Talk:7.62×54mmR

bullet dia correct?

I think it should be 7,92 and .310, not 7,62 and .300 (see table on the right side) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.228.113 (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC) I would'nt be so sure about that, if I can trust my calibre. If i remember right its 7,92×57 mm Mauser what is German, we are talking about Russian bullet.

Russian vs. Rimmed

Very few people refer to it as the 7.62 "Rimmed". [1]CynicalMe 19:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? I've only rarely encountered the "Russian" title. It's also incorrect. Saying 7.62 "Russian" is misleading. It could refer to 7.62x39mm or 7.62x25mm Tokarev. Basically, the Russians named it x54R for a reason and that reason isn't national identity. My revision stands. El Jorge 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've never encountered the "Rimmed" expression. I agree that it stands for "rimmed", I never said that it stood for Russian. What I mean is that the round itself is referred to as the 7.62 Russian. The x39 M43 round is called the 7.62 Soviet, so the potential for confusion is limited. If we can come to some compromise in the language for the article, I think we could both be satisfied. CynicalMe 20:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. :) No hard feelings? El Jorge 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some changes. Let me know what you think. CynicalMe 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I approve heartily. El Jorge 01:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Russian word for "Rimmed" does not start with the letter R, it starts with the letter O (обод, ободок or in the case of firearms cartridges, обрамлять) . The R classification is arbitrary. I am removing the reference Jenga3 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The letter R actually does denotes it is a rimmed cartridge. In C.I.P. cartridge nomenclature rimmed rifle cartridges are denoted with the letter R. Russia is a C.I.P. member state and hence uses the C.I.P. cartridge nomenclature. The official C.I.P. name for this cartridge is 7,62 x 54 R in every C.I.P. member state. Since Russian is not an official language used by C.I.P., it is possible the Russian word for rimmed does not start with R.--Francis Flinch (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Go look up when the cartridge in question was made and when the CIP organization was formed, and never revert for such a birdbrained reason again. I gave you the Russian word for rimmed, there is nothing "possible" about it, the word is обод and that is fact. The letter 'O' is somewhat different from the letter 'R', the cartridge was made in 1891 quite a few years before the formation of CIP (1914), the rifle cartridge had the suffix 'R' quite a few years before this same suffix took the meaning of 'rimmed', and finally rimmed cartridges were in existance before that and there was no reason to give thie specific round a special name revolving around the word 'rimmed' yet leave out previous and consecutive cartridges. In fact, given the fact that this was a Russian cartridge exported to USA, the 'R' may well have served to denote the country of origin. Jenga3 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but I see you made a claim that the "the term "7.62 Russian" evolved at a later time when the round was exported to America" failing to look up a few sentences and ascertain the cartridge was sold to America in 1895, also years before the letter 'R' took on the designation 'rimmed'. The term "Russian" probably did evolve because of the 'R' though, which only further supports the claim that the 'R' stands for the 1895 version of 'Made in Russia'. Jenga3 (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is common practice for metric designations of Rimmed cartridges to have the "R" designator at the end- for example, the official metric designation of .303 British is 7.7x57R, .30-30 Winchester is 7.62x51R, and so on. Come on, guys, it's patently obvious that that the "R" in this cartridge name stands for "Rimmed", not "Russian", and unless someone can come up with a contemporary cite (ie a cartridge box, advertisement, or gun book written before 1914) that says the "R" means Russian, I think we're applying a backronym to something out of context. IIRC, the cartridge might have been referred to as the "7.62mm Russian cartridge", but at the time it the "x(length)" designation was not used- thus, you'd have 7.62mm Russian, 8mm Lebel, 7.7mm Mauser, and so forth. The point I'm making is that what appears to have happened is that the cartridge was originally known in the West as 7.62mm Russian, and then when the nomenclature system was overhauled later in the 20th Century, the designation was changed to 7.62x54 Rimmed, just as .30-30 Winchester is 7.62x51 Rimmed to differentiate it from the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge. So, the cartridge can be called either 7.62mm Russian or 7.62x54 Rimmed, hence the confusion. The R, in the modern context however, definitely stands for "Rimmed" and frankly I'm surprised this is even a subject of debate. