Newbie "Guide" to gun literacy, calibers, acronyms etc.

[CJ1089]

If you are not afraid of reading reference books then I would recommend obtaining a reloading manual. You don't need to reload your ammo but the text will briefly describe the origins of the caliber, operating pressures, cautions for use, and objective data like velocity, power, exterior ballistics (the path of of the bullet when fired). This data can clear up a lot of questions.

It can also serve you well as a BS detector when some internet experts start bashing a particular caliber. It is not a firearm manual as it will not give an extensive review of the weapons only the calibers/ammunition. For a beginner I would suggest the Speer manual (it usually has a good page of write-up on a caliber before the reload data), stores like Bi-Mart sell them for around $25 last time I bought one.

OBTW, enjoy yourself and be safe.

 

[Bunny]

This should get you started.

Caliber Specs

Caliber - Wikipedia
List of rifle cartridges - Wikipedia
List of handgun cartridges - Wikipedia


Visual Comparison

gun caliber chart by size - Google Search

 

[Blitzkrieg]

MissJ... you must hike up onto the mountain to my windswept rock where you may ask your gun questions

No guarantee I'll answer unless you bring whiskey or beer

 

[strong_epoxy]

The best place to start would be Wikipedia. That probably goes for any subject that humanity finds interesting. Start with a single topic, like 'M-16,' or 'Glock 17,' '1911,' or 'Ruger 10/22' and follow the links. You'll quickly discover answers to the above questions. I spent a hour or two a night up there and learned a lot. Also cross reference facts against forums like this one, AR15.com, The High Road, etc...

Many 'pros' will tell you everything up on Wikipedia.org is wrong. Ignore them. As long as its not a politically touchy subject, Wikipedia follows the 80/20 rule (80% accurate, 20% not so much) but its probably more like 95/5 or 97/3.

 

[drew]

The best place to start would be Wikipedia. That probably goes for any subject that humanity finds interesting. Start with a single topic, like 'M-16,' or 'Glock 17,' '1911,' or 'Ruger 10/22' and follow the links. You'll quickly discover answers to the above questions. I spent a hour or two a night up there and learned a lot. Also cross reference facts against forums like this one, AR15.com, The High Road, etc...

Many 'pros' will tell you everything up on Wikipedia.org is wrong. Ignore them. As long as its not a politically touchy subject, Wikipedia follows the 80/20 rule (80% accurate, 20% not so much) but its probably more like 95/5 or 97/3.

Re Wikipedia:
I know a few college professors that will automatically fail a paper that sites Wikipedia as a reference source. That said, in general, Wikipedia is half-way decent source of info in the broad stroke sense. Regarding firearm and ammunition technical information there are many superior sources of information. I can personally attest to reading several incorrect bits of information on firearm and ammunition in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is ok but don't accept is as gospel. At least you have people like me who will edit Wikipedia articles when they see wrong information. The best thing about Wikipedia is their articles often cite very good sources. Of course, you have to be able to differentiate which are good and bad.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

As the comments in this thread pile up MissJ may begin to understand the subtle truth contained in my humorous post

 

[WIRED tactical]

Thank you for correcting me, I must have mistyped or something. It does indeed stand for Automatic Colt Pistol

 

[Billy 4 HP]

Titsonritz,

Don't agree on your assessment of my post. You can absolutely fire .38 specials and .38 specials +P in a firearm chambered for .357 magnum. It won't be as accurate as the bullet has to find barrel center basically "jumping" into the barrel. After a period of time, if you don't clean the firearm properly, there will be a carbon residue ridge due to the shorter .38 cartridge being fired. Most often guys shooting .38's in .357 magnum revolvers have to deal with this carbon ridge when they find it difficult to eject the spent shells (2 or 3 stuck shells in a revolver's cylinder can be a bad day).

