millimetre are not interchangeable. No proof needed there. I am a little bit confused that there had to be any mention of that. 8x57JS is also not interchangeable with 8x68S, 8x64 Brenneke, 7x64 Brenneke, or 9(x19) Parabellum, for that matter. --Dingo (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This article was hit by a bot that clearly is not able to see what images and drawings show and using further common sense like looking at the mentioned bibliography. A main problem with the article however is that it deals with 4 different cartridges (the 8 x57 I(R) and 8 x57 I(R)S) according to CIP. CIP rules the origin country of these cartridges now and since their rulings have the force of law in CIP countries it is futile to complain on what CIP rules. Amongst hunters the I(R)S variants are still common and an excellent chambering choice for relatively short barreled hunting rifles. If we would follow the Wikipedia cartridge nomenclature system, which I found out not easy to change, the article should be named 8x57mm. The 4 cartridge variants can be explained in the text.--Francis Flinch (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That was not a bot, that was an editor (perhaps being a bit heavy-handed with the tagging - opinions may differ) noting problems with the referencing on this article. The bot follows up by dating the taggings. It is still a requirement that statements are attributed to a source, else we do not know whether they are verifiable or not. It is not sufficient to say "look at the source list" facts should be attributed to the sources (and page numbers are important here) so that they can be checked. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the editor should start to tag the .30-06 Springfield and many other Wikipedia ammunition articles likewise. They are generally not much better/comfortable referenced.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

They may choose to do so, and then again they may not. Equally if you feel that an article needs its shortcoings flagged up then you can do, or not as you wish. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry. This cn-orgy is a little bit excessive.

Also rimmed 8x57mm IR and 8x57mm IRS variants were developed for break barrel type rifles and combination guns.citation needed

Beside the 8x57mm IS rifle cartridge also a rimmed version for break-action rifles exist.[citation needed] The rimmed 8x57mm IRS variant is offered as a chambering option in European break-action rifles.[citation needed]

This is so trivial, look at ANY European reloading manual. What should be cited? That there ARE 8x57 IR and 8x57 IRS? Or that flanged cartridges are developed for break-action rifles? Both is trivial and can be confirmed by the search engine of your least mistrust.

The mainly European arms standards body Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives ("Permanent International Commission for portable firearms testing") - an organisation for standards in ammuntion for civilian use - currently designates two 8 mm cartridges of 57 mm case length.[citation needed]

Look at the C.I.P. catalogue. Trivial.

Sometimes, the cartridge is called 7.92x57mm IS; this, however, seems to be a misnomer as no sources can be traced to Germany.[citation needed]

Thank you SO VERY MUCH for responding to my remarks above. <sarcasm off> And HOW should that be cited? "It is not in the Bible. It is not in German military instruction books ("Patrone 7.9"). It is not in Götz, Die deutschen Militärgewehre und Maschinenpistolen 1870-1945. It is not in "Harry Potter". It is not in..."?!? You find a source, and delete the sentence. You find none, and the sentence is viable.

Please, be reasonable with the cn-tags. --Dingo (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In order of importance as I perceive it.

• Sometimes the cartridge....misnomer...no sources..." - this sentence makes a statement that relies upon absence of evidence to make an assertion. Now it may be that this sentence came from a source that says it is a misnomer and that the source of that misnomer is unknown but otherwise it is a potential synthesis. Your statement "You find a source, and delete the sentence. You find none, and the sentence is viable." reverses a stated policy of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence).

Other cites - again the purpose of citing sources is for Verifiablity. It may be trivial to an editor in the know to be able to look in the CIP catalogue but the location in the catalogue - or an edition of that - should be given. This becomes more necessary as other sources are added to the Bibliography - an editor checking the sources has to know at the least which source the information comes from.

On the number of cite tags - as I said above, the previous editor may have gone over the top (there is an essay on the subject). GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Misnomer: see below. I have tried to disprove it. I don't know where "7.92" came from; it is a nomenclature not found in contemporary sources, i.e. a misnomer. You may alter the sentence if you find it made the claim it was stated anywhere as a misnomer. Fact, there could not, since november, be found any sources for the 7.92 designation. Fact, if it were such a commen designation, then you should find sources by the dozen. I can even find you a source that "the sky was blue" by finding a page that explains why.

WP:Verifiability: I differ. Someone put the 7.92 nomenclature in, and MFIreland claimed rather vehemently this was the "official German military designation". The "burden of evidence" is also such that the claimant has it because it's very easy to say: "In HDv 123/45, the calibre is called 7.92mm". For the sources compilation below, I used up THREE HOURS, and it's not even remotely complete, nor can it EVER be. Like said above, if you would rather the sentence was phrased differently, please, by all means, alter it. Fact is, and fact rests, that there are no sources calling the calibre 7.92mm, C.I.P. and SAAMI don't call it that way, and in contemporary literature, it is commonly (that much I hope is proved beyond reasonable doubt now) named otherwise.

C.I.P.-quotes: Practical problem: [1] - The C.I.P. remodels its web presence, hence the archive is now offline. I can look it up when the page comes back up.

Number of cite tags: Yes, I second that. Now, there was added an unsourced claim the British called it 7.92mm. Here, a contemporary primary source would really add to the article's quality. I think all those cn-tags should be thinned out rather quickly. --Dingo (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

For good understanding I add that the C.I.P. TDCC is an extensive PDF document that shows no page numbers at the individual cartridge datasheet level.--Francis Flinch (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because every new calibre can be inserted into the compilation without further alterations. I have given the PDF-page-numbers.--Dingo (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

7.92mm dispute

So long, and thanks for the fish. It is a pity that there seems to be users who are unwilling or unable to contribute AND have admins that will back them even if sourcing and arguments are provided. I will go for a permanent block, and not "disrupt" WP any longer with strenuous sourcing work and verifiable sources. Pity for the hours providing the sources. Dingo (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.182.88 (talk)