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not obvious, so unless you come up with a contemporary cite (ie a cartridge box, advertisement, or gun book written before 1914) that says the "R" means Rimmed, I think we're applying a backronym to something out of context. Also did you just say "Russian" was a backronym? This cartridge was exported from Russia to America, where it was called the 7.62 Russian, and you believe it is more likely that the R stood for "Rimmed" which is neither a Russian word nor a CIP designation (at the time) than it being a descriptor of where the round came from? Just amazing Jenga3 (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We're arguing about two different things- what the cartridge was called originally, and what it's called now. I have some 1920s-WWII contemporary reference texts and they all refer to the catridge as "7.62mm Russian" or something similar. The "7.62x54R" nomenclature appears to be a modern usage, and in that context, the R definitely stands for "Rimmed", as it does with the other Rimmed cartridges so designated. No-one is denying the cartridge has ever been called "7.62mm Russian", just that it's staggeringly inconsistent (and therefore almost impossibly unlikely) for the cartridge to be given a special meaning for the letter "R" in its nomenclature that is completely different to every other cartridge given an "R" designator in it's name. After all, we don't talk about 7.7x57mmB or 7.92x57mmG or 7.5x54mmF cartridges, and the 7.62x25mm Tokarev cartridge isn't called "7.62x25mmR", nor is the 7.62x39mm cartridge called "7.63x39R". Why? Because they're not rimmed cartridges, and in modern usage, having an "R" after a metric cartridge designation indicates a rimmed cartridge. Perhaps the safest option is to just remove any discussion of what the "R" in the name stands for from the article, to avoid un-necessary disagreement? Commander Zulu (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is by far the oldest round out of the ones you mentioned, way before R ever could have stood for the convention rimmed, and the rounds you are talking about came after. This is way back when USA was the equivalent of WWII Australia and when the Tsars were still in control of Russia. The reason I'm fighting for historical accuracy on this is because this is probably the one rifle cartridge which has seen humans out of feudalism, through imperialism, the world wars, the cold war and even space. This is huge and it's name could have hidden meaning. For now I would be fine if the article was changed to reflect something along the lines of "according to current international conventions the R stands for rimmed" etc etcJenga3 (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your desire to make sure the cartridge gets recognition for its longevity and widespread use, which is commendable. I do have to mention, however, that the .303 British cartridge is older than the 7.62x54R cartridge; it dates from 1889 and is still in service use today in India. I'd be happy to have something like "Historically referred to as 7.62mm Russian[cite], the "R" in the modern designation stands for Rimmed[cite]." Covers both bases, acknowledges the original name, and also the current usage. How does that sound? Commander Zulu (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Koalorka (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Jenga3 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In US sporting circles the R suffix to (bore)x(case length) metric designation indicated Rimmed cartridge as far as I remember the style being used; in the 1950s 7.72x54R ammo was marketed in the US as 7.62 Russian. Spot check shows it listed as "7.62 Russian" and "7.62mm Russian" in the 1970 Gun Digest. For what it is worth, even the mid-1960s "Small Arms of the World" referred to the cartridge as "7.62mm Russian". Naaman Brown (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions....

