Talk:Commission internationale permanente pour l'épreuve des armes à feu portatives

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


Untitled[edit]

I have updated the name of the director of the permanent office. The former director, Mario Centi deceased in August 2003, his successor, Marc Pirlot, has been appointed last February. I have also provided links to the CIP website they have now, as well as on the current online version of the decisions texts and tables.

--Michel Deby (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIP[edit]

Discussion appended here for subsequent reference by --Michel Deby (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC) :[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your fine contributions to the C.I.P. article. I saw C.I.P. is working hard to communicate their decisions, texts and tables and other relevant information to the general public. Feel free to extend the article.

Before editing articles I advise you to read the Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Tutorial articles. You forgot a Wikipedia convention to mark in bold the names of an article's subject when they are first mentioned in the article. For example, the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom begins: Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of sixteen sovereign states, holding each crown and title equally.

It is not wrong to create or start an article with a non English article name like Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives in Wikipedia English. C.I.P. can not help their name and the main language used by them is French. An English translation of such an organization name will suffice for readers who do not speak the relevant non English language. For example, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale article is also named in French in many Wikipedia language versions.

Please do not feel bad about the conventions comment. I also get formatting and content criticism from other editors and always assume good faith and intentions to make Wikipedia better.

Francis Flinch (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis,
Glad to know you.
Don't worry, I don't feel bad at all. Despite this wiki rule and despite the close geographic distance, I strongly believe that CIP should move fast into english, also on their web site..
Thanks for your invitation to extend the article, I will certainly do. On you side, please feel free to comment.

Regards,

--Michel Deby (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis, I have seen your small change "Firearms Testing" replaced by "the Proof of Small-arms". It is correct that in Europe we use this term, for what they do in proof houses. But in USA, don't you think the term "Firearm testing" is more common ? I mean may be we could try to explain the difference more accurately. The differences between Saami and Cip also.
--Michel Deby (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michel,
My French is far from good, but I think C.I.P. itself uses a term that would translate to “portable firearms” in English. I think C.I.P. tries to express that they restrict themselves to fire arms and do not have anything to do with big stuff like artillery. If you think "Firearms Testing" will be a clearer description for US English readers we can change that by explaining ”C.I.P. is the European fire arms testing and ammunition standards organization”. Maybe we could even write ”C.I.P. is an international fire arms testing and ammunition standards organization” to give Chile more credit.
I have no further relevant extra information on the differences and relations between SAAMI and C.I.P. You might be able to add something on NATO proofing methods, since NATO might use proofing methods that deviate from C.I.P. and SAAMI.
A question regarding the real world accuracy of proofing procedures that always has puzzled me is, if one would offer almost uniform cartridges (think 6,5-284 Norma long range benchrest quality state of the art reloads) to several proof houses (I assume they will normally use their own test barrels to test them), how uniform would the actual proofing measurements results be? We can assume from 1000 yd/m match results by top competitors using this type of ammunition in fair conditions, the V0 extreme spread of their state of the art reloads must be within 0.5% to achieve sub 0.5 MOA groups at such long ranges, so their cartridges must also perform quite uniform regarding pressures.
I experienced the Wikipedia Firearms and Military history communities are blessed with some zealous “correctors / standards enforcers” and up till now they left the C.I.P. article alone, so it can not be very unclear.
Francis Flinch (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you translate with "portable firearms" ? The translation of "firearms testing" is "test des armes" but we don't use it. We say "Epreuve des armes", that is "arms proofing". But they have translated themselves their name into "Permanent International Commission for Firearms Testing", it is not my own translation. It is indicated this way in a document reporting a hearing they had recently before the European commission. Read [1]. That is the exact phrasing that I used in the header the day before. I have been always careful with it because the official name is still in french. But when we see that before the European Commissioners Marc Pirlot expressed himself in this way, I think we can (should) express it here the same way. It does also mean that "Firearm testing" may become an official wording in Europe too. I just see, going though this document, that it provides a more accurate wording of M. Pirlot address. I was also a bit annoyed with that, I'll make the change just after this. If you don't mind I will revert the header also to "Permanent International Commission for Firearms Testing". Concerning the calibers, yes, in this way they tries to express that they restrict themselves to fire arms having nothing to do with artillery. In fact, they restrict themselves very accurately to the definition they give of a Small arm : "A portable weapon or device capable of igniting an explosive or pyrotechnic charge designed to shoot, propel, or impart movement to projectile, gaseous particles, liquids, or solids or merely to produce a detonation." I plan to put it (nearly) on top of the "Small arm" page, saying that this is the official point of view in the CIP member states (but one thing at a time ;-)). The only clue in this definition is the word "portable". Practically, the CIP decision texts and tables include all calibers up to .50 included. That is rougly 400 calibers (another job I plan is to check all the calibers described in wiki, uhh.. see if all is compatible with the CIP view..). Otherwise, you are right, because of Chile we must avoid associating CIP with Europe, despite the fact that most of the members states are European. But not all European Communities countries are in and they will probably never be in. What happens is, firstly : a convergence Saami-CIP, we see it every year, progress is being made. Secondly they are moving toward a European directive that will enforce CIP rules further to the 27 member states of the European Union. But in the meantime, it is as it is. Regarding the "ammunition standard organization" idea, it is wrong to think so. There are no standard ammunitions, each manufacturers remain free to create what they want. What happens is that when a manufacturer (European or US or whatever) wants to put an arm and its corresponding ammo on the market (in one or all of the member states), they need approval from CIP, essentially the maximum pressure the commercial ammo is supposed to reach (the proofing ammo is automatically deducted, it is 25% higher as you mentioned it correctly). Then the ammo testing is enforced at this pressure (plus the drawing). It's obvious that an ammo manufacturer (not necessarily the arm's manufacturer) needs the drawings.. this is also a way to make sure that the ammo are manufactured according to the original designer's standard verifiable by the proof houses against an official drawing "stored somewhere" if we can say it so. But CIP do not "enforce a standard" in the sense that, there is no obligation for the arms designer/producer to maintain a caliber and/or ammo characteristics. He can withdraw it from commerce, change something, but each time the max pressure + drawing must be approved by CIP and included in the DTT (Decision Texts and Tables). By the way, have you looked at this [2] ? It is a bit heavy to download but worth it if you want to understand better. This includes all the ammo pressures and drawing. Yes I have also in the pipe something to say about NATO proofing, I have everything (that can be disclosed) here behind me although I do not intend to say much about it, this is military material. It will also depends on what I will find on their own website and what they will say at the nato center here but it is not my priority to disturb them with that.


