Talk:Ammunition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Text moved from the Village pump[edit]

Ammunition and some linked pages contain mostly (if not entirely) info from Encyclopedia Britannica from 1911, and most is hopelessly outdated. It is very well written, though, and would possibly be better placed on a history page. I don't feel too comfortable just replacing hundreds of lines of text with what would be a stub in comparison... Comments? europrobe 10:15 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Weigh it up: what's best for the reader who comes looking for information - a few paras of up-to-date or lots of old? I'd say the first. You can leave the EB text below your stub, or move it to talk pending a rewrite to place it in historical context. good luck! and be bold! -- Tarquin 10:24 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

End of moved text

This article is long and rambling in places. GraemeLeggett 20:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of Subsonic Ammunition Heatsketch, 18:22, 12 August 2007

Links that may be handy sometime[edit]

The article says, "anti-personnel ammunition is often designed to break up or tumble inside the target, in order to maximize the damage done." Is this accurate? Anyone have examples of such ammunition? Tom harrison 13:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Fuze get changed to Fuse ?[edit]

In English Fuze is the customary spelling for igniters in the nose or base of shells. Why did this get changed to Fuse ? Rcbutcher (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Manual of Style says in the very first section that it's uncool to change valid spelling variants, and indicates how to determine the "original" variant if there's an issue. ENeville (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Munition[edit]

Munition is comparatively tiny and lacks clear differentiation in subject matter, so it looks like it should be merged in. ENeville (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must argue that munition should not redirect here. Munitions are weapons or weapons systems. Ammunitions are charges for those weapons systems. IE a bullet is fired from a rifle. The bullet is ammunition, the rifle is a munition. A tank fires a shell from its main gun. The tank is just a vehicle, the gun is a munition, and the shell is ammunition. A bomb is dropped from an airplane. Here the bomb is its own self-contained weapon system, and so is considered a munition, the aircraft is merely the vehicle once again. Thusly I think munition should not redirect here, but rather to Weapon, but I'll leave that to one better versed in the Wiki and subject matter. --75.16.251.224 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

This article is desperately in need of images. Does anyone have any free images that depict a range of ammunition types/sizes? If not, there's a few pic from the list of handgun cartridges article that might be useful here. ce1984 (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ammunition/Munition[edit]

my Webster's 1988 dictionary defines "Ammunition" as "Anything hurled by a weapon or explodes as a weapon, as bullets, gunpowder, shot, shells, bombs, grenades, rockets, etc.". so..

  • 1. Why are bombs, rockets, missiles etc. called "munitions"? Yes, I understand "Munition" means war materials, but wouldn't it be more semantically correct to call them Ammunition?
  • 2. Is there such a difference between "Ammunition" and "Munition" in other languages? looking at the other wikis, this article links to "Munition" in european languages. --Phil1988 (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, originally munitions referred to emplaced demolition charges, usually gunpowder packed in large barrels. Later when small (relatively) charges appeared for muzzle loading cannons, these became known as amunitions, the prefix means 'not' (old days) munitions. This is not the usual etymology thoughKoakhtzvigad (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless your dictionary says: ©Merriam-Webster on it it's not a Noah Webster dictionary and is not considered to be authoritative.

A 1998 version says this: Ammunition:

  • 1: projectiles fired from guns
  • 2: explosive items used in war
  • 3: material for use in attack or defense

While the ©Merriam-Webster New International 2nd edition says:

  • 1: Military Stores
  • 2: Mil. In warfare, the projectiles thrown against an enemy, such as bullets, shells, grenades, and bombs with their necessary propellants, detonators, fuses, and primers. Modern ammunition for firearms consists basically of a priming charge of powder, a propelling charge of powder, and some form of missile to be ejected form the firearm.
  • 3: A stock of missiles: any material that may be used in attack or defense: as ammunition for a speech.

