Talk:16-inch/50-caliber Mark 7 gun

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

They're selling these old barrels[edit]

It appears the USN wants to dispose of the replacement barrels. Is that something to discuss in the article?

http://www.govliquidation.com/­auction/view?auctionId=4229536

NOTE!:"%C2%AD" will appear in the URL when you click the link! You must delete that in order to go to the page I wanted to link to! 173.78.130.181 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

twist[edit]

1 in 25 what... feet, inches??? what was a typical muzzle velocity? --Kvuo 04:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rifling Twist is normally given at a ratio without further referrence. In most cases the measurement is in inches. Tirronan 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Weapons & Warfare (Phoebus Publishing, 1978), Vol 14, "Iowa", p1461, has propelling charge 297kg, MV 762m/s, shell 1225kg, range 38720m @45°. Trekphiler 09:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The twist question seems unresolved. Is it 1 in 25 feet or 1 in 25 calibers? I doubt it's 1 in 25 inches. Also, why are Lands shown as N/A? Is this information not available? Unknowntouncertain (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Range[edit]

I notice that nowhere in this article is the range of this gun mentioned. What is it? Alex.tan 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

range 38720m @45°. -- dude mentioned right above --Kvuo 14:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

best, huh?[edit]

Notice anything special about this sentence: "It is often considered to be the best battleship gun ever designed, due to its power and efficiency." Yep, it contains "it is often considered" without any reference.

Should either be sourced or deleted. 85.227.226.168 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Ownership?[edit]

There isn't anything in the article about the legality of owning one of these. Is it? Is there a specific law against it? 76.28.138.83 (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Department of Defense is required to demilitarize all artillery before it can be transferred from the military, so you can't legally acquire one of these. TomTheHand (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You CAN legally acquire one. In demil condition, where the breach is cut away and the barrel cut in no longer than 8 foot long lengths. The URL listed in the "they're selling these" has the demil instructions.76.98.121.53 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16"/50 caliber = incompatible; what's with the 50 cal?[edit]

The illustration of the battleship's heavy gun turret and feeding system identifies it (accurately) as a 16" gun. How did "50 caliber" get introduced into the title?

Caliber is a measure of muzzle bore and refers to hundredths of an inch, and is generally represented with a decimal point. ".50 caliber" represents one half inch, and is the caliber of heavy machine guns and extreme sniper rifles. Still, .50 cal. is 1/32 the size of the battleship's big guns.

71.234.203.245 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)michael.powers (at gmail dot youknow)[reply]

In artillery, the length of the gun's barrel is often specified in the number of calibers long the barrel is. In the case of the 16"/50 caliber gun, the barrel is 16 × 50 = 800 inches (66 ft 8 in) long. See our article on caliber, specifically the section titled Caliber as a measure of length. TomTheHand (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thank you. 71.234.203.245 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)michael.powers[reply]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:A0A:4F11:C0B9:A411:25C:262C (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon construction[edit]

Israel Walker (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is nearly a word for word copy of this website: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm who's plagiarizing who?

Infobox?[edit]

This article could use {{Infobox Weapon}} as shown by another naval rifle: BL 13.5 inch Mk V naval gun -MBK004 05:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that absence surprised me. I think I could could go apply it now... About four months late. But yeah, it's definitely worth adding. This only leaves the question of what image should be used as the main caption. I think that the photo of the USS Iowa firing a broadside would be most appropriate. Nottheking (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________

16"/50 Claims[edit]

The assertion that the 16"/50 had nearly equal penetrating power as the Japanese 18.1" is preposterous.

The site that makes the claim also shows data tables on that website that directly contradicts that claim.

For instance: According to that site, the 16" will penetrate 12.97" of side armor at 35000 yrds, while the Japanese 18.1" is penetrating 16.38" of side armor(32000 yrds). In what universe does a difference of 3.48" in penetration, nearly a quarter less penetration ability, constitute "nearly equal penetrating power" ?