Neat website, surfed in from another site and had a question/correction. What is "super-incendiary"? Never heard of that one before.

Also bullets 2 and 3 are not armor piercing, just plain ball. The Czech ammo is "light" ball (silver or no color tip) and the Hungarian is "heavy" ball (can be either yellow or yellow/silver tip). The 2d from the right round doesn't look Yugoslav, it looks more like Bulgarian. Any chance the headstamp is 10 over 53? If so it's Bulgarian.Jeremy2171 01:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they are armor piercing, as they have a steel core. I took the picture, so I have verified this. I will check the headstamp on the other one though. You could be right about that one.CynicalMe 02:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Steel core does not = AP. Steel was used instead of lead as it was often cheaper than lead. The steel used in the "ball" ammo is a mild steel and has minimal advantages over lead cored ammo. Actual "hardened" steel core "AP" ammo will go through hardened armor test plate like a hot knife through butter while regular steel core will not.

I use the steel insert from a 50cal "AP" round as a center punch and the tip is still sharp....after about 10 years of hammering on it. I can easily deform the steel insert from Czech ammo with a hammer. Jeremy2171

Oh yeah, what was the "Super-Incendiary"? Jeremy2171 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, steel-core is what is commonly used to define armor-piercing. The fact that some types of steel are more suited is not at issue. Also, super-incendiary is the Raufus ammunition. CynicalMe 23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This comment displays a lack of knowledge of metallurgy. Not all steels are created equal. As a matter of fact, new steels are being created all the time. Most steels used in automobiles today, for example, did not exist 10 years ago. Soft steel is just that...soft. Hardened steels are a different kettle of fish entirely. If you don't believe me, try to drill a hole in the steel receiver of an M1903A3 Springfield sometime using standard drills! Good luck!!! The use of soft steel cores for bullets is a cost saving measure and not an attempt at manufacturing armor piercing bullets.--72.35.103.49 08:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you overlooked the Explosive round called the "PZ"? Why would the Russians use a Swedish projectile? Also there is Armor Piercing Incendiary AND API-tracer as well. The Czechs also have the short range practice bullet and there is also and E. German short range round as well. Did you check the headstamp on that one round? Jeremy2171 00:02, 19 October 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 "7.62x54R", with no spaces. I thought I'd give people a chance to comment before arbitrarily changing the title, however. --Commander Zulu 07:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as a waste of time and effort. What we have is just fine, well within the variation of usage for something with no universal convention. Gene Nygaard 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it a waste of time? The current format is the least common of the conventions for firearm calibres, and it will take 30 seconds to have it adjusted to the most common one. --Commander Zulu 09:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the other associated costs that are the problem. First, those who have become accustomed to making direct links will now making links through redirects. Then some other damn fool with too much time on his hands is going to go waste a whole bunch more time making those indirect links into direct links. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. That's why a certain amount of stability is a good thing. Gene Nygaard 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The majority of people making direct links will be involved in WP:MilHist anyway, and we're pretty much in consensus that the current naming conventions are wrong anyway... I agree stability is good, but it needs to be the right kind of stability, and "But that's the way it's always been!" isn't an especially good argument, IMO.--Commander Zulu 00:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page. I strongly disagree that page moves to more common conventions are a "waste of time". As for the "tip of the iceberg", I'm curious what constitutes the remaining 91% of problems caused by a sensible page move, as implied by that metaphor. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So... is using one space some kind of lame compromise now? I suggest it be fixed one way or the other as there are some awesome double redirects as it stands right now. Plus it's super-confusing. --Zytsef 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, someone moved the page back to the "old" name and I couldn't move it back to 7.62x54R for some reason; I'm going to put a request for a move on the appropriate page now. --Commander Zulu 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• This cartridge is also called the "Mosin" officially in Russian documentation, being adopted simultaneously with the M1890 rifle. It would appear that 7.62x54mmR Mosin would the proper name for this cartridge in accordance with our standardization efforts. What's your take on this one Zulu? Koalorka (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP tries to go for most common usage, and in that spirit I think the current name of 7.62x54R is fine. No text I can find refers to the cartridge with the "Mosin" designator, and we don't need the "mm" either for it either. I've never seen a box of cartridges with "7.62x54mmR" on them, either- all the boxes I have seen say "7.62x54R". Similarly, when the cartridge name is spoken I've only ever heard it called "7.62x54" or "7.62x54R". All this is a long and complicated way of saying I think the Russian cartridge oages shouldn't be titled using the "mm" standardisation that's being implemented, based on common usage amongst shooters and collectors.--Commander Zulu (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaving it makes me somewhat uneasy, it would not fall under any naming category. As much as I respect common usage among sports shooters and enthusiasts we have to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and we must recognize official or original names and designations. I agree the 7.62x54mmR Mosin is somewhat awkward and therefore I will seek to change the name to simply 7.62x54mmR. My Mosin is stamped this way and several published references list the caliber this way including my user manuals and Russian sources. I've also encountered this type of naming for rimmed ammunition boxes, with the "R" after the metric measurement as in AxBmmR, albeit, can't remember exactly which caliber it was I was shooting at the time. Koalorka (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia article names usec commonest name in that language by convention. official names can

