Talk:7.92×57mm Mauser

(Redirected from Talk:8x57 IS)
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Cnkcnk123 in topic The rimmed cartridge is a JRS, not IRS.

Photo shows a 30-06?

edit

In the lead-in picture, is the second-from-the-left actually a 30-06?

It looks similar in diameter to the 6.5x55, suggesting it is a 270.

Still a good and useful picture, but I think it may be mislabeled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.142.154.98 (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I measured the diameter of the .30-06 Springfield and .308 Winchester projectiles in the picture as best as I could and they are identical. The cannelure makes the .30 projectile look slender.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see that now. When I cover up the cannelure they do look the same diameter. Thank you for the quick response -Ulrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.74.13 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 7.92×57mm Mauser. 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:

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) 08:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ballistic performance

edit

The examples of ballistic performance all seem to be rather "hot" loadings; I guess I was expecting to see the standard WW2-era military loadings producing a muzzle velocity of 750-800 m/s which I eventually found in a (somewhat broken) table further down the page, though I accept "I was expecting to see" is a little subjective. Any reason why the five selected for the infobox are what they are, though? --Vometia (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The rimmed cartridge is a JRS, not IRS.

edit

I am not a Wikipedia editor but someone should correct this error. I checked the archive pages and it has been wrong for many years. This error occurs on Production History - Variants, in the Civilian use section body and photo caption, on The 7.92×57mm Mauser as parent case photo caption. In the photo you can actually see the JRS letters on the cartridge. If you examine the pdf document for Citation 1 it shows JRS not IRS many times within the document. Admittedly the German CIP document in Table II for Citation 12 does show IRS. I will assume that is a typo in the document or perhaps a German language variation. Regardless JRS is the correct designation. 2601:5C2:200:122E:40B5:3075:C62E:29AF (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

IRS is in fact the correct caption in this case. As quoted under the "Cartridge naming," section,
"The letter "J" often mentioned by English speaking sources is actually an "I" for Infanterie (German for "infantry"). A stamped "I" at the cartridge bottom in writing styles used in the past in Germany could be easily mistaken for a "J". Even in the 21st century the "I" is often substituted by a "J" in English speaking communities and German ammunition manufacturers often write "JS" instead of "IS" to avoid confusing customers."
The differing citations can be explained by this mistake's prevalence in English sources. Cnkcnk123 (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply