Talk:9x19mm Parabellum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9x19mm Parabellum article.
Article policies
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Meaning of parabellum

'parabellum' means 'for war' not 'prepare for war'; Si vis Pacem, Para bellum is the literal translation for if you want peace, prepare for war. Just wanted to clear that up; I edited it, but some one changed it back.

--ThegunsofNevada 18:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong. Para is the singular imperative form of the verb "Paro" = prepare. "Si" = "if", "vis" = 2nd person singular of "volo" = desire, "bellum" = accusative case of "Bellum" = "war". --Eyrian 11:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we could use some information about clip capacities. ~Anonymous

  • First, it's magazine, not clip. Second, capacity varies from gun to gun and locality to locality due to laws and regulations. Typically most 9mm hanguns have higer capacities than those that fire larger calibres (for obvious reasons), but this is not really a function of the calibre so much as the design of the individual gun.


[edit] Performance

The anecdotal reports about FMJ rounds are sadly not very far from the thruth at all. Until recently the German police had to use them. German gun magazines regulary reported about overpenetration, criminals getting lethal wounds but still being able to fight back or flee(and die)... Contact the leading German gun magazine or ask for information in the forums. http://www.visier.de/service_impressum.html Markus Becker02 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Under performance most other articles list data on velocity, bullet weight, and muzzle energy. That seems missing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.7.251.248 (talk) 06:51, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Renaming

The page needs renaming. It's officially 9mmPara; only in U.S. is "9mm Luger" common. Trekphiler 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur... As per the general consensus from the team at Wikiproject: Military History, the name really should be 9mm Parabellum, or maybe 9x19 Parabellum, with a redirect from 9mm Luger, 9mm NATO, and 9x19 as necessary. --Commander Zulu 08:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. 9 mm Luger is a pretty archaic and inaccurate description. Geoff B 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought the the "Luger" bit was weird, but it didn't bother me enough to bring it up. Now that it has been though, I'd vote for 9 mm Parabellum. Sounds more correct to me. -Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this current scheme is very awkward, I've never seen or heard of it in my contact with firearms. I will rename it to 9x19mm Parabellum. Koalorka (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the term "9x19mm Parabellum" is incorrect and combines two names. 9x19mm is the technically correct metric designation, but 9mm Luger, 9mm NATO, and 9mm Parabellum are also correct names. I corrected the text and infobox, but the article title should also be corrected. I suggest "9x19mm Cartridge" and leave it at that as long as the other names redirect to the page. The other names are covered in the body.--Ana Nim (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please try to be a little more worldly. Just because you are unfamiliar with this format, which in fact, is the original German name later proliferated through NATO and the cartridge's popularity, does not mean it's incorrect. Most every reference source I use lists the cartridge in a variety of ways, using either a combination of 9 mm, 9x19mm or Parabellum, most likely out of convenience. The full and logical name is of course 9x19mm Parabellum, but the article does list alternate naming conventions and common use names for the cartridge so no information is omitted. Koalorka (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with being "worldly"--whatever that non-sequitur means. Cartridge names can be either historically or technically accurate. It is historically inaccurate to call the cartridge "9x19mm Parabellum" and I challenge you to cite to an authoritative source showing that the name is historically accurate. I also see nothing in the WP:MILHIST naming conventions (as you wrote on my talk page) that establishes that "9x19mm Parabellum" is the correct name. Please be more specific, if you can. It seems that you have unilaterally adopted this name and are refusing to cite any authority for it. If there is any valid authority, please cite to it.--Ana Nim (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not forget the non-breaking space space between '9' and 'mm' (9 mm), as required by ISO and the Wikipedia Manual of Style. 193.202.109.254 (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good observation. When referring to the diameter alone, the space should be provided, i.e. 7.62 mm, 9 mm etc. Koalorka (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable weapons

This needs to be expanded or deleted.What about the Browning Hi-Power, H&K MP5, Uzi, *insert everyone's favourite 9mm firearm here*. Geoff B 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The natural question would be... what constitutes "notable". Can't have everyone just adding their favorite 9. Should be firearms that are famous for BEING 9 mm. The Beretta 92 qualifies I think. Certainly the Luger. But there are so many other 9 mm pistols that the list could get quite long. I'd say just delete that section. The 9 mm is sort of ubiquitous anyway. -Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably beating a dead horse here but individual firearms articles will indicate what they're chambered for. --Philip Laurence (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flat Trajectory?

