Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?
Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards? There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere. PS: The only things I have fired a 22 (why not 20 or 25?) 38 (why not 35 or 40?) 177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?) 9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?) |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote: The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223? It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have just been plucked out of the air. A .38 Spl. bullet is actually .357 bullet and groove diameter. That's the same as a 9 mm. Etc. Etc. The .38 Spl. is named for the diameter of the case neck. sigh Sometimes they just bumped an existing caliber designation up to signify a new cartridge. For example, the .223 followed the .222 Remington Magnum (Wikipedia said "222 Remingon Special." I'm pretty sure that's a mistake.) It's basically a revised version of the .222 Rem. Mag. -- one of my favorite varmint cartridges, although not quite as accurate as the smaller .222 Remington. As for the arbitrary ones, there was the .218 Bee and the .219 Zipper, both introduced by Winchester in the same year, but each made for a different model of lever-action rifle. They both shoot the same ..224-in.-diameter bullet. The Zipper was a much hotter cartridge. Then you have the year of introduction: .30-03 and .30-06. And the necked down (or rarely necked up) versions of earlier cartridges: ..22-250, .25-06, 7mm-08, 30-378 Weatherby Magnum. In other words, it more or less means nothing. g Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards? No. There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere. There are. There are entire books written about some of them. PS: The only things I have fired a 22 (why not 20 or 25?) 38 (why not 35 or 40?) 177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?) 9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?) Long stories, some of them interesting. -- Ed Huntress |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
Speaking of pellets...PS: The only things I have fired a
22 (why not 20 or 25?) 38 (why not 35 or 40?) 177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?) 9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?) Fairly common pellet sizes (badmiton birdie style) are ..177, .22, 5mm, .20, and .25 I happen to own .177, .22 and .25 pellet guns. Now there are a vast array of larger pellets, although is it fair to call a .45 that delivers enough energy to hunt big game a "pellet." LOL. Even my .25 delivers about 45 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle, with a proper pellet. Some .25s are tuned much hotter exceeding the energy of .22 long rifle cartridges, but with much heavier "pellets". More bullets really. There are big bore "pellet" guns that deliver as much energy (or more) as a 45 ACP pistol does. Now one might argue about accuracy, but its easily possible at modest ranges. With no wind one of my .22 air guns has delivered golf ball sized groups at 135 yards with hand selected pellets. (lasered for range) Never mind the hold over... HA! There. Thread-JACKED! LOL |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
... The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223? Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards? There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere. PS: The only things I have fired a 22 (why not 20 or 25?) 38 (why not 35 or 40?) 177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?) 9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?) Many of the sizes originated in the 1800's as technical advances tightened the dimensions of bullets and barrels beyond the slop allowable for patched musket balls. 22 caliber: https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2011...ellets-part-1/ I think .30 cal came from French experiments to find the best bullet size for thir newly invented smokeless powder. They chose 8mm which is 0.315", the Russians soon followed with a Belgian-designed rifle bored to 3 "lines", a borrowed obsolete French measure that came to 7.62mm, which we then rounded to 0.30" for the Krag. Britain chose 0.303" for their bore. The rifling gooves are often cut 0.004" deep and the bullet is sized to fill them, giving two valid caliber name choices about 0.008" apart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin%E2%80%93Nagant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-40_Krag The single digit offsets mainly arise to give new cartridge designs a unique name, like Ed's list, although there have been barrels bored for both older 0.223" and newer 0.224" bullets. Pistol calibers descended from the old "Army" 0.45" and "Navy" 0.36" muzzleloader bores. The 38 cartridge originally looked like the modern ..22, with the bullet the same diameter as the thin-walled case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heeled_bullet "Many shooters wonder why a .38 caliber firearm actually shoots bullets of diameter .357 inches, and a .44 caliber firearm shoots ..429-inch-diameter (10.9 mm) bullets. In both of these cases, the name of the caliber derives from older heeled-bullet designs, and the name was kept even when the bullet was shrunk to fit inside the case." Lotsa history there to confuse you. -Biringuccio |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck wrote:
