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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion 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 Finland Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Norway Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sweden Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Francis - before we get into an undo war on this topic - I am happy to discuss this with you. I see that you have a long history on this subject and recognize your contributions. I completely disagree with your assesment that a notation that this round currently holds the worlds record for the longest sniper kill. That is extremely relevant to its military use and future use. I am not sure how you think that is irrelevant. I would be interested to hear third party input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1kn0wtruth (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1kn0wtruth - I have no intentions of entering an edit war. I do have several reasons for thinking mentioning that a particular cartridge holds a record like the longest sniper kill is not very relevant. The most important component for extreme range shooting are the projectiles (bullets) and their aero ballistic behaviour, not the cartridge cases that helped launch the bullets. A cartridge case is primarily used to help accelerate the employed projectiles to an appropriate muzzle velocity, but the case does not interact with a target. Further a whole chain of rifle and other technical support components and the human operator(s) play very important roles in the determination of a correct aiming solution at extreme sniping ranges. Last but not least the holders of shooting records often had optimal shooting conditions and luck on their side. The public can never be certain if a published sniping record is really the record, since many sniping communities tend to be quite secretive about their capabilities and achievements. Many countries have a policy of keeping the identity of their snipers undisclosed to the general public and stick to that. The British obviously expose remarkable feats of their snipers in the media. Sadly these media reports generally do not demonstrate knowledge about external ballistics and long range shooting from the journalist(s) and lack (some of) the required information to determine the encountered external ballistic problems and employed solutions for these particular record shots.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting into whether its a case or a projectile is a bit of splitting hairs for the average reader out there. I think we can all agree that you can fit a .50 BMG round in a 338 case so its really not valid imho to make that distinction. There is a reason these rounds are selected for sniper use and this illustrates its effectiveness. The 338 case was used in the system - period end of story and there are a few different projectiles that can be used that will work with this case. Maybe you can spend some time and find out which one was used and update more information on the article to make it even better so users will oahve even more information. The records are also listed and associated with other wiki's on ammunition systems / weapons etc and it is nice to know from a research standpoint which rounds are effective. Yes I realize conditions are always different but again a record is a record regardless and we can pontificate on all types of various technical issues that go into the overall combined makeup of the act of sending a projectile over a certain distance to kill a person in an effort to discredit / minimize etc the achivement but at the end of the day a wiki is about information and this is information that pertains to this system. The 338 lapua case / and associated round were used in setting this record with all its technical notations that you have mentioned above and as such it is factual supported and referenceable information that most imo will find useful and interesting. 1kn0wtruth (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The .510 Whisper mentioned in the article is a .50 wildcat based on the .338 Lapua Magnum. As also mentioned in the "final development" section the .338 Lapua Magnum (and alike rifle cartridges) offers some desirable qualities for military long-range anti-personnel sniping. The cartridges issued by the British military are non C.I.P. conform overpressure cartridges with a 3.6 in OAL, loaded with 16.2 g LockBase B408 very-low-drag bullets. There are better projectile options for extreme range shooting with the .338 Lapua Magnum around from Lapua and other manufactures as described in the "ballistic performance of the .338 Lapua Magnum" section. This section also points out how important the employed projectiles are. The 16.2 g Lapua Scenar is aero ballistically somewhat superior to the 16.2 g Lapua LockBase. Many armies restrict themselves to not using Scenars and similar projectiles in conflict or war situations, since they opt to avoid any chance of being accused for using illegal ammunition.

I suggest a text change which references to the Craig Harrison article and has lots of references like this:

+++++++++++

Non C.I.P. conform British military issue overpressure .338 Lapua Magnum cartridges with a 91.4 mm (3.6 in) overall length, loaded with 16.2 g (250 gr) LockBase B408 very-low-drag bullets were used in November 2009 by British sniper Corporal of Horse (CoH) Craig Harrison to establish a new record for the longest confirmed sniper kill in combat, at a range of 2,475 m (2,707 yd).^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

+++++++++++

Such a short, factual and neutral text can remain unchanged if future reports emerge about new records etc. and it internally refernces to a longest recorded sniper kills article that also mentions another shot using a similar SWS and ammunition.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion - I like it a lot. edit away!1kn0wtruth (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the .338 Lapua can kill any animal in North America including a Polar Bear, but what about an Elephant ?? 65.94.114.117 00:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must be capable of that, since the 8.58 mm (.338) bullet diameter with 17.82 gram (275 grain) or heavier bullets results in a very high sectional density (over 30 gr/cm² / 0.3397 lbs/inch²). In combination with high muzzle velocities this results in a very high penetrating capability for practical spin stabilized rifle bullets (bullets up to about 5 to 5.5 calibers in length), even at for big game hunting rare longer ranges.

