Talk:9×19mm Parabellum

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9×19mm Parabellum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406092513/http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/01000100.pdf to http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/01000100.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Parabellum09v2.stl

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"Improvements"

I'm not sure that the article has been "improved" by last August's removal of swathes of information on the basis that it's unsourced; the information in question seemed more useful than not and its absence is quite conspicuous, i.e. I ended up having to look at the history to see why the origins section seemed to just start mid-explanation. Now I know. Should it perhaps be restored with {{cite}} tags as necessary? --Vometia (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I restored the two deleted paragraphs. They are not unsourced as they, along with the third paragraph, are all a summary of the source cited at the end of the third paragraph. There is zero requirement that a passage summarizing material from a reliable source consist solely of a single paragraph, and there is nothing wrong with using a single citation for a couple of short paragraphs, so the passage is already properly sourced, and the removal was borderline vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Vometia (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

9mm Can Wound Humans

It says (uncited):

"Proponents of the hydrostatic shock theory contend that the energy of the 9mm cartridge is capable of imparting remote wounding effects in human-sized living targets."

Are there others that contend that this bullet can't wound "human-sized living targets" remotely? Is there something missing from the sentence? No way to tell, because whoever added it didn't bother to cite. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It's seems like one of those pseudo-intellectual attempts at sounding scientific for basically saying "this can put holes in people from a distance". It's a meaningless and useless phrase that applies to all bullets. It not only can be removed, it should be removed because including it makes the article look ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that the whole point of a bullet is to wound "human-sized living targets" it's a pointless thing to say, whether sourced or not. Being bold and removing. I might be more convinced to leave it included (if cited) on a page about spoons - for example - but not bullets. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour, Oknazevad, and Chaheel Riens: You seem to have misunderstood what it's about, it's not about "remotely" as in from a distance (from the target) but as in distant within the body, i.e. causing damage in other parts of the body than where the bullet hit, through a shock wave moving through body tissue. See Hydrostatic shock: Hydrostatic shock is the controversial concept that a penetrating projectile (such as a bullet) can produce a pressure wave that causes "remote neural damage". Drachentöter001 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, although I can't help but feel that hydrostatic shock injury might not be uppermost in the mind of somebody who's just been shot with a 9mm round. Also I think the key phrase there is ...the controversial concept that... - if it were to stay, (and I'm not advocating that it does) it would need considerable rewriting and sourcing so it doesn't sound so hoighty-toighty. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)