Proper designation should be 7,9 mm Mauser istead of 7,92

Reading this text about German military arms I have noticed constantly repeated mistake in designation of ammunition used for K 35 rifle or MG 18, or MG 42 machine gun. As far as I have learned the original designation of the caliber should be 8x57mm IS where 8mm stands for rounded measure of the bullet in milimeters, 57 for length of case, I for "Infanterie" - the infantry, and S for "Spitzgeschoss" or pointed nose bullet. Shorter name should be 8mmS, or concerning the artillery habit to designate caliber according to the diameter over fields of the barrel: 7,9mm. In addition to the famous inventor and manufacturer of the bolt action rifle military designation should be 7,9mm Mauser. 8x57IS stays more as civil designation for sporting/hunting rifles and ammunition. Just before the WWI German army introduced new ammunition and chambering 8x57IS for standard Mauser Model 1889 bolt action infantry rifle, till then chambered only for 8x57I. New caliber differed from previous, by slightly larger diameter (7.89mm over fields and 8,20mm over grooves) and another more obvious feature - pointed full metal jacket bullet, demanding new extrusion/pressing manufacturing technologies, but offering better ballistic performances compared to his predcessor with slightly smaller diameter (7,81mm over fields and 8,10mm over grooves) with prominent round-nosed bullet and "civil" designation 8x57I. Important consequence that distinguishes this two calibers, which was the probable intention of the designer, was interchangeability: you could shoot 8x57I from both rifles (chambered for 8x57I and 8x57IS), but if you try to shoot 8x57IS round from 8x57I chambered rifle, damage to the rifle, with severe consequences for the shooter are inevitable. Still ,mostly in some private collections you could find rifles chambered for 8x57I cartridge, and famous German ammunition factory RWS still produces this ammunition. Mistake in designation 7,92mm probably was caused by byrocratic inertia, due to the often, but quite correct transcription of the famoust US .30-06 Springfield caliber in metric measures as 7,62x63mm (0,300 in x 25,4mm/in = 7,62mm). The same is with Soviet/Russian standard rifle caliber from both WWs 7,62x54R (R is for "Rand" in German or "flange" in English), more recent well known 7,62x39AK47, or modern NATO machine gun ammunition caliber 7,62x51mm originally .308 Winchester cartridge designed in 1951 to replace .30-06, with same bullet but shorter, more compact case where .308 stands for diameter of the barrel measured over grooves (.308in = 7,82mm) which is, in fact diameter of all .30 or .300 or .308 designated bullets. Please avoid the mistake; designation "7,92mm" just doesn't have any sense. For now on choose between 7,9mm Mauser or, more correct 8x57IS as designation for certain firearms caliber.

Kind regards,

George B. Vukovic M.Sc. Mech.Eng. Beograd, Serbia

There sure seem to be an awful lot of books that refer to it as 7.92 - in either case where we have two or more names with redirects, as many of the cartridges do, the redirect will handle getting the reader to the correct article. If you think we're missing a redirect just let me know. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that this mistake originated simply as a result of visual similarity of numbers: 7.92 versus 7.62? --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The 8x57mm_IS#British_military_ammunition section might be a start to explain where the 7.92 mm tag originates from. The references of the Besa machine gun article make frequent use of 7.92 and 7,92 mm where the ammunition used by this British machine gun used in British armored vehicles is mentioned.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Article moved, listed for over 3 weeks with no objections ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

---

7.92x57mm Mauser → 8x57 IS — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Correct C.I.P. Designation. "7.92x57" seems to be a USA-speciality, probably due to shooting regulations (caliber < 8mm?) Dingo (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be no discussion, so I will try to summarise the reasons again:

• The Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives, the permanent commission regarding firearms, lists this caliber as 8x57(mm) IS. The C.I.P. with members like Russia, Great Britain and many European and American states, is something like a standardisation commission.
• As far as I could find, the caliber 8x57IS was never known as "7.92". Even the military designation was "Patrone 7,9mm", "Cartridge 7.9mm". Barrels of two Gewehr 98 I could find are stamped "7,9".
• The brass length, "x57 IS", was never used in conjunction with the field diameter "7.9mm"; it's either "Cartridge 7.9mm", or "8x57 JS".

As a conclusion, the military designation was "Cartridge 7.9mm", and the CIP-approved caliber designation is "8x57 IS" (no mm there, because generally all numbers greater than 1 are considered metric, and all below 1 imperial: 7.62x39M43 -> metric, .30 Carbine -> imperial).

7.92 seems to be a mistake so often repeated that now it is, here, preferred to the correct designation. 7.92mm has neither any significance in the measurements of cartridge or barrel; neither can it be translated to a round imperial number (7.92 millimetres (0.312 in)).

Therefore, I will ask for a speedy deletion of 8x57mm IS and move the article.

--Dingo (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

German military designation?

I'm a little at a loss about the "German military designation"-part.

I heard about "7.92x57mm" only in US-based publications. I have consulted now "Reibert, Der Dienstunterricht im Heere", 1940-edition, and "Der Karabiner", Heinz Denckler-Verlag Berlin C2. Both call the caliber of the lands in the barrel of the rifle "7,9 mm"; the ammunition is just "Scharfe Patrone S (Spitzgeschoß)" (Life Cartridge S (Spitz(er)-Bullet)). In a tract about the different bullets for the cartridge (sS - schweres Spitzgeschoß, SmK Spitz mit Kern, Leuchtspur - heavy Spitzer, Spitzer with (steel-)Core, Tracer...), the caliber is called just "7,9mm".

In the civil sector, the caliber was just called "8x57 IS", or, as in German capital I and J were often synonymous, "8x57 JS".

Now:

• Anybody a source where the "2" in "7.92" comes from?
• Anybody a German military source pre-1945 where the "7.92x57" or "7.92x57mm"-designation is used?

There are some sources (normally civilian) post-1945 who use "7.92x57" (eg, German wikipedia) - this is, however, just from US-sources.

I will make a paragraph about the cartridge in the Wehrmacht. From the main paragraph, I will delete the "German military"-part until further sources.