In say a single shot .357 Magnum rifle (ala H&R Handy Gun II), if you fire enough .38 specials (cause they are cheaper and your a broke starving student, jobless gun nut) and don't clean out the carbon ridge and jam a .357 magnum into the chamber to take a shot at a coyote. The action will jamb up just before you get it shut, coyote runs off and your off to the gunsmith at 51st Avenue and Northern in Glendale, Arizona to get the stuck .357 cartridge out... Not that I ever did anything like that in my younger days... After dealing with that little pickle I learned to care for my firearms meticulously.

With a autoloading .357 magnum firearm, .38 specials usually cause feeding problems being shorter OAL and get caught up when the gun cycles. I imagine same would be true for .357 magnum chambered lever actions and bolt guns...

That being said, I have seen inaccurate reloaders and produced ammunition using a flush wad cutter or semi wad cutter that would allow the higher pressured .357 to be chambered in a .38 special firearm if they aren't accurate with the OAL of the cartridge. Yeah, I know flush wad cutters should be loaded for low speed target use, semi-wad cutters about the same deal. But ammo company's and reloader's alike can make mistakes that can blow up a gun and injure the end user.

FWIW, here's a non-Wikipedia web source that supports my statements... http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIIB4.html

.223 vs 5.56 Nato, As far as specifications go, .223 OAL 57mm, 5.56 Nato OAL 57.40mm... So if you put a 5.56 Nato into a .223 chambered firearm the bullet will be engaged into the rifling and the cartridge will try to twist when the action closes due to the bullet being twisted by the rifling, results can be bad.

.223 into a 5.56 will be a little less accurate due to the bullet having to find barrel center for .40mm, results not so bad mainly larger grouping.

Then you have the whole 5.56 brass being thinner / more room for powder deal that Physics Guy addressed... Not that .223 chambered firearms are usually built all that cheap, but a milspec or similar 5.56 Nato round will create more chamber pressure due to the increased powder charge over a .223. That increased pressure coupled with the bullet rifling engagement could be bad.

If I am being attacked by zombies and all I have is 5.56 Nato's and a .223 bolt gun I'll probably give it a whirl but I won't have my face down by the receiver when pulling the trigger.... I'll go Hollywood style in that scenario...

Like I originally stated, Wikipedia is relatively accurate, as in most things on the internet IMHO, nothing is gospel, including the information in my posts...

Not going to start a thread war, just offering my viewpoint and explanations, on with the show...

 

[Billy 4 HP]

As the comments in this thread pile up MissJ may begin to understand the subtle truth contained in my humorous post

Yep....

 

[DieselScout]

Hunter's Guide to Ballistics by Wayne van Zwoll, is a great book for beginners to start with. It explains caliber design, and naming, so you can easily decipher what the names means. It talks about all the terminology used when talking about firearms and ballistics. It can be read cover to cover, or only the sections that interest you. It also has some great general quick reference material as well.

 

[Shooter98]

On the subject of literacy, I get a kick out of everyone calling their AR's an M4 and everyone that seems to actually own an M4 calls them an AR. Wtf? lol.....

 

[PhysicsGuy]

Titsonritz,

Don't agree on your assessment of my post. You can absolutely fire .38 specials and .38 specials +P in a firearm chambered for .357 magnum. It won't be as accurate as the bullet has to find barrel center basically "jumping" into the barrel. After a period of time, if you don't clean the firearm properly, there will be a carbon residue ridge due to the shorter .38 cartridge being fired. Most often guys shooting .38's in .357 magnum revolvers have to deal with this carbon ridge when they find it difficult to eject the spent shells (2 or 3 stuck shells in a revolver's cylinder can be a bad day).

Well actually most accuracy differences when shooting .38 or .357 in a .357 revolver is attributed to how the gun likes the bullet/powder load combination. The bullet has to jump the distance to the forcing cone either way (and jump the distance within the cylinder). And I have heard of people having carbon buildup with .38s, but I really havent had that problem. Ive put 500+ rds of .38 through a S&W 686 in a day and had no problem with any buildup for switching to .357. I have however had a buildup problem making extraction difficult in a .460 S&W after shooting .45 colt, but this was due to lead buildup. But the carbon buildup can still occur, and cause some people problems, but this is mostly powder dependent.

