Talk:9x18 Makarov

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9x18 Makarov redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This redirect 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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Firearms

This redirect 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

Article Renaming

As per the general consensus from the team at Wikiproject: Military History, it would seem that this article really ought to be named "9x18 Makarov". I thought I'd give people a chance to comment before changing the title or moving the article, though. --Commander Zulu 08:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, but with the addition of the metric "mm" unit, no space naturally ;), so 9x18mm Makarov?. Koalorka (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less Powerful?

According to this and this 9 mm Luger Parabellum is more powerful, contrary to what article says. 217.26.163.26 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy

Does anyone have energy info on this cartridge? C0N6R355 20:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did the math based on the given mass and velocity; it comes to 313 J. 140.183.63.33 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]