Further: ©Merriam-Webster online:

  • 1: a the projectiles with their fuses, propelling charges, or primers fired from guns
  • b cartridges
  • c explosive military items (such as grenades or bombs)
  • 2: material for use in attacking or defending a position ammunition for the defense lawyers

The genuine ©Merriam-Webster dictionary results are much better than the one you cited. Digitallymade (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change in identity[edit]

May I make a suggestion that ammunition be identified as follows:

  • Pre-gunpowder
javelin
arrow
sling-shot
dart
stone-shot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koakhtzvigad (talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small-caliber ammunition
Ball
AP
Tracer
Incendiary
AP incendiary/tracer
Blank/Dummy/HP test
Shotgun
Rifle grenade
  • Cannon (muzzle loader)
Cannonball
Canister
  • Large-caliber ammunition
Guns/Howitzers
HE
AP
Chemical
AP
Submunitions
Supplemental (rocket assisted/base-bleed, guidance, etc.)
  • Mortars
  • Recoilless rifles
  • Grenades
  • Rockets and missiles
  • Naval ammunition
Torpedoes
Depth charges
Naval mines
  • Sapping munitions
Land mines
Demolition charges
Demolition ammunition
  • Aviation munitions
Free-fall bombs
Guided bombs and missiles
Cluster munitions
Submunition containers
whatever else they like to drop (can't think of it now)Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

It seems to me that the images in the article are chosen to grossly over-represent US ammunition...all are of US ammunition!Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it! Being bold is what makes us different from the other guys. Marcus Qwertyus 05:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm doing enough for now Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with So fix it! ..but no problems if the main contributors object or reposition, I'm about to add a 15" shell from HMS Malaya, kindly preserved in Genoa Cathedral! JRPG (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ammunition. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit March 2017[edit]

I have responded to the request in August 2016 for a copy edit. This changed into more of a re-write of the entire article and I have made major changes to the structure and content. I have added a lot of good stuff, but also cut out a substantial amount of the text that was poorly written, un-cited and in many cases was either very specific or just not required for a wiki article of this type. I also removed some well-cited but totally irrelevant stuff regarding the environmental effects that appear to have been added without context from another source. If you do not agree with my changes, which I believe are an improvement and in accordance with wiki policies, please either respond here or on my talk page before blindly reverting to previous versions.

I will leave the copy edit request in place as the article still needs further citations and improvements from what I have written. Stingray Trainer (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the article and changed some trivial things, such as wording and sentence structure. I have removed the CE request, but if anyone feels it needs to be re-added, feel free to do so.Ice^3 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some additional copyedit. I like the general treatment, understanding that it can't cover anything and that there are many other articles with greater detail of narrower parts of the subject. I'm not great at sourcing material and did not add any citations, though. Some notes:
  • As this is a bit of a broad-concept article, should there be more linking to other articles? Glossary of firearms terms gives an idea of some possible target articles. If it gets longer, the See also list might be broken by subject instead of being purely alphabetical.
  • There is mention that anti-personnel ammunition is designed to tumble inside a flesh target. Since this article is about common use (and leans toward military use), should there be some reflection that the Hague Convention of 1899 prohibits the use in warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body? All militaries use jacketed bullets as their standard small arms ammunition.
  • I personally dislike seeing bullet erroneously used to refer to a cartridge, and reworded that.
  • The article could use some more on aircraft and especially missiles – or alternatively, those could be removed from the lead to better represent the actual content of the article.
  • The part about the US military's "green bullets" I think could be balanced with mention of depleted uranium munitions (used by the US and UK). Could also mention steel shotgun pellets required by some US states for duck hunting.
Good work! I'll try to be available for discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the part about anti-personnel ammunition using deforming or tumbling bullets. Expanding bullets are only used by some police departments (should at least only be used). I'm not so sure about them generally being designed to tumble, either, so I'm removing it until there is a source. I know that there have been claims of that, but I doubt that it is that common, the reason being that it would go against the spirit of the conventions and that I've heard (cn) that instability in the target might jeopardise stability in flight. Sjö (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope/NPOV[edit]

This article is almost entirely concerned with the use of ammunition in war. What about hunting & target shooting? I came here hoping for information about special ammunition for the latter. This is way out of my area of expertise, so I don't think I'm the right person to rebalance the article. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammunition&oldid=1216966211"