Talk:7.62×38mmR

Naming format/convention
Can we move the page to "7.62 x 38R" or perhaps even "7.62 × 38 mm R" as seems to be a sort of standard with pages like 7.62 x 54 mm R or 7.62 x 51 mm NATO? I don't know which is better, only that most of the pages have:
 * a space on either side of the "x"
 * "mm" in the title


 * your friendly neighbourhood an*l retentive :-)
 * Deon Steyn 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No. :-P --Commander Zulu 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I hatehatehatehate the "standard" format in this respect. If it was up to me, I'd change all the other pages to "7.62x54R" and "7.62x51 NATO", removing the space either side of the "x". They're designations, not a mathematical equation, dammit! [/end rant mode]. --Commander Zulu 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, not sure which is better/correct, perhaps we can try and find out what the reasoning was behind it or if there is some guideline or rule relating to the matter? --Deon Steyn 10:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Article history
This article's history has now been all messed up, with most of it on the redirect page, because Commander Zulu improperly used a copy and paste move rather than the move function. Does anybody know how to get an admin to clean it up? Gene Nygaard 15:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP REDIRECTING THIS PAGE TO 7.62 x 38 R
The Wikiproject: Military History team have decided that the standard format for Firearm Calibre designations is AxBmm, with no spaces. Accordingly, please do not rename (or redirect )this page "7.62 x 38 R", as this is no longer the agreed standard for firearm calibre nomenclatures. --Commander Zulu 07:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry; I made the move. Most other caliber articles I have seen use a A x Bmm C format. You may want to check them out: see the calibers mentioned in Template:WWIIUSSRInfWeapons and Template:WWIIGermanInfWeapons. RavenStorm 16:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much- I've tagged the "major" calibres for change soon, but I'm giving people on the appropriate pages a chance to comment first. --Commander Zulu 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Safety issue
I have edited the article to include the statement that other cartridges should not be fired in lieu of 7.62x38R cartridges. This practice is unsafe, and done only at the shooter's risk. Wikipedia information should err on the side of caution in circumstances such as this. Roundeyesamurai 22:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The .32 S&W cartridges are considerably less powerful than the 7.62x38R round, whilst .32 H&R Magnum is about the same power. I'd hardly call their use in the Nagant M1895 "unsafe", but I'll err on the side of caution and not re-add the information to the main article. --Commander Zulu 11:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image
I'm pretty sure both images in this article currently are of the modern commercially produced 7.62x38R ammunition. Does anybody have a picture we could use of the original military rounds (which IIRC don't have that crimp at the top of the case)? &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Calculated Muzzle velocity of the 7.62x38R round is INCORRECT
Using the formula 1/2 * m * v^2 = E, whereas m = kg, v = m/s and E = joules:

m = 6.3 grams (~97 grains) v = 98m/s therefore E = 30.2526 joules

Somethings off here.. why only a velocity of only 98 m/s? Someone please fix this ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.162.139 (talk) 23:09, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

The 350 ft lbs is also drastically wrong. I have that in a Gun Digest chart here, but the actual power of 97 gr at 1080 FPS is about 250 ft lbs, and dozens of cartridges with similar ballistics bear that out. I went ahead and did the math to be sure. 250 ft lbs, close enough. Please stop correcting it to 350 ft lbs unless different mass and velocity data can be shown as standard for this round.Mzmadmike (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Experimental Smgs?
Just curious if we should include a short (single sentence) references to the experimental submachine guns built by Fedor Tokarev in this caliber. Source: Soviet Small-Arms and Ammunition, by David Naumovich Bolotin, pages 43-44. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like confirmation from another source on this before we include it; I've got numerous books on WWI/WWII small arms and none of them mention 7.62x38R SMGs, even on an experimental basis. Commander Zulu (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. A second book that makes mention of them, though in less detail than the first, is The AK47 Story:  Evolution of the Kalashnikov Weapons by Edward Clinton Ezell, ISBN: 0811722473.  The experiments were done in the 1927 - 1928 timeframe.  Surv1v4l1st (Talk 14:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with Ezell's work and he's usually pretty good IMHO, so I think that's fine as a source. Interesting stuff! Commander Zulu (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the reply. Yes, very interesting.  Strange pick for a SMG chambering, but considering the era, perhaps not so much so.  Still, the Soviets picked the Tokarev round, so couldn't have been all that successful. ;)


 * I'll put together a short sentence, with reference to both texts, in a bit if you agree it is noteworthy. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 01:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Commander Zulu (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help. It has been added;  please move or adjust as needed. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks good- no adjustment needed. Great stuff! Commander Zulu (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

bullet diameter
I believe the correct bullet diameter is .310 inches,the same as used n 7.62x54r and 7.62x39. However,I'm finding conflicting information. I know my Mosin Nagants all have .311-.313 bores and the Nagant revolvers are supposed to be the same size. I actually use bullets made for 303 british. Cartridges of the World lists the same .295" diameter,while I'm told that the Handloaders Guide to Cartridge Conversions claims its .306. I think the correct. bullet is a 32.

bullet diameter
I believe the correct bullet diameter is .310 inches,the same as used n 7.62x54r and 7.62x39. However,I'm finding conflicting information. I know my Mosin Nagants all have .311-.313 bores and the Nagant revolvers are supposed to be the same size. I actually use bullets made for 303 british. Cartridges of the World lists the same .295" diameter,while I'm told that the Handloaders Guide to Cartridge Conversions claims its .306. I think the correct. bullet is a 32. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.238.74 (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Measured ballistics
I measured this, yesterday...


 * PrviPartizan New Ammunition = 53.0 FPE


 * Russian Milsurp Ammo = 201.4 FPE

It seems awfully relevant to this article, but as "original research" I suppose it technically belongs here in the 'talk' section rather than on the main page. Details...

I used my chronograph, a classic red "Alpha Chrony", to compare new Prvi Partizan ammunition against 1970's Russian milsurp. I fired these rounds from my "armory refurbished" 1943 Soviet Nagant M1895 revolver

7.62Nagant circa 2010's Prvi Partizan (Serbian)


 * weight 98 grains
 * speed in feet per second, 7 shots: 474.8 fps, 442.9, 457.7, 452.2, 405.4, 667.7, 553.0
 * avg	493.4
 * stdev% = 18%

7.62Nagant circa 1970's Military Surplus (Russian)


 * weight 108 grains
 * speed in feet per second, 7 shots: 972.5 fps, 843.3, 775.1, 967.1, 983.4, 939.3, 934.4
 * avg 916.4
 * stdev% = 8%

So not only is the milsurp ammo faster, it is more consistent, having one standard deviation only 8% of the average, versus 18% for the Prviv Partizan. That makes the milsurp not only more powerful, but also more accurate. To calculate foot-pounds of energy, I'm using the equation from the PyramidAir website: FootPoundsEnergy = ProjectileWeightInGrains * (SpeedInFeetPerSecond ^ squared) / 450240

PrviPartizan = 98 * 493.4 * 493.4 / 450240 = 53.0 foot pounds of energy

Russian Milsurp = 108 * 916.4 * 916.4 / 450240 = 201.4 foot pounds of energy

I got the weight, in grains from the label on the box of ammunition (and the website that sold it). No doubt it is an average weight, with some tolerance of error (as is no doubt the grains of powder in each cartridge), but taking the average of the chronograph measured speeds should compensate for that.

Pbnelson (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)