So long, --Dingo (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Cleanup reversions

I improved the readability of some tables and did some (imo) non controversial CE. This has been reverted twice without comment by Gunnai. I notice that he simply deletes anything put on his talk page, so I invite his and other opinions here. (Hohum ^@) 02:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary sources for the 8mm designations

After MFIreland began an Edit War in 7.92x33mm Kurz, here are my sources and how they represent the 8mm cartridges:

• see paragraph above for military instruction books of WW2 and Kar 98k
• Kürschner, Joseph: ARMEE UND MARINE o.J. (um 1905), Hamburg, Hansa (in German): 7.9mm (no length)
• DVP Nr. 69 "Die Maschinenpistole 44", Hauptverwaltung der deutschen Volkspolizei, Ministerium des Inneren der DDR, Berlin 1950: 8x33 Polte - German: Pistolenpatrone 43, Kaliber 7,9 mm kurz. 8x57 IS: German: Patrone 7,9mm für den Karabiner. (P.28, Die scharfe Patrone)(in German)
• D 1854/3 Sturmgewehr 44, Gebrauchsanleitung vom 3.6.44, Veränderter Nachdruck Dez. 44, p.3 "A. Allgemeines - 3. Munition": German: Kurzpatrone 43, früher: Pistolenmunition 43, 6. Maße und Gewichte, Kaliber: 7,9 mm(in German)
• D 1853/1 Maschinenkarabiner 42(W) vom 25.02.1943, p. 15, J. Munition: German: Aus dem Maschinenkarabiner 42(W) wird die Pistolen-Munition 43 verschossen. P.5: Kaliber 7,9mm.(in German)
• Der Karabiner 88 nebst Munition, Berlin 1891: p.3: Der Durchmesser des Laufes von Feld zu Feld gemessen - das Kaliber - beträgt 7,9mm. 8x57 I: "Die scharfe Patrone 88" (p.31) (in German)
• Hans-Dieter Götz, Die deutschen Militärgewehre und Maschinenpistolen, Stuttgart 1974, ISBN 3-87943-550-X:(in German)
  • 8x33 kurz: p.199, Polte: "Polte solved the problem by shortening the 7.9mm standard cartridge.
  • 8x57 IS: p.81: Patrone 88 (8x57); p.134: S-Patrone (8x57)

Conclusion: By all those sources, it can be statet that:

• in instruction manuals, the calibre was deemed unimportant. It was given as the calibre of the barrel, field-to-field.
• nomenclature of the cartridges was by name: Patrone 88 (8x57 I), S-Patrone (8x57 IS), Pistolen-Munition / Pistolenpatrone 43 or Kurzpatrone 43 (pistol cartridge / ammunition 43, short cartridge 43).
• ALL metric or imperial diameter naming was "civvies".
• By comparing all sources, a common military designation of 7.9mm can be established (WITHOUT cartridge / brass length).
• Unknown is where the "2" in 7.92 comes from - but if you read the discussion, you knew that already. Even if it can be found in a source, at least regarding Germany, it was very uncommon.
• The claim that the calibre name of 7.92mm was the "official German military designation" has been disproved. It is wrong.

I hope that brings the discussion back to the subject and averts further Edit wars and cn-orgys (WP:DND). No, this was NOT all the literature there is about the weapons and calibres. But I dare say that it is a very good sample. --Dingo (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move following Wikipedia nomenclature

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

---

8x57 IS → 8x57mm IS — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. It is good practice to use nomenclature that is consistent/in line with how Wikipedia denotes cartridges to keep things as recognizable/uniform as possible; see Wikipedia:Article titles. I know the designation 8x57mm IS is not used by the C.I.P. (8 x 57 IS) nor the SAAMI (8x57 or 8mm Mauser). The 8x57mm IS nomenclature is however in line with the metric cartridge nomenclature used in Wikipedia; A x Bmm Other stuff. The current 8x57 IS nomenclature is not used by the C.I.P., the SAAMI nor Wikipedia. The 8x57mm IS nomenclature would be consistent with the nomenclature used in the Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges and Category:Military cartridges lists. --Francis Flinch (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Not sure that this is covered by any existing guideline, but it should be. Andrewa (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The link on the moves for discussion bounces you up to the previous closed discussion. That technical matter aside, is the addition of the "mm" necessary? As it stands it is in line with at least one official designation and there are plenty of redirects to pick up on it? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirects or needs do not matter much when naming Wikipedia articles. It is good practice to use nomenclature that is consistent/in line with how Wikipedia denotes cartridges to keep things as recognizable/uniform as possible; see Wikipedia:Article titles. Remind Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general public, and the rulings and points of view of official C.I.P. or SAAMI (sub)commissions, ammunition manufacturers, etc. do not apply for Wikipedia's article description policies. I once tried to introduce C.I.P. and SAAMI nomenclature fields in the Infobox used for cartridges, but failed to convince the Wikipedia Firearms community.-Francis Flinch (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you (considered) flagging this discussion up on the talk page for the Firearms and Military History projects? It might draw in some commentators. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping to look in a copy of Janes Infantry Weapons (albeit an older copy) to see what name they used (I suspected 7.92 was in it somewhere) but I appear to have car-booted it, so that's a non starter.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is this is a discussion about article naming policy not history (though historic and locally differing naming of this cartridge is worth mentioning) or points of view. My personal opinion is pointless, since Wikipedia already has a standard regarding naming ammunition articles. This standard is a Wikipedia method which deviates from C.I.P., SAAMI and NATO standards. To be honest C.I.P. and SAAMI do not even represent a population of 1 billion people, so the ideas and rulings of these organizations do not have to be followed by an encyclopedia intended for a global public.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This move is pointless, there is NO SUCH CARTRIDGE (sorry to shout) as 8x57IS or 8x57mm IS. There is an SAAMI (American) cartridge designation of 8mm Mauser a.k.a. 8x57JS (note "J" not "I"), and a German military designation of 7,92x57mm IS. Both names being discussed are some odd admixture of the two proper names. However, I've fought this battle many times before, and there are some very adamant people here who insist on getting it wrong. HangFire (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your point of view seems USA centric. In Germany (one of the C.I.P. memberstates) the cartridge is named 8 x 57 IS the last few decades for civilians by force of law. The I stands for Infantry not for Jnfantry. The English speaking community once misread old German typefaces. Most contemporary Germans also have a hard time reading these old typefaces, so making such a mistake is totally understandable. German ammunition manufacturers often even write JS instead of IS to avoid confusing US readers.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move following Wikipedia nomenclature 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 21:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

---

7.92×57mm → 8×57mm IS – It is good practice to use nomenclature that is consistent/in line with how Wikipedia denotes cartridges to keep things as recognizable/uniform as possible; see Wikipedia:Article titles. I know the designation 8×57mm IS is not used by the C.I.P. (8 x 57 IS) nor the SAAMI (8x57 or 8mm Mauser). The 8×57mm IS nomenclature is however in line with the metric cartridge nomenclature used in Wikipedia; A x Bmm Other stuff. The current 7.92×57mm nomenclature is not used by the C.I.P., the SAAMI nor Wikipedia. The 8×57mm IS nomenclature would be consistent with the nomenclature used in the Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges and Category:Military cartridges lists.