To your question "how uniform would the actual proofing measurements results be", please note, as I just explained in the article, that the tests made in the CIP accredited proof houses are only tests in relation with the user's safety. That is the only interest from a public authority point of view (the members of CIP are "states"). It is much like a car : the public authority does not care much about the engine power or maximum speed (although it is a safety issue..). But they care if the tires are compliant with some rules. They care of the headlights, etc. So here, if the bullet falls down one feet beyond the mouth, it is not their problem :-)


It makes the thing a bit less complicated because the authorities just need to check pressure, just to avoid excessive stress to the barrel in the chamber area, essentially. We do it with averaging. Typically they fire 20 cartridges out of the same box, take the mean + standard deviation and cross check with the data in the tables that are in this big file on their site I showed you. My business is to provide them the electronics and software to do it.
They do regularly inter-laboratories testings with the same lot of ammunitions. They try to synchronise the tests the same day (atmospheric pressure, if not too far from each other), to the same temperature (20°C in oven) and we obtain very similar results. If not, it is generally more a problem with one of the elements in the measuring chain than anything else.
Now, as I briefly explained also in the article, in the near future there will be also a compulsory testing of some shotshell ammo, those with steel balls because steel wear barrels. But again, what will come out will be a "maximum velocity", likely a bit higher than the one expected by the customer. In fact we do already velocity measurements and they are quite accurate too. Not as much as the pressure but still it gives a very good figure, around +/-5%. For the pressure we are at +/-1% roughly and the barrels, they are all made the same way, proof barrels 700mm long, the transducer position is well defined, generally 25mm off the breech, etc. With respect to the velocity measuring issue, I am working on a new solution for the velocity barriers, not only to increase the accuracy but to built better trust about this accuracy.


In the articles I write , please do not hesitate to correct my English and give your comments, I am far from knowing everything especially when it comes from the US.
--Michel Deby (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michel,

Sorry if my edits annoyed you in any way. I have downloaded the C.I.P. CD-ROM edition 2007 and have seen C.I.P. is constantly busy changing decisions. Especially the rather spectacular correction of the Pmax of the .338 Lapua Magnum compared to the C.I.P. CD-ROM edition 2003 caught my attention. I edited the Wikipedia article accordingly. Maybe you could point out that C.I.P. decisions can be left unchanged for decades, but that C.I.P. decisions can also be revised with quite profound consequences.