The actual challenge for Big five game bullet producers is to control bullet fragmentation and directional departures (induced by the massive bones and thick muscle layers found in big five game animals anatomy) before the bullet or bullet fragments can interact with the animals vital (organ) tissues. They solved this by making solid cilinder shaped bullets out of materials like copper or other mono-metal alloys. Here are some examples of special big five game hunting bullets. On that website you can also find an article on modern dangerous game bullets.* Another intresting article is Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories: The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics.

A practical problem for all sub 9.53 mm (.375 in) caliber cartridges is that certain sub-Saharan Africa countries have an arbitrary 9.53 mm (.375 in) minimum caliber rule for hunting Big Five game - i.e. leopard, lion, cape buffalo, rhino and elephant. Francis Flinch 10:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Francis Flinch---I don't mean to start a undo-undo editing war. I agree that "stopping power" is a controversial subject. But so is this cartridge's suitability for some dangerous game.

The hunting of dangerous game is very different than the hunting of big game, and the distinction should not be blurred. It's fine if a good hit on big game causes the animal to "eventually" figure out it's dead--that's what tracking's for. With dangerous game, however, the goal is to have the animal down before it can kill you.

Experts can enlighten controversy, and I have provided an expert source (an experienced, well known African professional hunter and veterinarian) who opines that calibers under .375 (especially expanding bullets over 2500 ft per second) are notoriously undependable on pachyderms and cape buffalo (happy to provide the additional quotes, but I thought the short caution I provided was enough).

If you feel that this round is good for elephant and buffalo, please provide some sources--besides the company literature and terminal balistics--such as professional hunters who have used and prefer the cartridge for these animals. I'd appreciated (as always) the corrective information. Or, if the caveat is "it's fine for buffalo, but only on a frontal head-shot or perfect broadside heart shot," then add that (after all, buffalo are taken with bow and arrow: 90-lb draw bows and 1025 grain arrows, with a back-up rifle just in case).

But please don't simply delete a sourced addition, as if to say while stopping power is controversial, the .338 Lapua's suitability for all game on the planet is somehow not.

