Talk:6.5×52mm Carcano

removal of citation needed template.
I guess that some rationale on my removal of citation need templates in this WP entry. 

First of all, I write from Italy Itself, and I'm Italian, and here are at least 12M+ people whose can strongly disagree on the doubts on the ballistics of the Carcano '91 bullet and the rifle itself (that is,nearby every Male Italian born in 1948 or earlier, and in some services, even not few born from 1949 to ~1965)

Albeit I haven't the pleasure of having to do to this rifle first-hand, every people I know always talk well, if not very well, about this service rifle and cartrige, across social classes, cultural levels and politcal positions (a big social element here in Italy) and I'm pretty sure that a 100% endorsment rate should be a solid base on assessing this cartridge... 

I can understand the serious doubts in the US of A on the Dallas assassination, starting with the Warren Report and the "magic bullet theory", but for the above said ~12M male Italians above, that one can do quickly multiple bullseye hits on slow-moving targets at some hundreds of yard with a telescope-equipped '91 is more than feasible and definitively in the realm of the possible. 

concluded, a cartridge, much so a military cartrige, should be judged for its merits, esp. of people whose has to trust their life on the cartridge and the rifle firing it. 

Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in the USA, I own a 91/38 rifle (carbine) and did own a 1941 (long) rifle and have reloaded for both guns for decades. The Carcano is rough but tough. I have found it reasonably accurate (five shots within a 3 inch circle at 100 yards) and reliable. This is probably the lightest cartridge I would have confidence in using on a bear hunt: the penetration of a 160gr softnose bullet at 2000 fps is all out of proportion to the paper ballistics. I have also fired a full metal jacket Carcano round through a baffle of alternating waterjugs and phonebooks: the bullet ended up looking like the Warren Report "magic bullet" with very slight damage. Most of what is repeated and published derogatory about the "Ninety-One" Carcano rifle and cartridge falls in the category of "conventional wisdom" as in "urban legend" or "old wives' tales." Naaman Brown (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Believed to have used"
Saying that Oswald "is believed to have used" a 6.5 mm cartridge to assassinate JFK seems a bit too conspiratorial (and POV) for an encyclopedia article.--172.190.104.148 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As does "alleged assassin".172.190.3.200 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

6.5×52mm Mannlicher-Carcano
The Mannlicher part in the title is very questionable. If Mannlicher has something to do with the rifle, in the sense that it uses a mannlicher-style magazine (that was really taken from the Gew-88 rifle, and not from some Mannlicher design), the only thing that Mannlicher has to do with the cartridge is that he copied the samples (first the rimmed one, and then the rimless), given to him as one of many inventor participating in the competition for the selection of the new rifle, to make first the 6.5×53R, and then the 6.5×54mm Mannlicher-Schönauer cartridges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.202.87 (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The name Mannlicher-Carcano actually originates from the popular name of the Carcano rifle in the US. The Gewehr 88 used the Mannlicher-type feeding magazine, copied from the Mannlicher M1886 rifle, but I agree with you that this article's name should be changed to 6.5×52mm Carcano. That's why I added the movement template to this page. M11rtinb (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Misfiring of ammunition
I believe the rifle was given a bad name due to the fact that the ammunition (rounds) was not sealed at the factory. Is there any truth to this? If so it might be included. Zedshort (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 13:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

6.5×52mm Mannlicher-Carcano → 6.5×52mm Carcano – for reasons stated in this section of this talk page M11rtinb (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The lack of references to the use of that in the name, and even in the opening of the summary warrants the removal of it. Also, I don't think anyone would include Mannlicher while searching for or talking about it, therefore it wouldn't be the "Common Name"WildWikiGuy (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:TSC shouldn't that be 6.5x52mm Carcano to avoid using special characters? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed. WP:TSC doesn't say we have to avoid special characters necessarily, only that we should provide a normal keyboard character redirect. In this case the × looks better and is not prohibited for any other reason. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Warren Commission calls the weapon a "6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle," while the bullet is a "Mannlicher-Carcano bullet." JFK assassination literature generally follows that usage. Man from Nephew (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2015 (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.

Tumbling or not tumbling?
the English version states that in Italian Army service this cartridge was loaded with "unstable round-nosed bullet with a propensity to tumble" but the Italian Wiki states exactly the opposite: the round nose bullet was not tumbling unless hitting hard bones and tended to leave "clean through" wounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.194.4 (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Are 6.5×52mm Carcano and 6.5×50mmSR Arisaka intermediate cartridge?
When using the term "Assault Rifle," it has to be select fire and chambers an intermediate cartridge. Arguably the Cei-Rigotti and the Federov Avtomat considered to be an earlier assault rifles before the Stg 44 but aren't intermediate cartridge are under 2 inches case length?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KuronoX (talk • contribs) 23:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Question
What was its Case capacity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.38.242 (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC) And what/which powder did it use? I think it was Nobel's?Solenite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.38.242 (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Picture of the "En Bloc Clip"...
There is a picture at the bottom of an en-bloc clip that is using oblong-rectangular cartridges & projectiles. I think there should be some reference to those particular cartridges. I have never seen 6.5mm Carcano in such a form (nor any cartridge for that matter. I assume they would have been designed in an attempt to maximize clip capacity along with maximal volumetric case capacity, but I assume there were probable shortcomings with burn rate/pattern and aerodynamic effectiveness of the projectile. However, the original source for the picture is no longer available and I can't find the original with any reference. Thi seems like something that should either be referenced (either in the article or the caption), or removed, as those unique cartridges seem to be out of place in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:61:7C0C:BF00:25F9:5B83:ADFB:E4AC (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)