On the .338 Lapua Magnum I think C.I.P. decided wise, since some US gunsmiths are (re)chambering dimensionally marginal actions for those big cartridges, but they do not have to proof those rifles at 1.25 * Pmax before handing them over to their (courageous) customers. The fact that the .300 Lapua Magnum Pmax was left unchanged by C.I.P. is somewhat strange, since it shares its case with the commercially available .338 Lapua Magnum.

Though I am not a native English speaker, I have done some correction work on the C.I.P. article, that in my opinion is becoming quite good. I think “C.I.P. approve manufacturer's data such as ammunition and chamber dimension specifications, maximum allowed chamber pressures, calibre nomenclature, etc. so that they have undisputable legal status in C.I.P. member states.” can be interpreted wrong. I assume you want to say some thing like “C.I.P. (independently) assesses, approves and publicizes manufacturer’s data proposals such as ammunition and chamber dimension specifications, maximum allowed chamber pressures, calibre nomenclature, etc. so that they have undisputable legal status in C.I.P. member states.” It must become clear how the (power) relation(ship) between C.I.P. and manufacturer’s is. Maybe you could rephrase that.

I loved your information on how accurate pressure proof testing itself is. It must be not easy to achieve a +/– 1% pressure measurement accuracy for those short time high pressure events. The +/- 5% deviations for near muzzle velocity measurements you mentioned have to be reduced to satisfy the needs of hunting and most certainly match ammunition users. At http://www.kurzzeit.com/ you can read about bullet velocity measuring systems that claim to be within +/- 1% for a normal system to a measurement resolution of 0,05 m/s at a speed of 1000 m/s for the professional system. I can not judge if that is sales pitch or ≈ 0,1% accuracy is a realistic real life performance level for those kind of measurements.

Regarding your intention to check Wikipedia cartridge nomenclature against C.I.P. nomenclature I predict a vigorous Wikipedia discussion if you start to edit articles. I once dropped in some ideas on that on the Wikipedia Firearms Project discussion page, explaining that C.I.P. decisions have undisputable legal status in some countries and was amazed by the discussion it kindled. Someone even claimed there is a Wikipedia cartridge nomenclature standard in existence. When asked where I could read that, the Wikipedian who made this claim never answered my question. I have often observed that “European metric cartridges” are renamed to AxBmm OTHER STUFF format. Maybe the Infobox would be a nice place to mention the official C.I.P. and other nomenclature without hurting personal/regional preferences to much.