Is it possible for a moderator to protect this article's name against moves since we have had similar discussions several times (see previous discussions above)?--Francis Flinch (talk)--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. --Francis Flinch (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

7.92 nomenclature in Poland and GB?

First, it is good that User:MFIreland got the boot. Now, based on standardised nomenclature, real work can be done. C.I.P. and SAAMI agree that it is 8x57 IS, and not "7.92".

Now, it may be that the "7.92mm" was used in Great Britain, Poland and probably Czechoslovakia, both Poland and Czechoslovakia working together with GB as part of the Cordon Sanitaire in the Interwar Period. Perhaps the task forces for those countries in the "Military History"-portal could check this?

EVEN IF the nomenclature is confirmed (which would be no wonder, as it is awfully widespread), it rests a fact that the vast majority of 8x57 weapons were produced in Germany and the Central Powers/Axis and were designated 8x57 (civil) or 7.9mm (military). It was even a law in parts of the German states that hunters and marksmen had to have their rifles in the ordonance calibre of the military. (The prussian minister of war noted "with concern" that sporting rifles had no longer bayonet lugs in the late 19th century.) The designation of the calibre was and is 8x57 I(nfantrie)S(pitz), and that is confirmed by BOTH C.I.P. and SAAMI.

So even after the "7.92" riddle is solved, there is NO NEED to move the article as the most common designation is 8mm. --Hornsignal (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move following Wikipedia nomenclature 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Given the move history from the discussions above, I'm surprised to see it at this name which was apparently not discussed and seems to be one of the first names for this article. If any further moves are contemplated they should only be done after a public discussion that garners a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

7.92 x 57mm Mauser → 8×57mm IS – It is good practice to use nomenclature that is consistent/in line with how Wikipedia denotes cartridges to keep things as recognizable/uniform as possible; see Wikipedia:Article titles. I know the designation 8×57mm IS is not used by the C.I.P. (8 x 57 IS) nor the SAAMI (8x57 or 8mm Mauser). The 8×57mm IS nomenclature is however in line with the metric cartridge nomenclature used in Wikipedia; AxBmm Other stuff. The current 7.92 × 57mm Mauser nomenclature is not used by the C.I.P. (The United Kingdom is a C.I.P. member state), the SAAMI nor Wikipedia. The 8×57mm IS nomenclature would be consistent with the nomenclature used in the Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges and Category:Military cartridges lists. Further I can not find an image of a 7.92 × 57mm Mauser marked box of cartridges. Images of ammunition boxes containing military 7.9 ammunition and 8×57 I(R)S and 8×57 J(R)S ammunition for export to the Anglo-Saxon market can be easily found. Is it possible for a moderator to protect this article's name against moves since we have had similar discussions several times (see previous discussions above)?relisted----Francis Flinch (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC) relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC) --Francis Flinch (talk)--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. See above. --Francis Flinch (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Gunnai (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Since consensus is formed according to the quality of reasoning and not a vote, this isn't very helpful. Please explain why you oppose. (Hohum ^@) 02:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Undecided The CIP/SAAMI designation is a point in favor of using the 8 mm designation (as well as the fact that the Germans themselves used 8 mm) However, it seems that both the British and American military used 7.92 mm, a point against using 8 mm as the name. As this is the English wikipedia that carries some weight, IMO. (The 7.92 designation also seems common in contemporary English language literature) I don't know what should carry more weight so I can't really say yes or no on the issue.--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Tending to oppose - one determinator should be what the general consensus of reliable sources refer to it. SAAMI and CIP are two standards bodies (and have their good reasons for consistent and accurate naming) but if they are outweighed by a large number or sources their contribution lessens. While consistent naming may be useful in wikipedia, it is not the be-all-and-end-all eg SAAMI refer to 9 mm Luger where many others call it the 9mm Parabellum and the article is at 9×19mm Parabellum (is there another 9x19mm round?). Another aspect is the ENGVAR question - what do those specifically English language sources call it? That said whichever the outcome - it would be prudent to ask for administrator opinion on a moveblock. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I own a number of books about weapons and warfare, and ALL of them refer to 7.92 or 7.92x57. I have never, before I came across the Wikipedia article, seen it refered to as 8mm. It seems to me that in the vast majority of books written in English, 7.92 is the preferred designation. Also, when the calibre was used in armed forces of English-speaking countries, they have used 7.92 as the designation. -- Cabalamat (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

German WW2 ball ammo photos

I took some photos of some German WW2 ammunition that I have, I uploaded it to commons, can somebody place it in the main 7.92x57mm Wiki article?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AWorld_War_2_German_ammunition.JPG

Thanks!

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielnyc2006 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

1888 pattern M/88 ammunition and conversion to 1905 pattern 7.92x57mm Mauser/8x57mm IS

The Gewehr 888 originally chambered for the M/88 service cartridge. In 1905, after a service period of 17 years, the 8 mm M/88 cartridge which was introduced in 1888 and loaded with a 8.08 mm (.318 in) diameter 14.6 g (226 gr) round nose bullet was replaced by the 8x57mm IS/7.92×57mm Mauser service cartridge which was loaded with a new 8.20 mm (.323 in) diameter 9.9 g (154 gr) spitzer bullet. The introduction of this new service ammunition offered improved accuracy and a flatter trajectory at the price that the existing military rifle stock had to be rechambered and rebarreled. Esthablishing to chambering of a Gewehr 1888 is important the 1888 pattern M/88 cartridge and 1905 S-bore pattern cartridges are two different non interchangeable chamberings. Besides the military developed S-bore a narrower I-bore was developed by civilian gunsmiths according to the groove and bore diameter ratio principles used in the S-bore to improve the M/88 accuracy whist retaining the smaller projectile diameter of the M/88. This ammunition is in 2012 known as the 8x57 I. Just like the 8x57 IS the 8x57 I chambering differs from the parental M/88 chambering. The original military M/88 chambering is not factory produced anymore and has effectively been replaced by the civilian 8x57 I chambering that can be fired safely from historic rifles (besides using larger diameter bullets the 8x57 IS has a higher service pressure). Logic dictates that firing 8x57 I from 8x57 IS chambered arms will have adverse effects on accuracy. The article 8×57mm IS cartridge portrait - Totgesagte leben länger, Wild und Hund 11/2006 (in German) explains the history from M/88 to 8x57 mm IS and 8x57mm I from military and civilian use perspectives in even more detail.--Francis Flinch (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Spitzer with core

I took a photograph of WW2 German 7.92x57 "Spitzer with core" yellow bullet, red annulus color, can somebody place it in the 7.92x57mm Wiki?