70.50.186.175 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sideways movement[edit]

Does anyone find it curious that the second reference apparently states battleships are not moved sideways by the thrust of the guns firing, yet the photo of USS Iowa shows at least the bow portion has abruptly moved sideways as the guns fire?--Rwberndt (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not movement, that's a shock-wave. 173.78.130.181 (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do these guns operate in a universe where Newtonian mechanics don't apply? The ship may not move much, but that's not the same as saying it doesn't move at all. Martinb9999 (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Newtonian terms, the impulse, m*v, mass times speed (or F*t, force times time which is the same thing), must be equal in size and opposite for the guns and the projectiles. It applies to rifle bullets too, and it explains why the energy goes with the bullet and not against the shoulder. Because E=m*v^2/2 and the fast bullet gets most of the energy. However the impulse is the same magnitude, only opposite. Now let me see. 9 guns shooting 1,000kg shells at 820m/s against the 50,000 tons of ship holding the turrets. m*v must be equal. say 10 tons by 700m/s makes 7,000 tons*m/s. Divide that by 50,000 tons and you get.. 7/50=0.14 (m/s).. that's pretty notable. Think the turrets are on top of the ship. I'm betting on 0.3 m/s at the deck level. Yes that's correct. A broadside salvo sets the gun deck moving in the opposite direction at 0.3m/s, that's about 0.6 knots. There is no way you can't feel the ship moving under your feet. That I suppose is why they fire salvos. Because recoil is so strong, that if they were firing at random, each cannon fired would disturb the aiming of the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.181.205 (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im correcting the text to the effect that apparently that kind of movement was no big deal. I agree that you can't fool the laws of physics. --BjKa (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there should also be some increased rolling, as I guess the guns must have been well above the center of gravity. Of course the firing computer might have been programmed to use the gunfire for decreasing any previous roll. --BjKa (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the text to reflect the fact that a 60,000 ton ship doesn't move sideways at all when its guns are fired, any more than firing a handgun knocks a grown man backwards. Having been a crew member of USS Missouri (BB-63) for 3 years during its most recent period of commissioning and the leader of the bridge watch team during gun quarters, I can state factually from first-hand experience that the ship does not move sideways nor roll in reaction to firing of the guns. For a mathematical proof of why this is so, see http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm. The shock wave on the water's surface is from the muzzle blast of the guns, not ship movement. By the way, it is also incorrect that the guns were only fired in salvos... they were fully capable of being fired individually, and often were. The firing of one gun did not affect the train or the elevation of the other guns. Bear in mind that the guns were equipped with counter-recoil systems that absorbed most of the firing force. 70.116.145.22 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metric caliber?[edit]

All the sources I've seen on these guns (if I recall also in the military when I served on the USS Wisconsin) refer to these guns as 406 mm. In fact, the gun specification in the box also gives this measurement. However, most of the time this article and at least the ones on the Wisconsin and Missouri give the caliber as 410mm. Either one or the other should be corrected, but I don't have hard sources to support either. Scyg (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012-06-06 8:10 GMT It's unlikely by the time they designed these ships they thought of using metric sizes. 16" is 16*25.4mm,=406.4mm. I go for the mistake of calculating in cm, and rounding up. 40.6cm rounded up is 41cm=410mm. If I could get a ruler onto them, I would know for sure. But.. there may be more than just one 16" caliber. In fact, bore diameter for a rifled barrel is somewhat conflicting. Because any rifle needs to have the rifle diameter smaller than the bullet. So what are we talking about, the diameter of the bore, the diameter of the bullet, the diameter of the shell, or the diameter of the shell drives ? A plumb bullet will need to be larger than the diameter of the rifles, so the rifles bite into it and drive it. A shell, cannot be larger, because a shell is a massive alloyed steel beast designed to penetrate armor before it explodes. A shell must have driving rings, because it's not soft. That makes me think it is right to gage the diameter of a pistol bullet before it enters the chamber and gets squeezed by the rifles, but it is right to gage Naval shells in their right size when they exit the gun barrel, without counting their driving rings, and that most likely is their rifle diameter. We have 7.63 caliber pistols here, and 7.62 AK-47's. I really don't understand the 0,01 mm difference ! Technically, I do understand you can't shoot one with the wrong gun. But why ?? There is so much incompatibility. I expect the 16" guns of the Iowa class are incompatible with anything. Well, they should not be compatible. If one Iowa class battleships gets hijacked by the enemy, why should the enemy be able to use it. It is right the Iowa class has a bore diameter of it's own, and we don't know it, and it's nowhere standard. If it has one of it's own, if it has one it's right that it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.181.205 (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzle Energy?[edit]

So, for comedy's sake, I entered the specs for the 2700 pound projectile into a ballistics calculator to get Muzzle Energy at https://billstclair.com/energy.html and got the following:

Muzzle Energy: 303,621,552 foot pounds

(assumed bullet weight of 18,900,000 grains and a muzzle velocity of 2690 fps with a 16 inch diameter)

Was wondering if this might be worth adding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.173.189 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong length given[edit]

The length from breachface to end is 816 inches (68 ft); not 66 as given here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:16-inch/50-caliber_Mark_7_gun&oldid=1195698335"