This article claims that "The 9 mm Luger cartridge combines a flat trajectory with moderate recoil," although it is physically impossible for any object to have a perfectly flat trajectory. This seems to be misinformation, unless it is intended to mean "comparatively flat." Could anyone clarify the meaning of this phrase? The implication that the 9mm round defies gravity is unacceptable. MatthewLiberal 15:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

'Comparatively flat' is an improvement. Geoff B 15:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Flat trajectory is a term commonly used in shooting to describe a bullet of high velocity that travels a nearly flat path. For example, a .223 Remington will have dropped only about 1.5 inches out to 200 yards. A .45 ACP on the other hand will have dropped more than 36 inches (1 yard) at 200 yards (if it got that far at all). As that's a rifle round against a pistol round, it's sort of apples to oranges. But I think you see my point. I don't think a change in the wording is necessary as the term is generally understood as "relative", but prehaps a Flat trajectory article is in order with a wikilink in this article. Maybe I'll write one today. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

Just a reminder that claims like it's the biggest, fastest, most-popular, best-smelling, etc. should be accompanied by a reference where-ever possible. Some feel that "well everyone knows that" is good enough, but WP:VER suggests using a reliable source. Arthurrh 16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree in general, the article as it is now lacks information about the wide spread of the 9x19mm. It makes it look like just another auto round, which is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.113.82 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ballistic performance

The figures in the infobox seem rather low: every other reference I've seen regarding the Parabellum's muzzle energy puts it in the 400s rather than the mid 300s; one could be forgiven for wondering if the article has been the victim of a 45 advocate drive by... Anyway, could someone "in the know" verify these numbers as they look incorrect to me, or at least "worst case".--194.247.53.233 17:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Far from "worst case". According to Norma and Hodgdon these are basically max loads, and the numbers work out to the energy levels you see posted. I can check other references as well this evening if you want me to, but I don't think I'll find anything different. Arthurrh 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be interesting; as an example of what I've seen to the contrary, if I grab Ian Hogg's Greenhill series "Ammunition" book it gives a figure of 431 ft/lbs (583 joules) for a 115 gr (7.45 g) projectile with a muzzle velocity of 1,300 fps (396 m/s) using a British mk 2Z, although unfortunately it neglects to say which weapon was used to determine those figures so important factors such as the barrel length are unknown. The reason I've chosen this reference in particular is it's what I have to hand at the moment, but the figures seem broadly similar to what I've seen elsewhere: those shown in the infobox stood out as the did seem unusually low, although I'm afraid I can't reel off a list of further references offhand.--194.247.53.233 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I checked my Hornady, Nosler, and Speer books. These velocities were exactly in line with them as well. I have other sources as well, but I don't see the point. The velocity you list is certainly not in line with normal performance. It's posssible it was a longer barrel, and there are a few powders that can push a 115 grain bullet to 1300 ft/s in a 4" barrel without dangerous pressure based on AccuLoad, but they are the exception rather than the rule. From what I can tell the numbers here are very representative of maximum loads by almost all sources. Pretty good numbers, actually. Arthurrh 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess the 1,300 fps result must have been from an ~8" SMG barrel, then. Or alternatively just wrong! Perhaps I'm used to seeing figures from military use which may be more inclined to use weapons other than pistols which may explain the discrepancy. One thing I was wondering was why the figures for different calibres are based on different barrel lengths, though (e.g. the .45 is measured using a 5" barrel); could be that those doing the testing are measuring equivalent lengths in calibres rather than absolute lengths, but it is another thing I was curious about.--194.247.53.233 21:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Length definitely makes a big difference. Even more so with handguns than rifles because of the short barrels involved. Performance measurement without length is pretty meaningless. Having pressure readings is even better, but that's really too much to hope for. Anyway, the differing barrel lengths you see between calibers is often due to using lengths typically expected to be found in arms for that cartridge. Unfortunately this isn't a fixed rule. Comparisons always end up being trickier than they should be. Arthurrh 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the medium-powered 9mm Parabellum round powerful enough to penetrate an unarmored person?

Is the medium-powered 9mm Parabellum round(FMJ) powerful enough to penetrate an unarmored person in the abdomen at point blank range? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.251.175.21 (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not enough information to give an answer...it depends on dozens of factors, from range, to the particular load being fired, the type of bullet fired, where the person is hit, how big the person is, how thick are the clothes they're wearing, etc..nf utvol (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
9mm in its nominal FMJ military load is certainly more than capable of penetrating all the way through a person. Whether or not it actually does so in a particular case depends on all the aforementioned variables, but the capability is certainly there. SquareWave (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't designed to inflict irritating welts.... Koalorka (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's powerful enough to kill another person behind the target. A few years ago there was a small controversy in Germany after several incidents of fatal over-penetration by police officers. --217.233.241.79 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)