Thanks! ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielnyc2006 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AWorld_War_2_German_7.92x57IS_Spitzer_with_core.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielnyc2006 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

False References

This article has several False Reference that make no mention of 7.92mm, 8mm or whatever you want to call it ammo. I have tried to remove them myself but other users continue to restore them...Also, there is an effort to maintain reference links that have been dead for over a year...I can only assume that this is being done to artificially inflate the number of references in this article and to support questionable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Making mistakes is human and I did make some mistakes whist conducting a complex restoration of the article for which I apologize. The information from organizations like C.I.P. and SAAMI is not questionable. Also the information from military (intelligence) sources seems sound, though it conflicts with what the C.I.P. and the SAAMI published. In C.I.P. member states military organizations however do not have to comply to C.I.P. rulings. What gun magazines wrote is sometimes questionable, since it sometimes conflicted with the standardizing bodies of the countries in which these magazines are based. Remind however for American civilian sources that the SAAMI can not issue rulings that have the power of law as the C.I.P. can. European gun magazines tend to keep nearer to the present laws of the county in which they are based. Sadly the C.I.P. opted to remove the (copyrighted) TDCC 2007 PDF file as a free download from their website. I regret that decision, since this document is an important document regarding understanding present law and the vast amount of accompanying technical concepts and data in the C.I.P. member states. For those who like to obtain the TDCC it is probably for sale as a CD-ROM or on (a lot of) paper at C.I.P. facilities like the Birmingham Proof House. If not such facilities can probably help in finding a way to obtain the C.I.P. TDDC.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete 8mm cartridges compared section

I believe that the "8mm cartridges compared" section is supposed to show that there are five other 8mm type cartridges, that they have higher muzzle velocities than the 7.92mm, for five different bullet weights and that they also have greater case capacities. However, nowhere in the section is there a single muzzle velocity or case capacity listed. It only shows percentages. This is not only confusing it seems rather pointless. It has been flagged for over a year...I recommend that we delete the entire section...I cannot imagine that it will be missed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many other 8 mm chamberings than listed in the table. The 8 mm metric pattern cartridge family is comparable to the .30 inch pattern cartridge family. Chamberings like the 8x57mm IS and .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO are at the lower end in these chambering spectrums. Such cartridges are however desirable for military users (favorable internal ballistic efficiency, efficient use of materials, moderate muzzle velocities and wear, muzzle velocity does not drop excessively when combined with relatively short barrels, etc.). The mentioned cartridges are just ones that are commercially loaded and hence probably the most proliferated ones. If you intend to delete this section I can live with that.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Cartridge naming section

Cartridge naming section is too long and unnecessary detailed...I recommend the simple list that follows...

Cartridge naming

Current military and NATO designations:

• 7.92x57mm Mauser | 7.92x57mm | 7.92mm

Where can we find proof? Current NATO use? References on the internet?

Current European commercial or C.I.P. designations:

• 8x57 I | 8x57 IS

No, the C.I.P. rules these are 2 different rifle cartridges. Logically the C.I.P. also distinguishes 2 associated and hence differing chamberings. 8 x 57 I was developed by civilians from the M/88 for civilian use after the 8 x 57 IS.

Current North American commercial and SAAMI designations:

• 7.92x57mm Mauser | 7.92x57mm | 8mm Mauser | 8×57mm

Are there pictures of American made 7.92x57mm Mauser/7.92x57mm designated commercial packaging boxes on the internet available?

Obsolete Germany military designations:

• Infanterie, Spitzgeschoß…In English; "Infantry, Pointed (projectile)”
• 7,9mm IS | 7,9mm JS | 7,9 IS | 7,9 JS | IS | JS

Where can we find proof? References on the internet?

Obsolete British military designations:

• Cartridge, SA, 7.92 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Added some thoughts regarding the above. The designation/nomenclature of this cartridge is cultural and epoch dependent, but Wikipedia needs references before adding information into articles. These references do not need to be in English. We are dealing with a German cartridge that was and is used internationally.--Francis Flinch (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the above information was taken from the article itself...I agree...most of it is questionable information that should be deleted...therefore:

1) We both agree that all references to the following designations within this article be deleted...

• Infanterie, Spitzgeschoß…In English; "Infantry, Pointed (projectile)”
• 7,9mm IS | 7,9mm JS | 7,9 IS | 7,9 JS | IS | JS

2) We should also delete the 8mm I information from this article as it's easily confused with 8mm IS. And, add a very clearly worded safety warning.

3) We should then add Jane's Information Group references explaining the origins of 7.92mm designations (i.e. the Germans lost WW2...Germany was then occupied by the allied powers...by the time West Germany joined NATO it was American and British controlled club...and English language designations were and remain the official NATO designations.) A simple Google search for “Jane's 7.92mm” will provide thousands of Jane’s references…take your pick…see:[2]

4) In the United States, a large amount of surplus military 7.92mm ammo is sold in the original military packaging…as 7.92mm. A simple Google search for “7.92mm ammo” will provide you with 7.92mm head-stamp pictures…see:[3]

That seems to be Canadian made ammunition. Remind Canada had strong ties with Great Britain during WW2, so the 7.92 head stamp is not surprising.

So, I recommend the following changes to the list…

Cartridge naming

Military and NATO designations: (insert Jane's Information Group references here)

*7.92x57mm Mauser | 7.92x57mm | 7.92mm Mauser

European commercial or C.I.P. designations:

*8x57 IS

Nothing wrong with explaining where 'IS' historically comes from.

North American military surplus, commercial and SAAMI designations:

*7.92x57mm Mauser | 7.92x57mm | 7.92mm Mauser | 8mm Mauser | 8×57mm

WARNING: THE 8x57 IS AND 8x57 I ARE NOT THE SAME CARTRIDGE AND ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE.

A good idea.

Any additional designations can be easily added in the future, by using the same format…What do you think?

Unfortunately Jane's has nothing to do with designating NATO chambers. Much is explained in the NATO EPVAT testing article. There are only 4 NATO chambers (5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, 9 NATO and 12.7 NATO). All other small arms ammunition for use in "non-NATO Chamber" weapons is treated by NATO Army Armaments Group as defined by the current C.I.P. legislation. The round this article deals with would currently be designated and tested by NAAG like C.I.P. currently does. The Wachbataillon is a German unit that still uses the Karabiner 98k for ceremonial duties including firing blanks at shows. Their normal service rifle however is the Heckler & Koch G36 so NATO use of this "non-NATO Chamber" ammunition is virtually non existent.