The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223? Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards? There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere. PS: The only things I have fired a 22 (why not 20 or 25?) 38 (why not 35 or 40?) 177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?) 9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?) In Olde times (Older than you and me ;-) ) barrels were made by hand, with hand tools, by the same guy who made the rest of the gun... the bullet diameter could end up being anything within the size range of what the weapons was purposed for. The smith would make a custom bullet mold for that specific gun. In modern times -- with mass production, there's far more standardization; but if you inestigate, I think you'll find that there still are a lot of oddball calibers... sometimes as a marketing ploy, sometimes because a govenment, or somene, wanted to achive a particlar "engineered" result . -- Email address is a Spam trap. |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck wrote: ... There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere. There are. There are entire books written about some of them. https://sites.google.com/site/fxgjkg...espopularbooks This is THE BOOK of interesting stories about using them, not always well: https://www.amazon.com/African-Rifle.../dp/1614276633 |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 13:52:26 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck wrote: ... There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere. There are. There are entire books written about some of them. https://sites.google.com/site/fxgjkg...espopularbooks This is THE BOOK of interesting stories about using them, not always well: https://www.amazon.com/African-Rifle.../dp/1614276633 And this one, about my passion when I was into varmint rifles and wildcats: https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Two-Ca.../dp/1446505324 -- Ed Huntress |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:28:35 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck wrote: The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223? It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have just been plucked out of the air. A .38 Spl. bullet is actually .357 bullet and groove diameter. That's the same as a 9 mm. Etc. Etc. The .38 Spl. is named for the diameter of the case neck. sigh Back in the day, Colt made a 36 cal cap and ball revolver. Then when cartridge weapons came along they made the .38 colt, whereupon S&W jumped on the band wagon with the S&W 38 Special. All shooting essentially a .35 inch diameter bullet :-) Sometimes they just bumped an existing caliber designation up to signify a new cartridge. For example, the .223 followed the .222 Remington Magnum (Wikipedia said "222 Remingon Special." I'm pretty sure that's a mistake.) It's basically a revised version of the .222 Rem. Mag. -- one of my favorite varmint cartridges, although not quite as accurate as the smaller .222 Remington. As for the arbitrary ones, there was the .218 Bee and the .219 Zipper, both introduced by Winchester in the same year, but each made for a different model of lever-action rifle. They both shoot the same .224-in.-diameter bullet. The Zipper was a much hotter cartridge. Then you have the year of introduction: .30-03 and .30-06. And the necked down (or rarely necked up) versions of earlier cartridges: .22-250, .25-06, 7mm-08, 30-378 Weatherby Magnum. And of course the 45-70 and the various big guns like the 50-90 Sharps where the second number indicated the powder capacity. In other words, it more or less means nothing. g Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards? No. There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere. There are. There are entire books written about some of them. PS: The only things I have fired a 22 (why not 20 or 25?) 38 (why not 35 or 40?) 177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?) 9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?) Long stories, some of them interesting. -- Cheers, John B. |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:48:13 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:28:35 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck wrote: The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223? It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have just been plucked out of the air. A .38 Spl. bullet is actually .357 bullet and groove diameter. That's the same as a 9 mm. Etc. Etc. The .38 Spl. is named for the diameter of the case neck. sigh Back in the day, Colt made a 36 cal cap and ball revolver. Then when cartridge weapons came along they made the .38 colt, whereupon S&W jumped on the band wagon with the S&W 38 Special. All shooting essentially a .35 inch diameter bullet :-) Sometimes they just bumped an existing caliber designation up to signify a new cartridge. For example, the .223 followed the .222 Remington Magnum (Wikipedia said "222 Remingon Special." I'm pretty sure that's a mistake.) It's basically a revised version of the .222 Rem. Mag. -- one of my favorite varmint cartridges, although not quite as accurate as the smaller .222 Remington. As for the arbitrary ones, there was the .218 Bee and the .219 Zipper, both introduced by Winchester in the same year, but each made for a different model of lever-action rifle. They both shoot the same .224-in.-diameter bullet. The Zipper was a much hotter cartridge. Then you have the year of introduction: .30-03 and .30-06. And the necked down (or rarely necked up) versions of earlier cartridges: .22-250, .25-06, 7mm-08, 30-378 Weatherby Magnum. And of course the 45-70 and the various big guns like the 50-90 Sharps where the second number indicated the powder capacity. Yes, but be careful with that one. The .30-40 Krag, for example, signified 40 grains of SMOKELESS powder, while the .45-70 signified 70 grains of black powder. That only worked while there was just one type of smokeless -- straight nitrocellulose. Meantime, the .32-20 Winchester signified 20 grains of black powder, while the .30-30 Winchester signified 30 grains of smokeless. Then it starts to get complicated. d8-) In other words, it more or less means nothing. g Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards? No. There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere. There are. There are entire books written about some of them. PS: The only things I have fired a 22 (why not 20 or 25?) 38 (why not 35 or 40?) 177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?) 9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?) Long stories, some of them interesting. |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
