Talk:HK 4.6×30mm

Actually...

The SS195 fired out of a P90 or PS90 is faster than the 4.6x30 (2300-2450 ft/s), and the projectile mass is 28 grain. Since I don't have much information on 4.6 x 30 mm in terms of terminal ballistics or wound profiles, I can't say which is a better cartridge. However, fans of either PDW should expect a LOT of resistance from those in the professional community regarding the lethalities of either caliber. Just remember that the MP7 and P90 PDWs and the calibers were intended to replace conventional pistol cartridges (9mm Luger or 45 Auto FMJ/ball) and not rifle cartridges such as 5.56 x 45 NATO.

(Metroplex 23:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

My complaint with this article is the fact that it compares the ps90 firing its bullet to the mp7 firiring it's. Notice how they use ps90 instead of p90? The ps90 has over 9 inches more barrel than the mp7, anyone who knows the basics of firearms will see where I'm getting at here. This statement isn't based on a ss195 vs. 4.6x30 scale at all. Its like comparing a handgun to a carbine which share common ammo, and saying that the bullets used for the carbine are better than those used in the handgun, even if it is the same bullet. Put a 9mm into a pistol and fire into a chronograph, now put one into a 16 inch barreledcarbine and you are sure to find a drastic change in ballistics, is one 9mm better than the other? or is it the extra 9 or so inches of barrel that squeeze out more power? I feel a statement such as this is very untrue and to pass it off as a fact to say which case is better than the other is a severe misuse of the ability to post an article many will read. I don't support one cartridge or the other, but saying that the ss195 is better than the 4.6x30 without taking into account the length of the barrels in both guns is absurd at best.

Deadliness

"The 4.6mm caliber has been criticized for its supposedly low terminal effectiveness, but in real use this is not a problem. Because of its accuracy and low recoil the 4.6mm cartridge is deadly in the hands of any competent shooter." Surely the only way to prove it's deadliness will be to cite instances of people being shot with it? Yes, accuracy and low recoil are nice, but that alone will not make a "deadly" cartridge. Optimus Sledge 06:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Besides your opinion--and you do not cite your professional, if any, credentials--where is the hard evidence that this cartridge with comparable ballistics to the old .22 Magnum is a good stopper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Correct me if I am wrong, it is late and I may have misread the article, but it mentions the 4.6mm is generally weaker than the 5.7mm, but the ballistics chart describes a velocity and muzzle energy higher than that posted on the 5.7mm ammo page. This seems terribly inconsistent.67.162.174.62 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The 4.6 is definitely inferior to the 5.7, but not really.

The article, particularly the Performance section appears to be arguing with itself. It's like sitting next to a crazy guy on a bus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limbo socrates (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

HKPro comparison table

I removed the HKPro comparison table and instead summarized it briefly in the article overview, for several reasons. First, the industry standard for ballistic gelatin testing is a 10% mix, not the 20% mix used in the tests. Second, the neutrality of HKPro as a source is questionable, especially in a comparison of this sort. Third, in direct contradiction to the HKPro tests, Global Defence Review (GDR) states that the result of extensive testing by NATO showed 5.7x28mm to be "undoubtedly more efficient" than 4.6x30mm, with "greater effectiveness against unprotected targets and equal effectiveness against protected targets". See source. ROG5728 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 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: Closed no consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

---

HK 4.6×30mm → 4.6×30mm – 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 HK 4.6×30mm is not used by the C.I.P. (4,6 x 30) nor the SAAMI. The 4.6×30mm nomenclature is however in line with the metric cartridge nomenclature used in Wikipedia; AxBmm Other stuff. The current HK 4.6×30mm nomenclature is not used by the C.I.P., the SAAMI nor Wikipedia. The 4.6×30mm nomenclature would be consistent with the nomenclature used in the Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges and Category:Military cartridges lists.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:58, 22 October 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)
• Oppose. ROG5728 (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, neither name meets WP:AT but the current name is the better, see below. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

On the contrary, numerous cartridge articles on Wikipedia include the relevant descriptors (i.e. 9×19mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, 10mm Auto, FN 5.7×28mm). The latter was also discussed in depth before it was renamed from 5.7×28mm to FN 5.7×28mm. As with the FN 5.7×28mm, the 4.6×30mm is very closely tied to its manufacturer; it is designed and manufactured by HK, and it is essentially only used by an HK weapon (the MP7). As for the Wikipedia lists, they can continue to be sorted alphabetically (the full name need not be included there). ROG5728 (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Discriptots are used in the AxBmm Oteher stuff format. Where is the HK prefix in this (http://www.ruag.com/de/Ammotec/Armee_und_Behoerden/Weitere+Informationen/Downloads/02_4.6x30_Personal_Defence_Weapon_Ammunition.pdf) RUAG Ammotec ammunition brochure? The brochure refers to C.I.P. and uses the C.I.P. nomenclature.

At http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=711 you can read that FN uses 5.7x28mm on their global website (NATO uses C.I.P. if they have no own NATO designation) and not FN 5.7x28mm as on their US website.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The style used by RUAG is not an issue; they do not even use the style you are advocating (the brochure uses 4.6x30, not 4.6x30mm). Actually, RUAG doesn't even consistently use any specific style; they also frequently call it the 4.6mm x 30mm PDW, which is neither concise nor descriptive. The current article title here (HK 4.6×30mm) is balanced—it is both concise and descriptive. That's why it doesn't need to be changed.

