Talk:.25 Stevens

Ballistics
The article currently says: "suffered excessively high trajectory". That's the first time I've heard anyone regard drop as beneficial. Usually the cartridges with flat trajectories are being praised over those with a large drop. Seems very strange to me. --BjKa (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * On rereading, I think I understand now (shooting high seemed better to me than shooting low.) Maybe "excessively high" should be replaced with "excessively curved"? --BjKa (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The section is caled "Ballistics". High Trajectory is a term of art among ballisticians, and "excessively high trajectory" has been a well understood term among ballisticians, gunners, and shooters for well over 100 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Assessment
Elmer Keith calls the .25 Stevens "that most excellent cartridge". What gives? --BjKa (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, with currently 100% of the article being sourced to Barnes, I'm gonna contrast what has been said with Keith's opinion. --BjKa (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Nailed it down to barrel length. Seems that as a rifle cartridge is was not so impressive, while in a revolver it performed nicely. Rewrote article accordingly. --BjKa (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keith also had a Thing about max-vel loads, & Barnes would be dealing with saner (& factory) loadings.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  18:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)