I do think it's a great cartridge (on lion and leopard it would be the cat's meow!) but having a bit of experience here, and having--alas!--more book-learning than experience, I haven't met or read someone whose first or second choice on the animals above would be the .338 Lapua. Let me know. Thanks.--Icammd (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icammd, - I am aware dangerous game animal can decide to avenge being shot at as long as its brain is able to order its body to attack the hunter or other bystanders. A main problem making this discussion academic is that the .338 Lapua Magnum is illegal for the kind of hunting discussed here and nobody will admit breaking laws. This high pressure cartridge case does however offer a good amount of case capacity compared to lots of dangerous game hunting legal .375 in to .458 big bore cartridges currently used for this kind of hunting. There are several schools of thought on how to shoot dangerous game efficiently. Believers of those schools of thought in their enthusiasm often forget that sufficient knowledge regarding game anatomy and correct shot placement are the most important factors when pleading their case. After the actual shot the hunter has no influence on the interaction between the projectile and animal of his choice anymore. Mr. W.D.M. Bell (1880-1951) shot around 1,000 elephants with 6.5x54mm Mannlicher and 7x57mm Mauser chambered rifles during the 1890s to 1920s. Mr. Bell relied on solid projectiles with high sectional density that do not expand very much to kill these large animals. The nowadays often awkward deemed methods employed by this prolific famous ivory hunter or notorious elephant slayer (that depends on your point of view) of bygone days do present a problem for the absolute right of the “exclusive use of large diameter projectiles school of thought”. Maybe ‘would be suspect’ in you addition can be changed to something more neutral like ‘is arguable or debatable’.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good--have changed to "arguable," and from "most" to "some" re dangerous game. Have read on Karamojo Bell (reading is so much cheaper than hunting elephant, although I got a notice just this week that I could sign up in Botswana for a MERE $24k); as you know he was the master of the elephant brain shot--his favorite was the (how's it even possible?) arm's-length upward-forward-sidelong raking angle standing at the animal's flank after the elephant had walked by--and most commenters say he had no equal, then or today. Still, things were different then, and today heart shots are probably better (see Boddington, http://www.sportsafield.com/FAQ/Boddingtonelephant.htm). Don't get me started on bullet types for dangerous animals and why/when/if they matter, or I'll happily write all day. By the way, Boddington mentions that Bell did not like the 6.5. Thanks.--Icammd (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heart shooting is very ineffective, If it goes down after being shot in the heart, its usually due to the other damage. The heart being muscle and elastic, results in the actual hole being much smaller than the diameter of the bullet, resulting in very little blood loss, esp when compared to lung shots. Animals (including humans) can go on as if not shot after suffering heart shots that will eventually be fatal, but not before they run a long way or possibly decide they want to kill you.--Simon19800 (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is an extremely old discussion, but I would largely concur with Francis Flinch here. If we are to assume a 300 grain .375 H&H flying at a velocity of 2650 FPS is adequate for cape buffalo, it stands to good reason that a well constructed 300 grain .338 Lapua hunting round with a velocity of 2850 FPS would be likewise effective. I am not a big game hunter, but I would also have to wonder whether there should be a distinction made between certain species of class 4 game. It seems an African elephant, capable of reaching T. rex weights, armed with multi-foot tusks, and boasting primate levels of intelligence would be a significantly more daunting adversary than a cape buffalo that reaches approximately a ton at most. I am well aware of the fact that the latter kills more hunters, but I would think this could be largely attributed to the sheer number of encounters between tourists and S. caffer rather than any inherent characteristic on the part of the buffalo. At any rate, it seems quite possible that .338 Lapua is adequate for cape buff but underpowered or disputable for much heavier animals. (Indeed, the Optimal Game Weight formula, while of questionable reliability in some aspects, gives a value of about 3100 lbs for the aforementioned 338 Lapua loading-about the weight of a black rhinoceros, significantly greater than a cape buffalo's average weight, and well below the range for Loxodonta africana.) --99.107.241.102 (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can even use a 22 to kill an elephant its been done, but if you talking about MINIMUM 375 H&H Magnum is it. Both in power and weight/Diameter. If you where going for African elephant, you should choose some thing bigger than 375H&H Mag!

Never underestimate Cape Buffalo, Even tho alot lighter than Elephant, they are very sturdy and grounding on first shot is the best bet. Cause things get a little harder when it doesnt go down and it charges you. 338 anything would be a dangerous/cruel choice. 375 H&H Mag a good choice or even go wider bullet with same energy to transfer more energy to the animal and not waste it on the thru.--Simon19800 (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi im Brazilian police man, we use 7,62mmX51mm NATO. And i've a quastion! How Many joules .338 8.58mm X 70mm can to impactate on your shot? I think this caliber is used in animals but a little times hear peoples use in peoples or like police wepon. Some times i see it wepon like a military wepon for a sniper use. Is a Greate caliber for operational use and of your precision like AR15, M4A1 or FN FAL or other wepons caliber 7,62mm. 200.186.44.6 13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The .338 Lapua Magnum (8.6 x 70 mm) was designed from the start as a cartridge for long-range military sniping. It would be foolish for the police or military to choose such a cartridge for short to medium-range sniping, where normal service cartridges with considerably less recoil like your 7.62 x 51 mm NATO perform fine. At ranges under 500 m, the 8.6 x 70 mm would often be too powerful for anti-personnel use and cause overpenetration in most targets, unless deep material penetration is required. In police scenarios the 8.6 x 70 mm excessive penetration could even endanger hostages. The .338 Lapua Magnum starts to shine at 800+ m ranges in military anti-personnel scenarios or at shorter ranges when hunting big (dangerous) game animals that require deep penetration to obtain ample safety margins. The rifles you mention are assault rifles not sniper rifles. Typical high-end factory sniper rifles are the Accuracy International Arctic Warfare or Sako TRG rifle systems. The kinetic energy of a bullet can be calculated using the formula:

${\displaystyle E_{k}={\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}}$

m = bullet weight in kg. v = bullet speed in m/s.