I think it is a good idea to leave the historical British and US military designations in the article since they used the 7.92 mm wording that obviously lead to all sorts of nomenclature distortions, though not one dimension found in the cartridge and chamber drawings is actually 7.92 mm.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

All I am proposing here is a simple list…that the reader can use as a quick reference…that gives the various names and designations for the 7.92mm cartridge…without needless confusing commentary and explanations. Perhaps the following list is better suited to this article….

Cartridge naming

The 7.92mm cartridge is also known by the following designations:

*8x57 IS

*7.92x57mm Mauser

*7.92x57mm

*7.92mm Mauser

*8mm Mauser

*8×57mm

*7,9mm

WARNING: THE 8x57 IS AND 8x57 I ARE NOT THE SAME CARTRIDGE AND ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE.

I even put the C.I.P designation at the top of the list.

Also...

1) Before the adoption of the 7.62mm NATO, the 7.92mm as well as the .303 British, .30-06, .30 Carbine, 7.5mm French, 6.5mm Carcano, etc. were all used by NATO countries. As such they all have NATO designations. In fact, the 7.92mm is currently being used by Croatia in several weapon systems and Croatia is a member of NATO.http:[4]

2) Jane's Information Group is the world foremost military and firearms encyclopedia. To suppress every attempt to add a Jane's reference to this article, all the while adding references to dated, obscure books, written in German, by obscure authors show tremendous bias.

3) I have no problem explaining the origin of IS. However, it does not need to be explained in every section. We simply explain it once and move on.

4) This article is not about C.I.P. It is about the 7.92mm cartridge. Constantly referring to C.I.P in every paragraph is unnecessary. It gives the impression that it is only being done to suppress all other information.

C.I.P. has “the power of Law” as stated in the article several times, over commercial firearms and ammunition production in only a dozen European nations. It has NO POWER over military or government production. It has NO POWER outside of Europe. While I have no problem including C.I.P. information in this article, it is not the ONLY information that should be included in this article. To suppress all other information shows tremendous bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your intention to clarify the cultural and historical chaos around this chambering. Can you provide the STANAG number for 7.92 NATO used by Croatia? If you can not find the appropriate STANAG; not every chambering currently used in NATO armies has a STANAG number. Where no NATO STANAG's are available NATO decided to primarily follow C.I.P. though NATO armies can and do deviate from C.I.P. rulings to their liking. The word "law" is used once in the article and SAAMI is also mentioned a lot. Maybe you can provide a picture of modern US made cartridges with their box to show SAAMI labeled ammunition to illustrate the US civil nomenclature section.--Francis Flinch (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The following image shows a case "7,92" Yugoslavian/Croatian military ammo.[5]

1) SAAMI does not have the power of C.I.P. in the United States...SAAMI is an industry sponsored organization created in attempt to standardize firearms and ammo production among its members. Not all U.S. manufactures are SAAMI members. And, not all members use the SAAMI designations. Also, SAAMI has no power over the vast amounts of firearms and ammo imported into the U.S. from all over the world. Therefore, the 7.92mm ammo has multiple designations within the U.S. It is dependent on the purchaser of said ammunition to know what they are buying.

This is why I am attempting to add a simple list to this article with the most common names and designations for 7.92mm ammunition. Whether or not it is an “official” C.I.P. or SAAMI designation is irrelevant, to the person buying the ammunition. They simply want a box of ammo that can be safely fired from their Mauser 98k type rifle.

2) Not all NATO designations have STANAG numbers….for example: the AK-47 and 7.62x39mm are NATO designation for the Soviet Avtomat Kalashikova and its M43 ammo. The Russian military does not and has never used these designations. However, the rest of the world does, and since the fall of the USSR, the Russians export the AK-47s and 7.62x39mm ammo using the NATO designation. Because, they do not care what the purchaser wants to call these items, as long as the money is deposited in the right account number.

3) I realize that you probably live in a country where C.I.P. dictates are handed down like “Zeus speaking from Mount Olympus”. This probably explains why you are constantly referring to them. Do you realize that you have referred to them 5 times during this brief discussion? However, to the rest of us living in the other 200 countries around the world, we don’t care about C.I.P. dictates. We just want to buy ammo that we can safely fire from our guns, no matter the designation.

Your conclusion that SAAMI in an informal way and C.I.P. in a formal way try to ensure safe fire arm use for consumers is correct. Regarding “Zeus speaking from Mount Olympus”, there are methods to circumvent C.I.P. rulings for diligent civilians that do not want to be affected by these rulings. Waiving consumer rights and accepting personal risks (not conforming to Zeus can have pros but also dire consequences when the chips are down) should be considered before moving to such methods.

So, again I recommend that we add the following list to the cartridge naming section…

Cartridge naming

The 7.92mm cartridge is also known by the following designations:

I would start with the article name as used by Wikipedia and not 7.92mm cartridge and move JS under IS. The cartridge naming section would be a good place for such a list.

*8x57 IS

*7.92x57mm Mauser

*7.92x57mm

*7.92mm Mauser

*8mm Mauser'

*8×57mm

*8x57 JS

*7,9mm[6]

'WARNING: THE 8x57 IS AND 8x57 I ARE NOT THE SAME CARTRIDGE AND ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE.

8mmx57 JRS and 8mmx57 JS

We should add this image somewhere.

Nice image and idea.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, you do not understand how we buy ammunition in the United States. So, let me explain it to you…Most of the 7.92mm ammo sold in the U.S. is cheap military surplus ammo from all over the world. It is sold in the original military packaging; this includes wooden cases, tin cans, paper wrappings, even loose stripper-clips. Sometimes, you will buy 200 loose rounds on sale, in a U.S. GI .30 caliber ammo can with a stick-on label saying “YUGO 7.92mm”. No attempt is made to repack it in SAAMI approved boxes with SAAMI approved designations. If you are lucky, an employee at the gun store where you bought the ammo, wrote 7.92mm or 8mm on the packaging with a felt marker before stamping the price on it. Now, sometimes you may buy a box or two Russian Wolf ammo in SAAMI approved packaging, when the gun store runs out of the cheap surplus ammo (Romanian, Yugoslavian, Czechoslovakian, etc.). In most of the U.S., to buy ammo, you just walk into a gun store, tell them how much you want, pay for it and leave. Nobody ask to see identification, nobody cares how much ammo you buy, nobody cares why you are to buying it. The only thing they care about is if your credit card is approved.

