This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article needs a description of a Brenneke slug. RPellessier | (Talk) 06:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at it, no pun intended. Here's the briefest description I can think of that touches upon all the salient points:

Shotgun slug of German design, distinctive for its wadcutter profile, the cast-in vanes on its sides intended to impart spin by air resistance, its felt base wad held in place by means of a steel screw, and its hard lead alloy construction. Unlike most solid shotgun projectiles, it is cast of a hard, tough lead alloy approximating linotype alloy, rather than swaged from pure soft lead. It was designed to provide increased penetration in soft tissue for hunters of large dangerous game, such as Alaskan brown bears. They have been fairly popular with hunters in the United States and Canada for decades.

What do y'all think?

That looks good, but there is an article Brenneke slug that covers most of that. Might be worth you looking over to see if there's anything you can add there. scot 20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this should be merged in Shotgun shell, but I think the minor slug articles would benefit from being merged into this, such as Brenneke slug, Foster slug, etc. Arthurrh 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposed merge: There is enough information in the Brenneke slug article to justify itself. Additionally, if articles are merged, the differences between various shotgun slugs will be minimized, and users will be less inclined to add additional information about individaul slugs. Twanebo 23:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the Brenneke slug as being a variant of the Foster slug, but the individual articles on each slug indicate that the Brenneke slug dates to the 1890's, and that the Foster slug was not invented until the mid 1900's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.91.83 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article claims that the 'rifling' on a Foster slug imparts spin, but the Foster slug article states that it does not. Which is it? 203.20.253.5 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does impart some spin, but the issue of "how much" and "does it make a difference" are subject to debate. Chuck Hawks says the rifling is not effective, by this article on new slug designs shows that the new, high-tech slugs for smoothbores still use rifling, some, like the Winchester Super-X PowerPoint, RackMaster, and some slugs I've seen for handloading, have even extended the fins up to the tip so that they become more effective. On the other hand, no one quotes any sources or stats on just how much spin is or isn't imparted by the "rifling", but since they makers still include it, I'm going to guess it does serve some purpose. As for why all rifled slugs are also mass-forward designs: since the spin is imparted by airflow, something, such as a mass-forward design or an attached base, is required to keep the slug stable until it can begin to spin. scot 15:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more note...if it was in fact the case that mass-forward design was all that was stabilizing a rifled slug, you would expect it to tumble after it impacted and flattened out. Looking at the performance in ballistic geletin, you can see that the slug reaches full expansion (from 18 to 28 mm) only 5 cm into the gelatin, and continues on for 30 cm more in a straight line, coming to rest front forwards. That seems to be strong evidence that the slug had developed some spin before it hit the target. scot 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened by and noticed the lead changes tense twice and isn't very clear all around. I will try to tweak it but don't have time at present so if someone else gets a shot please do so.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs some references - right now most of the info is unsourced. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost eight years later and there are still just a few sources, with big swaths of unsourced text. Yet editors found the time to argue at length over one tiny element. If sources can't be found maybe this article should be stubbed down to what is cited so it can be rebuilt. Felsic2 (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kept adding a US Government Document and it kept getting reverted. Some serious article ownership going on here that keeps references from being added. I went through and culled a great deal of the conjecture and supposition and much of it was dutifully reverted. Not sure this article is allowed to be updated or referenced. If you review my edits, you'll find I was trying to do just what you're asking. I added three reference and all three were reverted. I took out the unsourced text and it was slapped right back in.--Winged Brick (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of your behaviour here is at variance to how other editors have seen it (and for which you have been blocked). You are not blamelessly adding this reference, instead you're stripping the description of this ref and the page number, leaving just a bare URL, and you're removing the quote from this ref that you clearly disagree with.

There are aspects to these changes that you might have a valid point to, but for as long as you persist in simplistic revert warring, no one will be listening. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, are you re-engaging in the conversation or just taking pot shots that ignore that you were edit warring and doing simplistic reverts of my edits? Just because I did not chose to tattle on you to the noticeboards does not mean you were blameless. If you are sincerely re-engaging, please go to the bottom of my page where I went far beyond 'simplistic reverting' and quantified my edits which YOU reverted. I would be happy to engage in a dialog, but this is the wrong section for it. I'm STILL waiting for you to answer what I previously wrote in that section. --Winged Brick (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be of great value if this article discussed the benefits of slugs as compared traditional rifles in generic terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.159.115 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit added a large paragraph directly into the "Use" section. It concerns an alleged study done by a company called Mountaintop Technologies.

The existing body of the section claimed that shotgun slugs provide better range while hunting. The new additions from the edit claim this to be false, and go on to claim the study proved it true. On top of this, rather than modifying the whole section to show the new information, it was added in such a manner that causes it to look more like a forum post, as if arguing with the existing information rather than just updating it.

As a final point, while it concerns a study done, there is no citation anywhere in the section. I was going to edit it to fit better on the page, without the argumentative nature, however I was unsure if the lack of citations concerning a study meant that the edit should simply be reverted.