Kinetic energy is not a very good predictor of terminal performance. Some special police units actually use the 8.6 x 70 mm, but those anti terrorism orientated law enforcement units were not founded to oppose violent criminals like normal SWAT units.

This is how a 16.2 gram (250 gr) Lapua Scenar 8.6 x 70 mm load would perform from 0 m - 1400 m out of a Sako TRG-42 sniper rifle at 905 m/s muzzle velocity under ICAO Standard Atmosphere conditions at sea level (air density ρ = 1.225 kg/m³):

Range (m)	0	100	200	300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000	1100	1200	1300	1400
Velocity (m/s)	905	856	809	763	718	674	632	592	552	514	478	442	408	377	348
Energy (J)	6635	5938	5297	4710	4173	3684	3238	2835	2470	2142	1847	1584	1351	1151	981

This is how a 10 gram (155 gr) Lapua Scenar 7.62 x 51 mm NATO / .308 Winchester load would perform from 0 m - 1400 m out of a Sako TRG-22 sniper rifle at 860 m/s muzzle velocity under ICAO Standard Atmosphere conditions at sea level (air density ρ = 1.225 kg/m³):

Range (m)	0	100	200	300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000	1100	1200	1300	1400
Velocity (m/s)	860	797	737	678	623	569	518	470	423	381	342	317	297	282	270
Energy (J)	3698	3177	2712	2301	1938	1620	1343	1103	896	724	586	501	442	398	364

The 7.62 mm 10 gram Lapua Scenar is one of the best long-range high accuracy bullets available for 7.62 x 51 NATO rifles. The 8.6 mm Scenar has 981 J energy at 1400 m. The 7.62 mm Scenar has 981 J energy at 757 m. Francis Flinch 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember having read about a hostage situation (in Pakistan?) where the police snipers tried to take out some hijackers in an passenger airliner cockpit. However the bullets only ricocheted against the thick front windows. I don't remember the type of weapon or calibre used but I think those were "standard" police sniper rifles. Perhaps the .338 could have a place in the force in some special cases? --MoRsE (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geezus Christ, wake up over there, it's 2022, what on earth is "gram"?! The SI unit is g!!! Boy oh boy, have you ever seen a school from the inside? With capable teachers in it?

And how is (905 m/s)² x 0.0162 kg/2 = 6.635 J ?! Can you do the maths? No, you can't even spell maths correctly. I know. The correct result is (not would be) 6,634.1025. That's 6,634. Not 6,635. And so on and so forth. Hence, all the other numbers are most likely as wrong as the previous ones. 84.118.208.6 (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently told that some ammunitions can be reloaded for free, but the cartridges cost money, is that true for the .338 Lapua or just the .308? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecutnut (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The .338 Lapua Magnum cartridge and lots of other cartridges (including the .308 Winchester) can be acquired as factory ammunition or be hand(re)loaded. Handloading ammunition allways costs money. See the handloading article for more information.

Francis Flinch (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencingand appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean penetrating five ceramic plates that are commonly used in military body armor? --UnneededAplomb (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. The cartridge was designed to penetrate 5 layers of body armour at 1000 m (1094 yd) as used in 1983. You should think of layers of fabric designed to stop service projectiles with maybe one trauma plate, not a thick stack of ceramic plates that would get to heavy to wear for a soldier. The range, velocity and energy table above indicates a .338 Lapua Magnum sniper rifle bullet arrives with roughly the same energy at 1000 m as a 7.62 x 51 mm sniper rifle bullet round at 400 m for two roughly comparable long range bullets. Since the exact nature of the target medium or media (body armour, bone, flesh, soft tissues and in what order) and the interaction with employed projectile (parts) play an important role in terminal ballistics your question will always be hard to answer and highly dependant on a specific situation.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the bullets of this cartridge, there's things such as Lapua Scenar GB488 VLD.What material, shape, ect. means Lapua Scenar GB488 VLD? Agre22 (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

The very-low-drag bullet article has an image of a VLD type bullet like the Lapua Scenar GB488. "Lapua Scenar GB488" is just a trade name + article number used by the ammunition and bullet manufacturer Lapua. Bullet manufacturers like Sierra, Berger, etc. use other brand names and article numbers for comparable products.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this section is using misleading terminology. A case loaded differently from a factory load is called a handload, or a custom load, not a wildcat. Simply loading a 338 Lapua with a different bullet and firing it a faster twist barrel does not make it a wildcat. Please refer to the Wikipedia article on handloading for more information. A wildcat cartridge had different case dimensions from the factory loaded case.