That is fine with me....

Cartridge naming

The 7.92x57mm Mauser cartridge is also known by the following designations:

*8x57 IS

*8x57 JS

*7.92x57mm

*7.92mm Mauser

*7.92mm

*8×57mm

*8mm Mauser

*7,9mm[7]

'WARNING: THE "8x57 IS" AND "8x57 I" ARE NOT THE SAME CARTRIDGE AND ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE.

This has been a fun debate, I actually looked forward to your responses...Now before I do anything...I want to be clear, that I intend to delete ALL of the information currently contained in the "Cartridge naming section" and replace it with the simple list. Unless, you want to add the list yourself and perhaps reformat and save some of the information.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not delete all text, but prune it and integrate the list to make this complex section more accessible and understandable for readers. The US must be a paradise for lawyers dealing with (catastrophic) gun failure incidents. C.I.P. member state citizens are basically safeguarded by authorities from learning the engineering wisdom that "after fixed comes loose" the hard way and at their own expense when using high pressure gas systems. If catastrophic failure incidents occur and the arms and ammunition involved were approved for sale to consumers at the time the incident occured the manufacturer(s) have a serious problem.

In the US many shooters know that European gun users often have to pass vetting and/or exams before becoming qualified to use guns. Please do not think such procedures, that might be viewed as harassment by US citizens, make them experts or are uniform. Some European countries have relaxed gun laws and gun ownership can be quite high there, whilst other countries have strict laws.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of the catastrophic gun failures in the U.S. are directly related to reloaded ammo. There will always be people who want to push the edge of the envelope. And, they always say the same thing when it happens…”I’ve been reloading for years and never had a problem before…”. Then they sue everybody… more often than not they lose. I’ve watched people shoot 9mm ammo out of their .40 S&W pistols and then wonder aloud why their pistol malfunctions on every shot. I’ve watched people shoot .32 AUTO ammo out of their .32 caliber revolvers. I’ve watched people shoot .22 Long ammo out of the .22 Long Rifle pistols and struggle with one malfunction after another or shoot .22 LR ammo from their .22 Magnum revolvers. I’ve stopped people from attempting to shoot 7.92mm ammo out of their .30-06 rifles or 16 Gauge shells out of their 12 Gauge shotguns. I could write a book on the stupidity of the average gun owner. And, the best part is when you point their stupidity they tell you that their a “gun expert” and they know what they're doing, or thier uncle was a cop or in the Army and he said it was O.K. Or, they pack up their stuff and leave. The only saving grace is that the vast majority of gun owners never shoot their guns. They will buy a gun and a box of ammo, and put them in the closet for the next 50 years. When they die…their dumb gun hating wives and kids will sell the guns for pennies on the dollar...or, worse…I watched a woman surrender to the police over $500,000 worth of her dead husbands guns…just to get them out of her house.

I will leave the adding of the list and pruning to your capable hands…have fun… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 7.92×57mm Mauser. Uncontested and in line with other articles in Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges. Favonian (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

---

7.92 x 57mm Mauser → 7.92×57mm Mauser – This would establish format consistency with other cartridge article titles, which use "×" (without spaces) instead of " x " (with spaces). — Red XIV ^(talk) 20:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation?

Odd that no pronunciation is given. I'd think it'd be like "mowzer", but many say "mozer" or "mahzer". This is a glaring omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.11.102 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The opening section is too long and overly detailed

The opening section is too long and overly detailed…It should be limited to one paragraph; I recommend that we simplify it as follows...

The 7.92×57mm Mauser (aka; 8 x 57 IS, 8x57mm and 8mm Mauser) is a rimless bottlenecked high-powered rifle cartridge that was adopted in 1905, by the German Empire. It remained in German service throughout both World Wars. In its day, the 7.92mm cartridge was one the world’s most popular military cartridges. The 7.92mm remains a popular sport and hunting cartridge.

The “Development” section should also be cleaned up as follows...

The 7.92mm cartridge was based on the earlier M/88 cartridge. The M/88 parent cartridge used a round-nosed bullet that was designed to be top-loaded into the magazine of the Gewehr 1888 rifle via an en bloc clip. The new 1905 pattern cartridge used a lighter aerodynamic bullet. The resulting cartridge had a higher velocity, a flatter trajectory and improved long-range accuracy. It was used in various rifles and machineguns; most notably the Mauser 98 type rifles and MG 42 machineguns.

The 7.92mm cartridge cases have been used as parent cases for several other necked down and necked up cartridges. A rimmed variant, the 8×57mm IRS, was also developed for single shot rifles and combination guns.

The deleted information is unnecessary or already included into other sections of this article. See explanations below… The opening section...

First paragraph…The SAAMI and C.I.P. references are not necessary…The “IS” and “JS” explanation is also unnecessary and fully explained elsewhere in the article.

Second paragraph…The first sentence is explained in the “Development” section. The rest of the paragraph is unnecessary information that has nothing to do with the 7.92mm cartridge.

Third paragraph…This redundant paragraph attempts to explain information contained in the opening sentence. Also, said information is repeated elsewhere in the article.

Fourth paragraph…The information contained in this paragraph is fully explained within its own section elsewhere in the article.

