Talk:.300 AAC Blackout

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

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

I request that people stop deleting the link to the official discussion forum area for this cartridge. My Name is Robert Silvers, and I am Director of Research and Development for Advanced Armament - the company who created this cartridge. We need a link to the area where we keep people up to date . I post public information in that area to help people get important updates and notices. I think it was deleted because it does not look official - and I can understand how that happens, but that should not be the determining factor about if it should be allowed. It truly is the area where the creators of this cartridge communicate with the public.

Not only have a few users deleted this link calling it linkspam, but someone was calling another link to the 300BLKforum forum "official." That forum is fine to have a link to it, it is not run by the creators of this cartridge, is not official, and should not be identified as such. I apologize if this message is in the wrong format - please feel free to correct it. Thank you.Silencertalk (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you can provide something that shows that your link is the official forum for the Manufacturer (ie, from the manufacturer, a link or some sort or an announcement of some type) then by all means add it and remove the other. currently the only resource on the manufacturer's page is to 300BlkTalk.com indy_muaddib (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you want to rename this as 7.62x35mm? The official industry-standard SAAMI name is "300 AAC Blackout." This is easily verified by looking at the official drawing - Robert Silvers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silencertalk (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a brochure on the round or a website selling it. Atypicaloracle (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this reads like marketing bumf, not like an encyclopaedia article. Will edit when I get a chance. Peregrine (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why isn't it explained?199.190.61.128 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcat_cartridge I will wikilink it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted citations to HKPRO.com. It is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles because its articles are anonymously posted and there's no discernible editorial review process. See

I've created a new section 'Military Cartridges' along with a new sub-section 'Netherlands' referring to the adoption by NL-MARSOF of the 300 BLK round, regards. Twobells^t@lk 09:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the "Caution" section since the previous reflink is dead and the one I found on the same site (published at a later date) specifically mentioned handloads with light bullets where the bullet isn't set at correct depth, resulting in a shorter overall length (an example of such a handload would be a load with a short roundnose 110 grain bullet, such as bullets intended for .30 Carbine), while .300 Blackout rounds loaded to correct overall length and with the bullet well crimped won't chamber in a rifle chambered for the .223. Thomas.W ^talk 11:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like "how-to' type material. Maybe we should just delete the whole section. We're not here to tell people how to handload this round. Felsic2 (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we are here to tell people to be careful. There are plenty of articles about cartridges that have warnings about not doing this or that, such as using modern hunting ammunition in old surplus military rifles in the exact same caliber... Thomas.W ^talk 18:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not here to tell people to be careful. Where did you get that idea? See

WP:NOTMANUAL

:

• Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an
  article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.^[1] Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks
  instead.

This material doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If there's a Wikibooks article on handloading, that'd be the right place. Felsic2 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules here better than you do, so there's no point in you quoting them, and a warning like that has absolutely nothing to do with instruction manuals/how-tos, which is what isn't allowed. If you want to change how things are done here start by discussing your proposed changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms, instead of wasting everybody else's time on each and every article you set your eyes on, with parallell similar discussions on multiple articles. Thomas.W ^talk 18:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the rules you're referencing. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms doesn't set Wikipedia policies. Unless there's a rule you can cite for this, I'm going to delete it. Felsic2 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm going to revert you and report you for

tendentious editing, because I've had enough of your silly games now. Thomas.W ^talk 19:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The material could be fixed by changing the text. Instead of saying, "Extreme care should be taken...", we could say, "Handloaders who have mistakenly.... have received injuries." Or something like that. Felsic2 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to that approach? Felsic2 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Felsic here, that the Caution section as written fails

Here's one way to approach it.

• According BearingArms.com, rifles chambered for .223 or 5.56 rounds have burst, without injury, due to the use of
  handloaded
  300 AAC Blackout cartridges mistakenly loaded into them.

I'm sure it can be improved. Felsic2 (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rifle(s) didn't "burst", the bullet got stuck in the barrel, there was apparently a crack in the receiver (judging by the picture in the ref) and the magazine was destroyed, but it wasn't a catastrophic failure where the rifle was blown to pieces. If it had been the shooter would most probably have been killed, or at least suffered very serious injuries. There are pictures of a couple of other similar, or what is claimed to be similar, incidents on the 'Net, and none of the pictures show any catastrophic failure, and the only pictures of injuries show light cuts on the left arm of the shooter, made by pieces of the plastic magazine. Thomas.W ^talk 00:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one picture, though the source says there are more. The source calls the incidents "kaboom" and " blowing their gun to bits" and "exploding". It seems clear that the rifles were destroyed. So, we could say,

• ''According BearingArms.com, two users destroyed their rifles, chambered for .223 or 5.56 rounds, by mistakenly using
  handloaded
  300 AAC Blackout cartridges in them.

Or we could just delete the information. Felsic2 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no new comments, I'll replace the text with the above version. Felsic2 (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this article appears to be sourced from two slideshows by Robert S. Silvers.[1][2] In fact, some of the material may have been copied verbatim without citation or attribution. This forum posting casts doubt on his reliability: [3]. Maybe we should trim back some of the text from that source, and attribute the rest (i.e. "According to Robert S. Silvers...") Sourcing so much of this article to the manufacturer or its employee gives this article a promotional tone. Felsic2 (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any items in particular that you think should be removed or need attribution? As for attribution, in some cases Silver might be the appropriate attribution, in other cases it might be better to attribute to AAC as an entity. I think it might be better to deal with them on a per-content basis, at least for the first few changes rather than making a decision in the abstract. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of citations makes it hard to knw what came from where. But it looks like the "project's goals" is a straight copy, for example. Felsic2 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that most of this article was written by Silvers. "I am the creator and project lead of this cartridge."[4] And see #Link above. Again, there's a problem with the promotional content and tone. Felsic2 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the goals, although this ultimately does attribute back to Silver, its at least 3rd party sourcing [5] but frankly, I don't see this particular one as much of an issue as coming from a biased source. We are discussing a product. The company is a perfectly valid source for discussing why they created the product. For other content, they may be a less appropriate source though. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's figure out the sources for this material, adding citations, and that should solve half the problem.

The promotional issue is to assert that the cartridge accomplishes X, Y, and Z, based solely on the manufacturers's own claims. Felsic2 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not say the goals were accomplished, but we can certainly say thats what the goals were. But 300 blackout is super popular. Especially for high level stuff like these goals are (compatibility, suppression, range,power, etc) there should not be an issue finding sources saying that they do those things. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good source for most of that I think http://www.gundigest.com/ammunition-reviews-articles/300-aac-blackout-whisper-turns-black Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]