be mentioned in the text.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)z

Specifications question

In the specs, it lists the "nominal" charge to be 3960-J or approx. 2920 ft-lbs. While this is in the realm of ballistics for the 54R, what specific round was this figure established with? Some Russian Light Ball ammo [149grain, 2855fps] was pushing 3672-J or about 2708 ft-lbs. I'm not particularly trying to argue, but just wondering what the basis of this factoid was.209.114.201.30 13:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The name

Presumably the round was introduced at a time when rimmed cartridges were the default, and so the R in the name was added later; what was the round originally called? Did it predate Russia's adoption of the metric system? Based on the oft-quoted World.guns.ru I surmise it was the three-line cartridge or something similar. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources are not Self-Published Sources

I added a RefImprove tag to this article a while back and am adding it again. The sources for this article are not Reliable Sources [WP:RS] and the claims supported by unsuitable sources will be removed by me if not replaced with reliable, third-party sources. (i.e. I am challenging the sources accuracy). Whomever removed my RefImprove tag failed to improve the article's citations and I gave fellow editors plenty of time to react. Spectre9 (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Scratch the RefImprove Idea, as it clearly is a case of Original Research and Self Published data being used on this page. Self-published webpages like "snipersparadice.com" are not WP:RS and are being challenged. Cite reliable sources or have these claimes removed. The only reliable source I see is the C.I.P. data. Spectre9 (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Accurate powder", is self published, and is being removed. Spectre9 (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS does not completely ban self-published. I would assert that Accurate Powder is an established industry expert and should be restored. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Accurate Powder is a propellant manufacturer and those manufacturers often publish reloading manuals. These manuals are often used by handloaders to (re)load cartridges of their interest. I would not classify Accurate Powder reloading information or reloading information of other propellant manufacturers as unreliable. It was however easy to find the necessary data for several factory loads at the websites of the Czech and Russian ammunition manufacturers S&B and Wolf.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not reliability or unreliability that is the core issue. It is the concept of third-party vs. self published data. If you can find a third-party source that refers to the Accurate 7.62x64R data as being reliable than it is acceptable as an expert source. Otherwise it is Original Research WP:OR and isn't acceptable on wikipedia. The same is true for Ammunition Manufacturer's data... WP:OR, however I can recognize it as being acceptable self-published data about those particular cartridges and will leave it up. Thanks for finding those sources, they are better than handloading data. Spectre9 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Still no changes on the other sources, such as snipersparadice and chuck-whats-his-name. I have done my own NewsBank search and while I didn't find any relevant 7.62x54R cartridge sources worth adding, I did locate a few Mosin-Nagant sources to add. Still, for such a big article more work needs to be done to actually cite (not link to sites). Handloading Magazine should have something for you-all to cite. I'll check the "Speer book" at home tonight and see what I can add historical-wise. BTW-- IMHO Speer ballistics is WP:OR, but I'll take a Speer description of cartridge history as valid. Spectre9 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The only way that loading data is WP:OR is if someone here provides their own data. If a reliable manufacturer provides reloading data to the public and is accepted by the firearms community, etc. they are a domain expert. WP:OR is about people putting new information here in wikipedia, like if I worked up my own loads and published them. I think that all of the mainstream reloading manuals could be considered as reliable sources. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

