Talk:5.8×42mm

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Chinese

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

Energy conversion disparity

On the page about 5.56x45, the cartridge's muzzle velocity is said to be 1,766 joules and 1,303 ft. lbs. On the page about 5.8x42, the cartridge's muzzle velocity is said to be 1,800 joules and 1,300 ft. lbs.

I realize that there are differences in standards, but this is pretty blatant. If someone can find another source for the muzzle energy on 5.8x42, that would be wonderful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.181.251 (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link

The first link at the bottom of the page appears to be dead. Nfsjunkie91 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Arthurrh 00:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casing Material

"In particular, the shell casing is made of iron, which is cheaper than brass."

Surely, this should read "steel"?! Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any sources, but logically it must be so, so I've gone ahead and changed it. Heavenlyblue (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal Ballistic

At the end of the article, it says : " However, testing of the previous DBP87/95 5.8mm rounds showed that they were less likely to cause serious wounds. The issue was addressed with the new DBP10 round.[7]"

The REF "7" refers to this webpage http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/20120711.aspx

however that webpage says the opposite: "Testing showed that the new 5.8mm round was less likely to cause serious wounds. This issue has not been addressed with the new DBP10 round."

has NOT been addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmaldia (talk • contribs) 14:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entire article needs re-write

Someone who actually speaks English needs to re-write this. It is unreadable in its current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.119.72 (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 5.8×42mm DBP87. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416063442/http://www.tacticalgunfan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=514&Itemid=1 to http://www.tacticalgunfan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=514&Itemid=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 5.8×42mm DBP87. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130505221124/http://www.tacticalgunfan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=517&Itemid=70 to http://www.tacticalgunfan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=517&Itemid=70

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing is bogus

"...utilizes a longer streamlined bullet with a heavy steel core for increased range and penetration."

Steel is less dense than either lead or copper, the other materials the bullet would be made of, so a steel core would decrease range and possibly penetration and the core should be described as "light". Maybe the writer confused steel with tungsten? Or maybe replace 'heavy' with 'hardened' if it is using hardened steel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 5.8×42mm DBP87. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]