As for what FN uses on their international website, note that they exclude the 'FN' descriptor from all of their product names (e.g. P90 instead of FN P90, Five-seveN instead of FN Five-seveN, etc.), because it would be redundant to use the full names throughout their website; but the fact remains that there is nothing redundant or unnecessarily wordy about an article title containing the 2-letter manufacturer prefix (titles should be descriptive and concise). ROG5728 (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are totally right RUAG uses an inconsistent name. The C.I.P. decided to use 4,6 x 30. C.I.P. rulings are legislation in Germany where Heckler & Koch resides and many other countries. Of course the C.I.P. and the lawmakers of those countries are not interested in Wikipedia, your or my opinions. Unlike the C.I.P. Wikipedia denotes scores of "metric" rifle and pistol cartridges as AxBmm and chooses to use a . instead of a , as metric separator. The usage of the , as metric separator by C.I.P. is quite logical since the primary language used by C.I.P. is not English but French. I am however curious if you can provide some links to pictures of ammunition boxes containing HK 4.6x30mm / HK 4.6x30 or other variations with HK in front of the further designation printed on them to see some proof that several ammunition manufactures use HK in front of the further designation.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The various ammunition manufacturers use all different designations. No style in specific is actually consistently used by the manufacturers, so we can forget following their example (or anyone's example, for that matter). Basically, like I said, the current article title here (HK 4.6×30mm) is balanced—it is both concise and descriptive. That's why it doesn't need to be changed. ROG5728 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with naming a few unrelated articles. I started the above discussion because I noticed a few articles that are not in line with hundreds of related Wikipedia articles. There are only 3 cartridge articles that are not consistent with the nomenclature used in the over 400 articles in the Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges. These articles are the FN 5.7×28mm, HK 4.6×30mm and VBR-Belgium 7.92×24mm articles. What makes these 3 cartridges special and why should these 3 small arms manufacturers be commercially pitched by Wikipedia? The argument that those 3 article names are balanced is a frail argument to deviate from nomenclature that is consistent/in line with how Wikipedia denotes hundreds of cartridges to keep things as recognizable/uniform as possible; see Wikipedia:Article titles.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The article titles cannot be 100% consistent, either way. The "hundreds of related articles" you mentioned aren't perfectly consistent with each other. The 10mm Auto title, for example, does not include the case length measurement nor does it include a suffix, while cartridge titles like 5.45×39mm do include the case length measurement but do not include a suffix, and cartridge titles like 9×19mm Parabellum do include the case length measurement and do include a suffix. Like I said, they're inconsistent with each other in one way or another. It is not a "frail argument" that the current title of HK 4.6×30mm is both concise and descriptive; that is how titles should be. ROG5728 (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Difficult. My view is that almost all cartridge articles should be renamed to something recognizable to readers and unambiguous (WP:AT of course). Neither HK 4.6×30mm nor 4.6×30mm meet this standard IMO; The second in particular could refer for example to a 4.6mm machine screw 30mm long, it is only those interested in firearms who would assume it to be a cartridge. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 1 November 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.

ballistic coefficient?

In the article, under "Variations," we see:

"The muzzle velocity V0 and V100 indicate a ballistic coefficient of approximately 0.141 to 0.150 (BC's are somewhat debatable)..."

That is all very well, which drag model is this? The old G1 drag model? The G7 drag model for boat-tailed spitzer bullets? Or something else? BC's are not debatable at all, by the way. They are empirically measurable, mathematically model-able, and even predictable given sufficient information about the projectile's geometry, mass, and dimensions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Read Ballistic coefficient and External ballistics.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Designation of 4.6 x 30 mm

The reason some writers use 4.6 x 30mm HK as the cartridge's designator is that after the FN P90 hit the market, a lot of manufacturers entered their competing designs. Knight's Armament Corporation used a 6x35mm round (6x35mm KAC) and Parker Hale submitted one using the 9x19mm Parabellum round. The "HK" refers to the HK-sponsored cartridge design used in their proprietary MP7 weapon. It is sometimes called the 4.6mm RO because the ammunition factory Royal Ordnance - Radway Green developed the bullet.

As for the 4.6 vs 4,6 debate, it depends on the notation system used by the writer's country of origin. Many European nations do it 4,6 rather than 4.6. 4.6 is the standard used by Wikipedia because it is the most common.

Fiocchi [1] manufactures the civilian ammo and just calls it the 4.6 x 30. Another box[2] depicts it as HK 4.6x30mm Police. Hotspur23 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

HKPRO

I have deleted several citations to HKPRO.com. It is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles because its articles are anonymously posted and there's no discernible editorial review process. See WP:V for general rules, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#HKPRO/ hkpro.com for a specific discussion of this source. I also deleted a block of ballistic tests sourced solely to that site. Rezin (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HK 4.6×30mm. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.global-defence.com/2006/Utilities/article.php?id=40

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on HK 4.6×30mm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.global-defence.com/2006/Utilities/article.php?id=40
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311034656/http://www.fsdip.com/website/The46x30mmB2Fcartridge/tabid/405/Default.aspx to http://www.fsdip.com/website/The46x30mmB2Fcartridge/tabid/405/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080606091110/http://www.hkpro.com/pdw.htm to http://www.hkpro.com/pdw.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/calculations/bcv/bcv.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)