Also, putting a different twist barrel on a rifle makes it a custom or bespoke rifle, not a wildcat.

In the paragraph on the 343 Lapua, these are the attributes that make it a wildcat (case modification):

"The length of the neck is increased from 8,31 to 8,50 mm to support the bigger LM-107 bullet. Several other dimensions of the .338 Lapua Magnum parental cartridge are also changed. The shoulder angle gets steepened from 40° to 60° and the body taper is set at 1°."

DrHenley (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I changed the text. The LM-105 is indeed a wildcat (it exceeds the C.I.P. OAL ruling). The LM-107 was a more comprehensive wildcat proposal that also deviates from several C.I.P. rulings. C.I.P. does not rule twist rates, since twist rate is not a main safety concern for the firearm user. They do however mention the common twist rate. As an example the SAKO TRG-42 can have a 1 in 12" or 1 in 10" twist rate. None of these barrel executions is considered custom by C.I.P. Regardless of barrel twist these rifles are proof tested and when they pass approved for civilian use. The reason for differing barrel twist is that projectiles at very long ranges have to deal with complex transonic transition effects. Manufacturers can optimize the barrel twist for a particular (class of) projectile(s) so a rifle will perform well at very long range.-Francis Flinch (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A change in OAL does not a wildcat make. I can change the seating depth of any cartridge that I load for and i will be able to close the bolt and fire it safely if I can close the bolt . I believe the only true way to make seating depth a demarcation is if it cannot be loaded with either the parent cartridge or a different cartridge. Usually the way to differentiate between a parent and a wildcat (child) is that it isn’t backwards compatible or is safe if loaded forward (compatible) i.e. 38 special<357 magnum. Anyhoo. That’s my .02. Good luck! Anthonyjoehaynes (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a proper source for "It cannot be used in countries which ban civilian use of former or current military rifle cartridges." If one cannot be found I would question whether this belongs in the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my user talk page:

You removed information regarding restrictions of civil use of the .338 Lapua Magnum chambering that was and is backed by Wikipedia articles which were internally referenced to.

From Gun politics in Mexico - Type of firearms permitted: High-powered rifles, of repeating or semi-automatic function, non-convertible to full-auto, with the exception of .30 caliber carbines, rifles, moskets and carbines caliber .223, 7 and 7.62mm, and Garand rifles caliber .30.

From Gun politics in Italy - Limitations: Italian gun laws pose restrictions to the kind of firearms and calibers available to civilians. Full-automatic/select-fire firearms (machineguns), grenade launchers, destructive devices and all other kinds of military weapons are forbidden; a prohibited caliber is expressly the 9mm Parabellum, and as a matter of fact all military ammunition (such as 5.7x28mm, 4.6x30mm, .50-BMG and up) are not available to the public. On the other hand, standard military calibers such as 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO are available in civilian loads and with civilian denominations (such as .223 Remington, .308 Winchester). Semi-automatic firearms can be bought by licensees without additional restrictions.

I did not write these gun politics articles and what you or I think regarding such gun politics and their limitations is irrelevant for the lawmakers in these jurisdictions.