Francis Flinch (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francis, no problem with the edits. I just have one comment with the (in some countries for environmental reasons banned) More accurately, the lead pellets are not banned but there are very sophisticated rules saying for instance that they cannot be used straight above a pond for instance ! Very tricky. I'll try to reformulate right after this. Concerning the "C.I.P. (independently) assesses, approves and publicizes manufacturer’s data proposals " I would even remove the () for the "independently" and not saying that these are proposals. I think it is better to say that this is "user's safety" related. I have the feeling people think too much CIP is interfering with "quality" (ie the "functional characteristics" of the cartridges) No. And this is very important to let the people become aware of the difference between "user's security" and "product characteristics". As long as the user's safety is ensured it is ok. So I would say here "C.I.P. independently approves and publicizes manufacturer’s data as long as the user's safety is guaranteed" or something like that. May be also, what we could do is too describe these things in a special paragraph titled "CIP User's safety point of view". I think you are in a better position than me to phrase it in the appropriate words. With respect to the "(power) relation(ship) between C.I.P. and manufacturer’s" it is an interesting question. What I will do just after this is to add an explanation on how it work internally, in a few sentences. The +/-5% velocity deviation is a safe side figure. As I said, there are no means now to calibrate the optical velocity barriers. The other principles it's even worse. So progress has still to be made but it is not the subject in wiki to discuss the R&D behind the scene. I know personally Werner Mehl, I met him last year at IWA. I think, one of the things to do, is to gather our data and provide a list of companies making ballistics. I can talk a bit about every of them in Europe and point to their web site. If you don't mind, I'll let you (or others) describe mine, I'm not in the position to do it. So about Werner's products, these are very high end equipments used in very well equipped R&D and military labs with budgets in accordance. For the proof houses and the cartridge manufacturers we are in the middle range. For example the Oehler Research barriers were in this category. Unfortunately, if I am right, they are not in the business anymore. We have a few Oehler research barriers here around, they were imported by my predecessor in fact. Drello are in this mid category too, at least their LS-11. On the low end, there are the chronographs stuff we see a lot in USA. Do you agree with this view ? It may be part of the future description. For the cartridge nomenclature checking, it is good to know there are some difficulties.. To come with this "world view" of course there is a need to cope with the susceptibility of people. What I thing, roughly, if we come to start altering these things, is always to put 2 columns in the info boxes: one SAAMI column and one CIP column (which would contain only pressure anyway). Then, concerning the units, I have seen that in wiki, the conversion is made automatically. So, for this pressure, in the SAAMI column we put it in "PSI (bar)" and in the CIP column, we put it in "bar (PSI)". And it doesn't matter if there is a difference in the values, the aim is just different : function versus safety. This is this message we need to put forward. For that, an idea I have is to create an article, plus maybe some sub-articles, coming up with the SAAMI-CIP matching. Just phrased this way so that we can point to it from anywhere. There maybe, it would be a convenient place to put a comparative table, plus some text around. Now, if other contributors reading this have ideas, please provide your inputs too. --Michel Deby (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Michel
The lead pellets laws and rules are indeed a complex subject. In Germany (hunting laws are rather decentralized there) or the Netherlands virtually all hunters and sport shooters heave discarded their “lead pellets filled shotshell”. The laws there are so complex people do not want to get into trouble for firing/possession at the wrong place of those kind of shells.
The idea to add some external references to producers of relevant measuring pressure and velocity measuring hardware/software is fine. Maybe it can better be added in the proof test article. We have to avoid being accused of adding advertisements, so adding links to those websites is safest. By the way Oehler still seems to be active their website http://www.oehler-research.com/ is copyrighted 2008.
The automatic SI - Imperial units conversion in the Cartridge Infobox seems to work. I did not discover significant conversion errors up to now. Maybe you know the paper already, but if you want to read something on Correlating PSI and CUP look at this US article. http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf.
I edited the second paragraph and hope it emphasises C.I.P.’s core business is ensuring firearms users safety.
Is this clearer or is my impression that C.I.P. sometimes operates by way of subcommittees that prepare things to be finally democratically decided at plenary sessions wrong?
Relations between C.I.P. and manufacturers == The C.I.P. is an organisation whose members are state authorities but the operations of C.I.P. and its decisions are fully delegated to professional people active in the firearms industry. This includes all the proof houses directors and their collaborators, ammunitions manufacturers, machines manufacturers, gunsmiths, ballistic specialists and so on. Commissions (task forces) exist or are created each time a subject needs to be discussed. The commissions meet as often as considered necessary in various places to work on the subject they have been assigned to. After that, the Plenary Sessions vote on submitted Commissions proposals, resulting in decisions and publish them. So that the decisions taken by C.I.P., although enforced by law after publication, are the result of a cautious consensus between sensible and knowledgeable people in this field.
Are measurements to verify that chamber/ammunition dimensions are compliant to the relevant C.I.P. decisions not also part of the proofing process? I can imagine a proof house checks the headspace/chamber with go and no go gauges. If so that should be mentioned at the third paragraph that currently mentions pressure testing.