On 11/7/2017 11:28 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck wrote: The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223? It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have just been plucked out of the air. A .38 Spl. bullet is actually .357 bullet and groove diameter. That's the same as a 9 mm. Etc. Etc. The .38 Spl. is named for the diameter of the case neck. sigh Sometimes they just bumped an existing caliber designation up to signify a new cartridge. For example, the .223 followed the .222 Remington Magnum (Wikipedia said "222 Remingon Special." I'm pretty sure that's a mistake.) It's basically a revised version of the .222 Rem. Mag. -- one of my favorite varmint cartridges, although not quite as accurate as the smaller .222 Remington. As for the arbitrary ones, there was the .218 Bee and the .219 Zipper, both introduced by Winchester in the same year, but each made for a different model of lever-action rifle. They both shoot the same .224-in.-diameter bullet. The Zipper was a much hotter cartridge. Then you have the year of introduction: .30-03 and .30-06. And the necked down (or rarely necked up) versions of earlier cartridges: .22-250, .25-06, 7mm-08, 30-378 Weatherby Magnum. In other words, it more or less means nothing. g Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards? No. There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere. There are. There are entire books written about some of them. PS: The only things I have fired a 22 (why not 20 or 25?) 38 (why not 35 or 40?) 177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?) 9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?) Long stories, some of them interesting. Nice little history lesson! As far as wildcats, I had a .240 Gibbs. Best ballistics EVER! ---for a while. |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:32:34 -0500, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 11/7/2017 11:28 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck wrote: The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223? It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have just been plucked out of the air. A .38 Spl. bullet is actually .357 bullet and groove diameter. That's the same as a 9 mm. Etc. Etc. The .38 Spl. is named for the diameter of the case neck. sigh Sometimes they just bumped an existing caliber designation up to signify a new cartridge. For example, the .223 followed the .222 Remington Magnum (Wikipedia said "222 Remingon Special." I'm pretty sure that's a mistake.) It's basically a revised version of the .222 Rem. Mag. -- one of my favorite varmint cartridges, although not quite as accurate as the smaller .222 Remington. As for the arbitrary ones, there was the .218 Bee and the .219 Zipper, both introduced by Winchester in the same year, but each made for a different model of lever-action rifle. They both shoot the same .224-in.-diameter bullet. The Zipper was a much hotter cartridge. Then you have the year of introduction: .30-03 and .30-06. And the necked down (or rarely necked up) versions of earlier cartridges: .22-250, .25-06, 7mm-08, 30-378 Weatherby Magnum. In other words, it more or less means nothing. g Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards? No. There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere. There are. There are entire books written about some of them. PS: The only things I have fired a 22 (why not 20 or 25?) 38 (why not 35 or 40?) 177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?) 9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?) Long stories, some of them interesting. Nice little history lesson! As far as wildcats, I had a .240 Gibbs. Best ballistics EVER! ---for a while. Jeez, you started your wildcat adventure with one of the wildest. I hope you had handloading lessons from someone who knew what he was doing. What kind of rifle was it? -- Ed Huntress |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 10:54:38 AM UTC-5, rangerssuck wrote:
The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223? Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards? There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere. PS: The only things I have fired a 22 (why not 20 or 25?) 38 (why not 35 or 40?) 177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?) 9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?) Thanks, all for all the information. I surely am happy that I don't have to bothered with all of this. I already have enough esoterica in my head to last two or three lifetimes. |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
Ed Huntress on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:28:35
-0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck wrote: The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223? It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have just been plucked out of the air. Some no doubt were based on another mode of measurement. E.G., the idea of measuring guns by the number of round balls of a pound of lead. (Or for cannons, the number of pound an iron sphere weighs). Then you get metric conversions - .30 == .303 == .308 == 7,62, Etc. -- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone." |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
firearms caliber question (serious)
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:19:24 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote: Ed Huntress on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:28:35 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck wrote: The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223? It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have just been plucked out of the air. Some no doubt were based on another mode of measurement. E.G., the idea of measuring guns by the number of round balls of a pound of lead. (Or for cannons, the number of pound an iron sphere weighs). Then you get metric conversions - .30 == .303 == .308 == 7,62, Etc. -- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone." It is a crazy mess. However, it's good for cracker-barrel conversations. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What's up with 22 caliber ammo? | Metalworking | |||
50-caliber rounds from an AK-47 | Metalworking | |||
Heavy metal! 950 caliber rifle. | Metalworking | |||
clearly a small caliber (was Newmax) | Metalworking | |||
Screws or 22-caliber nails | Woodworking |