They are reliable sources about themselves, certainly, I'm sure another handloader other than myself can tell you they are are subject to legal and marketing biases and as such are not a good source of ballistics. What I'm suggesting is someone search for and cite a report from Cartridges of the World, for example? Again, the idea is finding a reliable third-party source. And I don't think Handloading ballistics are appropriate unless the article is on handloading, as the majority of 7.62x54R ammunition is most certainly not handloaded (at least, until military supplus runs out).You know, your 99% right so I might as well admit I picked a less "bold" target by hitting the ballistics with an edit first. To be honest, I should have been bolder and just tossed the handload and self-published 'snipers' websites and related Weasel Cruft from this article. Spectre9 (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think loading manuals are reliable source of ballistic information, then who is? The ammo manufacturers are subject to the same restrictions you mention, and in fact much tighter. At least the loading manuals often show pressure levels, etc giving a much more accurate picture of the cartridge rather than the capabilities of a particular load available from a particular manufacturer. And the essentially capricious manufacturer data is what is often quoted in COTW. If you want to discount loading manuals, you're going to have a serious battle on your hands. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not every article to be found on a website or information from a manufacturer is automatically unreliable information by a dubious author. David M. Fortier has published more than one gun related article. Google the name and you will see several Fortier contributions will emerge and that he writes articles for Guns Magazine, Guns 'n' Ammo, Shooting Times and American Handgunner.--Francis Flinch (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Handloading manuals are at least as accurate if not more-so than COTW. BTW, Accurate load data is NOT self-published - it comes from Wolfe Publishing, therefore it does fall within even your strict interpretation of WP:RS, even though it's not necessary since any check at all will show that Accurate is the latest incarnation of Western, and one of the oldest manufacturers of powder and load data in the US. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:33, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10mm Auto on 2011-05-23 02:08:47, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:44:11, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In .325 WSM on 2011-05-31 12:36:32, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10mm Auto on 2011-06-01 01:40:56, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 5.45x39mm on 2011-06-19 14:22:29, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 6.5x68mm on 2011-06-19 20:34:20, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ballistics

Regarding ballistics, this may be a more reliable source:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm

Cartridge (Wb + type) MV (fps) V @ 200 yds ME (ft lb) E @ 200 yds

7.62x54R (150 SP) 2700 2193 2428 1602

.308 Win. (150 Sp) 2820 2288 2648 1744

.308 Win. (165 BTSP) 2685 2264 2641 1878

.308 Win. (165 BTSP) 2870 2456 3019 2211

.308 Win. (180 Sp) 2620 2198 2743 1930

.30-06 Spfd. (150 Sp) 2910 2342 2820 1827

.30-06 Spfd. (165 PSP) 2800 2283 2872 1909

.30-06 Spfd. (165 BTSP) 3015 2575 3330 2428

.30-06 Spfd. (180 Sp) 2700 2023 2913 1635

Heavenlyblue (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference for Background

"Due to experiences in the Russo-Japanese War the projectile was replaced in 1908 by the "L" 9.5 grams (147 gr) spitzer bullet, which basic design has remained standard to the present." Where is a reference for this claim? What sort of "experiences" was this person talking about? This is very vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailholyghost (talk • contribs) 20:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 7.62×54mmR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080223164424/http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com:80/finn_section.htm to http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com/finn_section.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 02:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 7.62×54mmR. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111216040458/http://www.military-today.com/russian_land_forces.pdf to http://www.military-today.com/russian_land_forces.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hL1iFuL0?url=http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement to http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement

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) 08:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

R50/R100

Is this really the Diameter, or the Radius? 'D' is 'Д' in Russian... Msjayhawk (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Powder & Rim?

1. What/which powder did it use, originally? I read somewhere that Mendeleev designed the powder for it, but his entry (in WP) just says that he created PyroCollodion for the Navy in 1892 which they rejected, because of cost?

2. Did that rim tapper like that originally? I can see how it would help the feed paw/l/s slip/ride over it in the SG43 and PK/M MGs but wouldn't it just make the rim lock more likely in the MN rifle?.. Or, was it designed to override it, coz it allows the back rim to slip/ride over the one in front!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.38.242 (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)