Francis Flinch (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Francis. I am not sure Oehler Research is still active. My information is that his boss has retired. Except for the copyright, this web site hasn't changed since 12 years. Thank-you for the PSI-CUP correlation although it is a bit behind us now. I don't know the situation in US but in Europe, almost everybody has switched to piezo. At least all those I know. I think, the biggest issue is the transducer position between Saami-Cip. I'm not sure we need to talk about that here, it is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. You say "Is this clearer or is my impression that C.I.P. sometimes operates by way of subcommittees that prepare things to be finally democratically decided at plenary sessions wrong?" I don't understand your question but the sentence "The commissions meet as often as considered necessary in various places to work on the subject they have been assigned to. After that, the Plenary Sessions vote on submitted Commissions proposals, resulting in decisions and publish them." is correct. To your question "Are measurements to verify that chamber/ammunition dimensions..are..part of the proofing process" The proof-houses have 2 main activities: 1: they proof firearms. 2: they approve ammunitions. The firearms proofing is made either on the finished arm or on the barrel before assembly (if chamber part of the barrel). For doing this, they manufacture special ammo, we call them "proofing ammo" (cartouches d'épreuve). The trick in Liege is that the proof-house is 1.8 miles away from the main FN manufacturing facility. So the barrels come to the proof-house to be proofed then they go back to the factory for final assembly. Now the second task in the proof house, they check at regular interval the ammunitions they receive from the manufacturers. The control of the ammo includes measuring its main dimensions. Then they are fired, 20 rounds. Only the pressure is looked at, it must be below the limit (roughly speaking). Then they also look if the indications on the box match what's inside, and they look if the box is stamped with the lot number. In fact, the ammo manufacturers are obliged to control themselves and keep a record of their "C.I.P. firings". But you know, there is nothing special in there, this is just sensible safety/quality control just like in any other industry. I would even say that, knowing also quite well some manufacturing facilities, among the biggest in Europe, if the ammunitions are made with decent quality level, they all pass without any problem and you know, I am always surprised to see how in the US they are looking at this so badly. Would you be happy to have the barrel blowing in your face ? They have samples here, it looks like banana skins ! Your question "checks the headspace/chamber with go and no go gauges" I have never seen them doing it. In fact the go-no is the test barrel itself ! They have barrels for virtually all calibers currently circulating on the market (roughly 200 out of the 400). And here again.. don't care !! Of course it has to fit properly in terms of diameter that is why they measure the diameter with a simple caliper but it is not a real issue as long as it fits "decently" into the chamber. Sometimes even, the 20 cartridges out of the box are all badly jamming into the chamber. What they do in this case, they take a screw driver, patiently extracting the cartridges after each firing, they shout loudly "this is real shit !" but if the pressure is ok, then it's ok :-) Now, the headspace, think in terms of user's safety again. If the ammo is entering too deeply in the chamber it may not fire. So don't care. If it is too long, it may not lock. Don't care either ! You see the stance ? Always try to thing "user's safety", not "functional quality". But, if we talk about NATO, this is another view. More precisely, on top of "safety" they add "functional quality". It means that they care not only about soldiers safety but they care also about firearms/ammunitions quality ! There NATO is checking everything ! Including headspace and much more. What they do, when they receive ammo from the manufacturers they make a complete acceptance protocol. That includes dimensional checking, metal properties, propellant characteristics, primer sensitivity, case pressure, port pressure, compared to reference lots, at various temperatures from polar to desert conditions, looking at velocities at 10m (32 ft) and 25 m (82 ft), action time, barrel time, time to takeoff, time to peak, energy, and so on. There, it is a comprehensive "quality" control also in terms of performances. This is done not far from here also, in the Rocourt Nato test center. But now, here for this CIP text, please refine it with your own words as you understand it, I think it is better. I'm not necessarily realizing the difficulties.--Michel Deby (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michel,
Regarding my question/sentence change proposal, that is probably just caused by a bit of professional deformation. Since you have no objection, I changed the text accordingly.
I understood from your text C.I.P. concentrates on 1 - proofing barrels/finish firearms, 2 – ammunition approval, 3 - is not interested in any further aspects of the correct functioning of firearms beyond that they can withstand the required C.I.P. proof test pressure level and 4 - as long as C.I.P. proof houses can more or less easy feed and extract the cartridges to do their proofing job it is ok by them. I highlighted the 3 and 4 part in the article for readers who are not in the C.I.P. loop.
I assume an end user can easily see/check by means of the proof marks if only the barrel or all relevant highly stressed parts (barrel, chamber and locking mechanism in the article) were tested in the proof house? If not, cautious end users might desire to voluntarily have the assembled firearm reproofed to obtain peace of mind he/she has done his/her part to avoid/preclude catastrophic accidents.
I can not speak for other people, but I think no sensible person can oppose what C.I.P. does with businesslike arguments, since an old engineering proverb teaches that “after fixed, comes loose”.
Francis Flinch (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headspacing / Ammo fit[edit]

