Talk:7×57mm Mauser

Bullet Diameter error?
The bullet diameter for 7mm Mauser is .284, it is listed as .285. Has anyone noticed this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.30.230 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the article text makes it clear the 7.24 mm (.285 in) diameter is a C.I.P. guideline/ruling and hence a for civilians undisputable legal rule in the country of origin.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect
This page was once an erroneous redirect to the 7.92x57mm (8mm Mauser) page. This has been long corrected so I just deleted that discussion.

It has been recently suggested that this page be merged with the 7.92x57mm (8mm Mauser) page. I suspect this is due to the historical discussion of the previously incorrect redirect. They are in fact two seperate cartridges with very different histories and are not compatible in any way; such a merge would be pointless.

HangFire 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur, it would not be a wise move to merge these two together, it would only lead to trouble and confusion.

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 "7x57 Mauser", 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)


 * It is one version of the "7 mm Mauser". Nobody ever says that it is a "7 Mauser".  Why would you drop the mm just because you add the length disambiguation?  Gene Nygaard 12:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For much the same reason you don't have "7.62mmx51mm NATO" or "6.5mmx54mm Carcano"- firearm calibres just aren't written that way. It's spoken as "Seven by Fifty-Seven Mauser", not "Seven Millimetre by Fifty Seven Millimetre Mauster", for example. Imperial calibres are expressed as .ABC (.303, .30-06, .44), Metric calibres are expressed as AxB (7.62x51, 6.5x55, 9x19). The "mm" disambiguator isn't necessary.--Commander Zulu 12:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the page. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusion Concerning Use of Spitzer Bullets in 7x57mm
Various sources indicate that the 7x57mm wasn't loaded with pointed (spitzer) bullets until the 20th Century. In fact, the first wartime use of spitzer bullets in any caliber wasn't until the [First Balkan War] (1912-1913) with the Turks using spitzer-loaded 7.65x53mm Mauser. That means that the 7x57mm used in the Spanish-American War and Boer War were loaded with round nose bullets. --D.E. Watters (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mauser k98k
First edit/post.

The Mauser k98k 7.92 x 57 cartridge is in no way similiar. It is also often called an 8mm. I believe this is misleading, though not entirely incorrect. Im here to learn and help, and I own one. A great source of confusion, is the loading of these cartridges. The k98k was a derivative of the gewhere 98k, which was NOT designed to handle the loads that the k98k issues. Thus, it can be hard to find, in the usa (unless you load your own, I do) "real" rounds for this rifle, without being dangerous to the use of the old weapon. As wikipedia is a source for all, one that I still use personally, and often...I would suggest this be made more clear?

The old rifles, will blow up....some will not check two or 5 sources.

As I said, first post.

hi

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosty1 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ballistic Performance
I noticed that the kinetic energy figures are completely wrong on all accounts. The fps and m/s don't match, but I assume that it was just estimation. The projectile weight seems accurate enough, I'm just wondering why the other figures aren't. Pigoutultra (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2011 (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) 21:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

7mm vs 8mm
As stated: The 7.92 x 57mm Mauser "8 mm Mauser" and 7×57mm ("7 mm Mauser") cartridges are not interchangeable; attempts to do so may cause damage or potential injury.

In actual fact the body of the 8 mm round is from the rim to the shoulder significantly longer than the 7mm round. Obstensibly this was done to prevent the 8mm round from being chambered in the 7mm rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.87.209.5 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cordite is a smokeless powder
From the main article- Cartridge Development and Military Usage...

":The .303 cartridge at that time was still using cordite propellant, in contrast to the Mauser's higher-performance ballistite type smokeless powder. The British modernized the previous .303 British cartridge variants to the Mark 7 variant that like the 7×57mm used smokeless propellant, and updated their rifle to the Lee Enfield No. 1 Mk III."

Cordite is a smokeless powder. It was adopted in for use in the .303 cartridge in 1891 and used until after World War II.

Even the website listed as the source for the information presented says this-

"Nitro-cellulose propellant was extensively used during WW1 & WWII. The last .303 ball cartridges manufactured at Radway Green in 1973 were loaded with nitro-cellulose powder and not cordite. Cordite was last used for the .303 cartridge in the 1960s."

The Mark VI round was adopted in 1904 and replaced the earlier round nosed bullet designs including Mark III and the expanding bullets such as the Mk IV and V.

The Mark VII replaced the Mark VI in 1910, featured a 174-grain pointed bullet and used cordite as a powder. During World War I, the British adopted the Mk VIIz which used a nitrocellulose flake powder to supplement the Mark VII, not to replace it.

The Mark VIII,adopted in 1938 was a cordite load. The Mark VIIIz was not.

69.92.74.70 (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on 7×57mm 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510120527/http://www.nazarian.no/images/wep/24_FN98.pdf to http://www.nazarian.no/images/wep/24_FN98.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hL1iFuL0?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cip-bp.org%2Findex.php%3Fid%3Dtdcc-telechargement to http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 7×57mm 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831085149/http://www.rws-munition.de:80/en/rifle_cartridges/ballistic_data.htm?navid=10 to http://www.rws-munition.de/en/rifle_cartridges/ballistic_data.htm?navid=10
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6I7VGrifY?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saami.org%2Fspecifications_and_information%2Fspecifications%2FVelocity_Pressure_CfR.pdf to http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/specifications/Velocity_Pressure_CfR.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100307002808/http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/plezier_071907/ to http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/plezier_071907/

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

Cheers.— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 18:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The rws information is fine but it seems to have corrupted the Cartridges of the World reference, you inserted your link in the middle of another reference and broke it.
 * There is a date problem with the 2nd reference you included.
 * Your third reference is incomplete. The incomplete one you point to is complete here - http://www.shootingtimes.com/long-guns/longgun_reviews_st_boermodel_201007/
 * The statement on the page about withering fire etc. is not supported anywhere that I can find. You might find it easier to revert the page and then try adding your first two and my suggestion for your third reference. Digitallymade (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Editorial bias regarding SAAMI pressure reference
"Although this lower specification is in deference to the purportedly weaker actions of the older Mauser 93 and 95 rifles which are still in circulation,[7] this concern is misplaced, as the original ammunition developed for, and issued with, the M93 Spanish Mauser produced an average pressure of 50,370 CUP in those rifles." The statement that the "concern is misplaced" is by definition biased and cannot be proven.

Further, one could argue that its false, if the only evidence is that the old rifles originally used the higher pressure ammunition. Safety standards in all areas - industry, transportation, consumer products - have risen markedly in the past century. What was considered a safe standard for a peasant soldier at the turn of the 19th century is not the yardstick we use today.

Then there is the lack of a gas vent in many early Mausers. That alone would exacerbate the likely consequences of a catastrophic failure.

Is there other evidence to demonstrate, objectively, that the "concern is misplaced"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rule303 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)