Also some people claim that shooting shorter rimmed cartridges in a lever action (or any other non revolver actions), can cause flame cutting around the brass neck in the chamber, but I have yet to ever see this proven.

 

[CJ1089]

That's right, and AK's are better than AR's, or is that AR's are better than AK's, dammit now I forgot.
Oh well, I am sure somebody will be along to correct me soon.....

45 is better than 9mm

 

[Blitzkrieg]

That's right, and AK's are better than AR's, or is that AR's are better than AK's, dammit now I forgot.
Oh well, I am sure somebody will be along to correct me soon.....

HKs are better than either

 

[PhysicsGuy]

45 is better than 9mm

Please troll another forum....

 

[MissJ]

MissJ, what kind of shooting do you enjoy? do you mostly shoot rifles from a benchrest? battlle-focus tactical stuff? trap or skeet?
do you have a favorite firearm? why? do you carry concealed or not at all?
are you interested in competition shooting?

to answer this question I have ZERO experience shooting rifles. I have taken a 6 week pistol class and shoot probably 500 rds a year for the last 3 years, as well as a handfull of shotgun rds per year. I have yet to shoot trap/skeet but REALLY want to!!!!!!

I'd say my favorite firearm is currently my Ruger .22 Mark III even though we own several higher powered firearms (pistols, shotgun)....but this one is the most "fun" to shoot and I shoot probably 10 rds from this gun for every 1 rd from my other guns...

I'm expecting that will all change soon as I just bought my first AR-15 today!!!! WooHoo!!!! haven't fired the puppy yet...

Eventually, I'd like to enter some marksmanship competitions; not to prove my "bad-arseness" or anything, but I am the kind of person that learns more when I have a specific, short-term goal in mind.

I do not carrry concealed, and do not plan to at this time...

 

[Bunny]

I just bought my first AR-15 today!!!! WooHoo!!!! haven't fired the puppy yet...

Congrats! Let us know how you like it.

 

[blindfox]

Congrats! Let us know how you like it.

yeah, this! those things are like tactical legos

 

[Billy 4 HP]

I'm expecting that will all change soon as I just bought my first AR-15 today!!!! WooHoo!!!! haven't fired the puppy yet...

There goes the neighborhood.....

Seriously congrats....

 

[Billy 4 HP]

Well actually most accuracy differences when shooting .38 or .357 in a .357 revolver is attributed to how the gun likes the bullet/powder load combination. The bullet has to jump the distance to the forcing cone either way (and jump the distance within the cylinder). And I have heard of people having carbon buildup with .38s, but I really havent had that problem. Ive put 500+ rds of .38 through a S&W 686 in a day and had no problem with any buildup for switching to .357. I have however had a buildup problem making extraction difficult in a .460 S&W after shooting .45 colt, but this was due to lead buildup. But the carbon buildup can still occur, and cause some people problems, but this is mostly powder dependent.

Also some people claim that shooting shorter rimmed cartridges in a lever action (or any other non revolver actions), can cause flame cutting around the brass neck in the chamber, but I have yet to ever see this proven.

Or could be attributed to the shooter expecting less recoil with the .38 rounds compared to the .357 rounds so less likely to pull or flinch...

Apples and oranges though...

I found most carbon buildup to be due to cheaper ammo / powder used... Only time I ever had a problem or could attribute a buildup issue was with my old H&R single shot Handy Gun II and that was clearly my fault as it was a truck gun that I used and abused... Never again...

My carry gun is a S&W J-frame .357 concealed hammer, that I tried .38's in for target practice... Never really liked the lighter rounds, accuracy didn't change, so I stick with 158gr .357's. Recoil isn't that bad anyways and I will always know what to expect when I pull the trigger... I hope...