This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland 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.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
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:
Could it be possible to verify the type of shells portrayed with the gun just to ensure they are not
mortar shells and a cannon shell.Noseball (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the shells definitely ARE mortar shells and a cannon shell. The 55 S 55 is muzzle loaded and both types of ammunition have a straight cylindrical hind section that goes into the barrel; they are also not easy to stand on their tails. My recollection is that the "practice barrel" was in a smaller caliber than 7.62x53R (the Finnish version of the Russian 7.62x54R). The practice round was a .30 tracer with similar ballistics to the recoilless round (i.e., subsonic), so the full-size cartridge case would have way too much powder room.It may have been 7.62x39, but even 7.62 Tokarev (similar to 7.63x25 Mauser; both are necked pistol rounds) is possible. --Death Bredon (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