Re the above comments, note that incorrect headspacing is potentially dangerous. This includes both cartridges too small for the chamber as well as cartridges too long. Something that "just barely fits" and you have to force the bolt close typically has a much higher peak pressure than a properly fitting cartridges, so yes, safety is an aspect of both the "go" and the "no-go" gauges. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AliveFreeHappy. We are not familiar with "bolt forcing";-) When I say "decently" I do not mean it can shake in the chamber ! Caliper measuring is made to 0.05mm accuracy. On the universal receivers, the breech is 0.05mm off the barrel. So a long headspace avoid locking, on the (good) universal receivers there is no way to force the bolt, it does not engage, simply. In this case the ammunitions are not approved which is essential. A receiver which could force the bolt would result in an increased pressure as you mention and the cartridges would also be rejected --Michel Deby (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References firings added + more accurate explanations[edit]

With respect to the Headspace issue, I confirm that neither the headspace nor the diameter are part of the checking performed by the proof houses, at least in Liège. It happens that since more than 15 years, the people *never* encountered the case of a cartridge whose headspace was wrong ! Since it seems a concern however, I have made a small paragraph in the article repeating the essentials of my statement dated 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC). I have refined also the 1st paragraph, please check my spelling if needed. Now I wonder if the paragraph --Precepts and aims-- is not a bit of a repetition. Maybe we could merge both paragraphs into one, taking fom the second what is not yet said in the first ? I have also updated the part related to velocity checking of steel pellet ammos since it turns out that it is already in the decision texts although, in effect, the proof-houses have not yet all the means to perform it in good conditions. I did put the velocity values in m/s (I have seen that the unit can be automatically changed into ft/sec but I don't remember where). Then, I have more accurately described the conflicting issues SAAMI-CIP, that essentially relate to pressure measurements, not much about dimensions. Finally I added a paragraph presenting the "reference cartridges system" that can be seen as a solution. --Michel Deby (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the maximum pressure for each cartridge type determined?[edit]

How does the CIP decide what the maximum pressure for each calibre should be? I am asking because the maximum pressure for one round, the 7x57 Mauser, is way lower than what was used in the past for that exact round. Makes no sense for new firearms ... political reasons? So Is there a method to what the maximum pressure should be at? Or do they just eyeball it as they deem fit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.79.94 (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is mainly a design choice. Historically the strength of the locking mechanism was a limiting factor. The design and strength of the cartridge case is also a limiting factor. Designers strive to avoid pressure induced plastic deformation of the employed chambers and cases. --Francis Flinch (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that doesn't seem true - because the maximum isn't set by the designer of the round but the CPI. And historically, the round in question was used with much more pressure than what the CPI now says should be the maximum, so that's not an argument at all! The chambers and cases are tough enough to withstand much more pressure than CPI says should be maximum, as historically proven. So why isn't the decided maximum higher? Who makes these decisions and based on which facts, which method, which algorithm?
From the article: The C.I.P. is an organisation whose members are state authorities but the operations of C.I.P. and its decisions are fully delegated to professional people active in the firearms industry. This includes all the proof house directors and their collaborators, ammunition manufacturers, machine manufacturers, gunsmiths, ballistic specialists and so on. Two sub-commissions exist within the commission itself. The first technical sub-commission deals with the definition of measuring methods and determine the acceptable values while the second regulatory sub-commission defines and express the conditions for new uniform rules. Working parties within these sub-commissions are also created each time a subject needs to be discussed and experts on the subject are invited to participate in relevant meetings. They meet as often as considered necessary at various places to work on the subject they have been assigned to and report to their sub-commissions. After that, the C.I.P. votes in Plenary Sessions on submitted sub-commission proposals, resulting in decisions and publish them. This implies that all decisions made by C.I.P., although enforced by law after publication, are the result of a cautious consensus between sensible and knowledgeable people in this field. Keep in mind C.I.P. is mainly consumer safety orientated, so Pmax levels can be changed and are changed. For example C.I.P. decided to lower the Pmax for the .338 Lapua Magnum by 50.00 MPa (7,252 psi) in the 2000s. The 7×57mm Mauser has a 390.00 MPa (56,565 psi) Pmax piezo pressure. This C.I.P. Pmax is quite normal for German cartridge designs of its era like the 7.65×53mm Argentine and 7.92×57mm Mauser.
Ah, so it is the first technical sub-comission, thank you. And they have no method but just eyeball it as they see fit. Thank you!188.194.79.94 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Upgrade[edit]

Hi Francis if you read me ? I have made some little adjustments in the text in preparation of a major translation of this article (French, German and Russian) Please don't hesitate to give your comments. Hope to read you again after these few years. In the meantime I have been appointed member of the Belgian delegation to the C.I.P. So just hope that the inside view I have now will contribute to an even better quality :-) Regards, --M. Deby (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Just to show up how it works to my colleague Lita who will compose the article in other languages.M. Deby (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives. 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) 17:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and typography of the name[edit]

Hello, the name of the organisation should be: Commission internationale permanente pour l’épreuve des armes à feu portatives, with an acute accent on the first ‘e’ of épreuve and without capital letters all over the place (French typography). It should be so in the title of the page too. 2A01:E34:ED97:85D0:75DF:CC4A:1D85:C7E3 (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joutsen Ranskasta: Done. --Thibaut (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commission_internationale_permanente_pour_l%27épreuve_des_armes_à_feu_portatives&oldid=1201066830"