The “Development” section was simply cleaned up, and two stray sentences combined to form a second paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Actually it is not entirely accurate, every 8mm Mauser shell I have seen, and shot are rimmed versions, and they were all sourced from Germany. Yes they are usually used for sporting rifles, but are absolutely considered 8mm Mauser Shells i.e. rice paper like sheet included in the case of shells states 7.92x57 designated 8mm Mauser Rimmed. After reading this wiki I did some research and found it is not an uncommon or rare shell so should be included in opening statement. --2602:306:CF5B:6C80:A970:5A61:8AF6:B873 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)ShotShooter

References

8×60mm S

Shouldn't the article at least somewhere mention the 8×60mm S cartridge, created after WWI when the manufacture of "military" cartridges was banned? They increased the case length by 3mm, and subtly stretched the neck to create an almost identical (albeit slightly more powerful) cartridge that could be used in older 8x57mm S rifles by a simple rechambering of the barrel. I was surprised there wasn't even a link in the "see also" section, or the "derivatives" section. The 8x60mm S is probably the closest derivative of the lot! I got a lot of good info off of this page http://www.germanguns.com/upload/archive/index.php/t-584.html?s=f2f6e2a2bc7854553c963696803bebcc, but in particular this entry down at the bottom which sort of cleared the whole muddle up:

"WOW, here is a lot to clean up! Please, keep in mind the time span from 1945 to now, 2012, is longer than the span from 1888 to 1945, when a lot of gun, caliber, cartridge and powder development took place. Many of the then popular cartridges are long obsolete, such as many contemporary American ones. Have you tried recently to buy some fresh ammo in .33 Win or .25 Rem at your local gunshop? The history of the 8mm cartridges is hard to understand for an American who has no access to old German language books, catalogs and hunting magazines. I claim to have learned something about it during the last half century, so let's begin at the beginning: When the original M88 = 8x57 cartridge was developed for military purposes, it used a long, heavy .318" 227gr round nose bullet, fully jacketed in thin, nickel plated steel. The original military M88 barrels had a groove diameter of .319" but this was deepened in 1892 to .321" to .323" to prolong barrel life. The early Gew98 rifles retained the oversize .323 grooves. The long, heavy round nose slugged up in these "oversize" bores and gave acceptable accuracy for the military. The civilian Suhl and Zella-Mehlis barrelmakers soon found out the tighter barrels shot better, so they adjusted groove- to bullet diameter. Unfortunately many followed the peasant's rule: "if tighter shoots better, much tighter will shoot much better" and overdid things. I have slugged some pre-WW1 8mm barrels that were only .315"! Remember, there were no set standards until 1940, so if the gun stood firing the "4000 at Beschusspatrone", everything was ok. When the German army started to modernize the 8x57 military cartridge after 1900 the new, light 10g = 154gr S = spitz = pointed bullets with their short bearing surface would not slug up on firing any more. Instead of changing the rifling specifications again, the bullet diameter was increased to .323". This allowed the already existing military rifles to be converted by simply enlarging the neck area and throat of the chamber to accept and release the new, slightly thicker bullets. Now the "military" S caliber differed considerably from the "civilian" I one. Apparently this bothered noone, as military and sporting loads were clearly separated and most bolt action I rifles shot the oversize military loads without alarming effects. The other way around, military S barrels still shot the old-fashioned long round-nose I bullets with reasonable accuracy. When the Versailles "peace treaty" was signed in 1920, the 100 000 men Reichswehr was only conceded a very limited supply of military cartridges, barely sufficient for the necessary training but designed to dry up within a few days in case of a new war and insufficient to build up reserve stocks. As the Austrians had already evaded a similar provision of theit St.Germain treaty by keeping the limited supply of war ammo in stock and issuing "civilian" soft-nose hunting ammo for target training to their troops, the manufacture of any ammunition that might be used in the military rifles was prohibited in Germany. So not the I or S bore was outlawed, but the making of any 8x57 rimless cartridges for civilian use. This ban on the 8x57, I and S, led to the development of the civilian hunting cartridge 8x60 to allow for rechambering the unfed 8x57 commercial bolt action rifles. Of course the I bullet diameter came first, as the .318" caliber was still deemed the more accurate one. But during the turmoils following the great war many military rifles "went under" and were sporterized for hunting use, so there was a small demand for light bullet S loads, so there was a limited offering of 8x60S loads. The 1921 RWS export catalog still shows the 8x57, not yet the 8x60, loaded with both 14.7g and 10g pointed bullets, but does not mention I or S bores. The mid-1920s Steigleder catalog still features the 8x57IR and the 8x60, but no more the 8x57 and not an 8x60R. Jon Speed in his book Mauser-OOSR shows a handwritten table from the Mauser factory, dated 1926, giving the commercial 8x57 (for export) and 8x60 rifles a groove diameter of .319 - .320", linked to the footnote " these rifles get the chamber and the throat for Spitz bullets, so that these may be used also." The 1930 Burgsmüller catalog shows the same offering, 8x57IR, 8x60 "as the replacement for the unavailable military 8x57" and the 8x64 Brenneke, but neither I nor S bores are mentioned. the 1934 DWM handbook shows 13 different loads for both the 8x57IR, 8x57R (A-base) and 8x57, but only 3 entries are marked "for use in S-barrels only". For the 8x60/8x60R the ratio is 5 out of 12 "S only", including the "Magnum Bombe" load. For the 8x64/65R Brenneke it is 2 out of 6, but still no S suffix to the cartridge designation. The 1937 RWS catalog shows a total of 40 8x57I and 8x57IR loads, one each marked "for S-barrels only." Some 8x60 and 8x60R loads are cataloged as "Magnum" loads for S barrels, but the S moniker is still not affixed to the cartridge name. The 1940 Rws Handbook finally shows the clear-cut difference between 8x57I, 8x57IR, 8x60 and 8x60R loads and the corresponding S cartridges. On page 43 these suggestions for a future change to "S caliber only": The rimless 8mm cartridges will be factory loaded with S =.323" bullets only, by the use of modern powders there will be no excessive pressure when shot through bolt-actions with I barrels. The 8x57IR will be available with I =.318" bullets only, there will be no 8x57IRS loads. The 8x60RS gets the knurled rim. As we know, this simplification never became true. After 1945 the German Hunters were disarmed. Many hid their guns away, but the majority of hunting guns was destroyed, liberated or looted. So today there are possibly more 8mmI guns in the USA than in Germany. When the German hunters were finally allowed to rearm in the early 1950s, few could afford new guns. Many unearthed -literally- their rust-pitted prewar guns and continued to use them. Others found rusty and rotten K98Ks in the woods, had the actions rebarreled with plentiful , leftover Luftwaffe machine gun barrels in 8x57IS, had them restocked and mounted with any old scope they could get. Though the European ammo companies thought otherwise at first, the I bore in new-made guns had become a thing of the past by the end of the 1950s. The ammo makers one after another ceased making I bullets and loads. The current offerings are rare. The 8x57R360, 8x58R, 8x57R(A), 8x51 are completely forgotten, the 8x57I is a pure handloading matter. RWS recently ceased making the 8x57IR, so the only I diameter factory load is the 8x57IR by Sellier&Bellot, the only bullet available to handloaders their 196gr rn sp.

(Unnecessary emphasis is mine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 13:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)