I assumed you removed the internally referenced information in good faith.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I removed it under the provisions of WP:V which requires that anything liable to be challenged needs to be cited to reliable external sources. A Wikipedia article would not qualify. My preference is to leave the information there but with a {{cn}} tag, to see if someone can find a proper source we can cite. If this cannot be done, we need to remove it as unverifiable. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would this (http://www.earmi.it/diritto/faq/Sintesi%202012-A4.pdf) suffice as an external reference for Italy?--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, ideally it would be an English language source and one with some sort of established reputation for fact-checking. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize the paper is written by Edoardo Mori, Magistrato di Cassazionea or judge at the Court of Cassation (Italy). Google Edoardo Mori for yourself and you will find out he is a legal professional in Italy. At http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Edoardo_Mori you can see Mr. Mori. I feel judges of national supreme courts can be regarded as competent regarding the law in their jurisdiction.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think this is a good source, sorry. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to start an edit war, but thinking or feeling is not good enough if you doubt and hence question the reliability of an external source. To do so you have to find and produce facts mentioned by other external sources that clearly disagree with the view of in this case Italian justice Edoardo Mori. If professionals openly disagree that should be mentioned in Wikipedia articles. I assume you do not attempt to take ownership of this article but try to prove to the world Mori wrote nonsense regarding Italian gun law, so let's wait and see for a week what external sources you can find and mention here that disagree with the statements in the Mori paper.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea. Unfortunately that is not how it works. The onus is on you to find decent sources to support the material you want to include. Failing that, we cannot use it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy; Art. 1 e 2 L. 110/1975 see http://www.fmj.it/110_75.htm and http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1975-04-18;110 This was published regarding war weapons and their ammunition and may other subjects in the Gazzetta Ufficiale in 1975. The Gazzetta Ufficiale promulgates acts of the Italian Parliament (comprising the Senate of the Republic and Chamber of Deputies) and Decrees of the President of the Republic. On publication, legislation begins a brief period (usually 15 days) known as vacatio legis, allowing for it to become widely known before taking legal effect. The latter is published by http://www.normattiva.it/. This is the website that publishes Italian law. The validity of sources that officially publish Italian law is evident and binding.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So there is nothing in English, and no secondary sources? --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another question. Do your sources mention the .338 Lapua Magnum? --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I could not see any mention of the article's subject in these sources, I have removed this factoid again. We are not allowed to synthesise like this. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian lawmakers opted not to include a list of chamberings. They simply prohibited war weapons, war like weapons and war ammunition for civilians. So when a (new) chambering is introduced as Italian service ammunition it becomes a no no for civilians in Italy. There is no combined material from multiple sources in the refs mentioned to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The actual law text is the most trustworthy source obtainable. Maybe you or I do not like Italian law and how it is formulated but that is futile for Italian lawmakers and every civilian gun user in Italy. Lawmakers often formulate legal restrictions in (for laymen maybe complex) ways to avoid to have to change law very often. Of course laymen are free to seek legal advice if they are in doubt or not capable of understanding law. Logic dictates it would have been impossible in the 1970s to mention the .338 Lapua Magnum, since it was not designed at that time. Sadly for .338 Lapua Magnum fans the Italians introduced the TRG-42 sniper rifle in .338 Lapua Magnum as one of their service rifles. This introduction as service ammunition ended the .338 Lapua Magnum as a legal option for civilians in Italy. For the FN 5.7×28mm a similar story applies. Italian civil gun users solve such problems with alternative chamberings and resorting to wildcatting. Wildcatting comes with pros and cons in C.I.P. regulated countries for civil shooters I will not discuss at Wikipedia since I do not know if the reader is permitted to produce his/her own ammunition. So sentences like; Since the introduction of the SAKO TRG-42 .338 Lapua Magnum sniper rifle as an Italian service weapon, the .338 Lapua Magnum became prohibited by law for civil use in Italy can be referenced in a Wikipedia article. I think it is not very important to mention the restrictions in Italy, but encourage you to travel to Italy with a .338 Lapua Magnum rifle and its ammunition and experience what happens to you. Other people I would discourage to do that.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, this is entirely based on your own knowledge and there is no third-party source known to you which makes the connection? Case closed. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see some low drag projectiles then only thing that makes it usable at long ranges.--Simon19800 (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the other decimal-inch cartridges I have looked at have the Imperial measurements listed first, with the SI second, in brackets. Should it not be so with the .338 Lapua as well, or does the Finnish/UK development demand SI first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redness88 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rifling twist rate for the .343 Lapua Magnum LM-107 wildcat cartridge was chosen at 180 mm (1:7 inch), Ø lands = 8.72 mm, Ø grooves = 8.45 mm and loaded with the LM-107 projectile...

It says .343 twice in an blurb written about a rifle that may or may not have been built(?). I think that either .343 is wrong and should be .338 ( which is what this entry is about) or it should be its own article

I’ve never heard of a .343 caliber anything. It seems very odd. It may be a mistranslation from non-English metric to American non-metric English (hah!) Anthonyjoehaynes (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]