Could someone more familiar with the guidelines concerning citations decide if it should stay?

Zamte (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that all "sabot slugs" are of jacketed or monolithic copper construction. However, I am given to understand that Federal Cartridge Co. manufactures and sells a saboted shotgun slug in calibers 12 and 20 gauge that is an unjacketed projectile made of pure soft lead, about 0.58" caliber in 12 gauge, in a plastic sleeve, apparently intended for use with rifled barrels. I do not think that this is the first such design ever to have existed, and in fact the article mentions the old BRI designs from forty years ago.

Also, speaking of ammunition for shotguns that discharges a single large projectile contained in a protective sleeve of some kind, would the old Finnish hunter's trick of removing the lead birdshot from a shotgun shell and replacing it with a large (15-18mm) steel ball bearing wrapped in paper, ball bearing and wrapping thickness chosen carefully and fitted to the specific shotgun so that it will not damage the choke? This was, back in the Depression Era, a way for a hunter who might have had only a shotgun and not a rifle in his possession to hunt for elk or wild boar. It was said to be not very accurate, and could only be used effectively within 30-40m, but was much preferable to a pointy stick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shotgun slug. 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/20090625092359/http://taser.com/products/law/Pages/XREP.aspx to http://taser.com/products/law/Pages/XREP.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference that stated that the projectile was spun. This edit has been repeatedly reverted to a flawed, inaccurate edit that does not reflect either the reference or reality. For one, this statement, "The actual purpose of these fins is solely to minimize the friction on both the barrel and projectile" is untrue. The fins impart spin that stabilizes the bullet. This is not gyroscopic stabilization, rather the reference says it corrects for imperfections in the slug. --Winged Brick (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read both this article, and the reference?

Neither of these question that the ribs impart spin to the slug. Instead the article and ref states, "these ribs impart no significant stabilizing spin". The point is that this spin has no stabilising effect, not that there is no spin.

As you're already at 4RR I'll leave you to restore this. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is cherry-picking a statement out of the article. Yes, I read both this article, the article I added, and the references already here. The fact is the 'reversion' was adding back untrue information. My edit does not say that the ribs add stability (they do) but rather left it at the fact that they spin the slug and that is their design. The NCJRS article says, "The slight rotation imparted by the ribs reduces the effect of manufacturing irregularities. In tests performed by Winchester-Western, the slug rotation was confirmed, resulting in consistently smaller groups for rifled slugs than unrifled slugs." Therefore, the ribs gave the slugs spin and the spin resulted in smaller groups. That is not my conclusion, that is the conclusion of the article. This does not contradict what it says earlier about imparting 'no significant stabilizing spin' rather it confirms that the spin is not completely useless, as the wikipedia article previously implied. I am not restoring anything. WP:3RR does not apply to correcting erroneous information. It is also not a weapon or threat to be used when you have a weak argument for your reversion. --Winged Brick (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI reference is quite specific, "Neither Brenneke nor Foster slugs depend upon the rifling ribs or projectile spin for stability. ". The ref you have since added is a WP:SPS that is obviously based on the FBI wording (even a high school plagiarism detector would flag up the wording) but adds its own ex machina and unfounded claim for stability. Now averaging out manufacturing errors might be one benefit from rotating slowly but that still does not make this a spin-stabilised projectile. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI reference also says, and I repeat, "The slight rotation imparted by the ribs reduces the effect of manufacturing irregularities. In tests performed by Winchester-Western, the slug rotation was confirmed, resulting in consistently smaller groups for rifled slugs than unrifled slugs." Look, if you aren't going to read my post and you're just going to smash the revert button, this isn't a discussion at all. At no point do I recall asserting that the spin STABILIZED the slug, rather that, first, it spun, and second, that spin added to the accuracy of the shot. BOTH these assertions are COUNTER to what the previous edit said and WELL supported in the reference. I will remove the SPS. Please, don't go off half-cocked and revert the edits en masse. I am attempting to refine it so it meets WP standards. All you appear to be doing is yelling "NO" every time you find a small flaw.--Winged Brick (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can also do the spin stabilization calculation with equations from Bryan Litz's book. Spin stabilization requires significantly faster twist rates than what results from the ribs on a slug. This is in agreement with the FBI report. Spin does not add to the accuracy, when the spin is so little. Basic ballistics. Please go with what the sources say. (FBI source, not the WP:SPS. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel, have you bothered to actually READ any of my edits? At no point did they assert spin stabilization. Not once. I was attempting to correct the errors in the initial version which I edited. THAT version stated that there was no spin and no advantage to the angled flutes other than marketing. In fact, this was in error. The version people keep reverting to retains those errors. Can you cite the current version and where it is in error and I will attempt to correct it. PLEASE stop the en masse reversions. I am making good faith edits and correcting errors here and the reversions are uncalled for and tedious to the process of building consensus. --Winged Brick (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have read your edits. However, they are clearly incorrect. The spin is patently incapable of improving the accuracy, being it is so little. That is what the FBI report says. That is what the quote from the FBI report also says. Please revert to the cited consensus version containing the quote. You are well past 3RR. See WP:3RR. Thanks. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a third time, I will quote the FBI report: "The slight rotation imparted by the ribs reduces the effect of manufacturing irregularities. In tests performed by Winchester-Western, the slug rotation was confirmed, resulting in consistently smaller groups for rifled slugs than unrifled slugs." Now... did you read it this time? Because that the slug rotation was confirmed and that the groups were consistently smaller. This is the very definition of improved accuracy. You say, "The spin is patently incapable of improving accuracy, being it is so little." Well, the patent says it improves accuracy. I believe you are mistaking gyroscopic stability with the true purpose of the spin. The spin assures that slight differences in manufacturing to not cause the slugs to veer one direction or the other. While the hollow base keeps the slug flying nose forward, the spin means that any inconsistencies result in a spiral flight path rather than a consistent yaw off course. This results in a more accurate shot per the reference, per the patent, and per empirical data. You keep trying to argue that the slug isn't stabilized by the spin and I NEVER SAID IT WAS! I said what the reference said, that it is more accurate. I have made the edit in good faith, provided a citation that is an authoritative government source published in an academic journal and I have not misquoted or misrepresented the facts. Please provide a SOURCE that contradicts what it says, or else let the edit stand. Because you disagree means nothing. The source has not been refuted; it is a reliable source. You would have me revert to the incorrect version arrived at without a discussion or consensus. --Winged Brick (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep removing the text, "these ribs impart no significant stabilizing spin onto the slug as it travels through the air."

Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing indent: I removed the statement because it is false. The spin is not insignificant as slugs that do not spin are less accurate. As the citation states, "The slight rotation imparted by the ribs reduces the effect of manufacturing irregularities. In tests performed by Winchester-Western, the slug rotation was confirmed, resulting in consistently smaller groups for rifled slugs than unrifled slugs." Smaller groups, otherwise known as increased accuracy, is in no way, shape, or form insignificant. Further, the statement is misleading. The phrase, "as it travels through the air", is immaterial as the source clearly states that the spin is imparted in the cartridge and the bore, not in the air. It belies a basic misunderstanding of the patented and proven mechanics of the slug. --Winged Brick (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough's enough: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Winged_Brick_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, rather than discussing it here, you report it to the noticeboard? Please, tell me what is wrong with the current edit and I will fix it. I have made bold, good faith edits with proper references and I feel like the editors I am supposedly arguing with do not understand the material they are reverting. Simply stated, the reversions began because with the statement, "fins do not impart any stabilizing spin" which the edit did not assert they did. The users doing the reversion are doing so based on a misunderstanding of the material. "Stabilizing Spin" or "Gyroscopic Stability" is different than a spin meant to cancel out asymmetrical aerodynamic forces. In fact, Foster and Brenneke slugs are both aerodynamically stabilized however they spin to cancel out manufacturing irregularities. I did not assert that they were spin stabilized, only that they spun.

Again, I challenge the Miguel and Andy to point out what is wrong with the current edit rather than doing an end-around and attacking the editor. Sure, stopping me from editing will end the discussion, but that does not mean that my edits were not warranted. The article was written with falsehoods that the reference from a scholarly journal clearly refuted, so I rewrote the section to include this. Hard to follow? You don't have to follow it. Read the current section and tell me what is false. --Winged Brick (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded to any of the direct questions here. You simply 5RR blank and revert, removing the formatted ref and page number, then reintroducing it as a bare URL and claiming that it now refutes the direct statement it gives as, "these ribs impart no significant stabilizing spin onto the slug as it travels through the air." Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated that they impart spin as they travel through air. They are not designed to do so. I stated that they impart a spin, but that spin comes from the inside walls of the shotgun shell hull and the bore of the shotgun. Also, the terms 'significant' and 'stabilizing' are misleading. Nowhere is it claimed that the spin is intended to stabilize the slug. Nowhere is the word, 'significant' described. The phrase, "as it travels through the air" is also a qualifier that is nowhere stated, implied, or relevant. Nobody said that the fins impart spin as the slug travels through the air, but they do spin and that spin comes from the bore. FACT: The slug spins (supported by NCJRS reference). FACT: The slug gets the spin from 550 to 3,000 rpm (24-129 feet per rotation assuming conservative 1,200 FPS also from NCJRS reference). Feel free to call 3,000 RPM insignificant, but it's enough to keep a coin from falling over. FACT: The slugs are more accurate when spun (NCJRS). FACT: The spin is imparted as the slug travels down the bore (NCJRS). FACT: The slug can be fired safely from even the tightest choke (NCJRS). As for my using a bare URL as a reference, it's still a reference. I have no clue how to nor do I need to fix the reference to where it meets whatever standard you wish to hold it to. Feel free to fix it if you would like to be constructive. Just because it's improperly formatted does not mean you revert it. Also, I believe the US Department of Justice Crime Laboratory is about as authoritative as a reference can get. Removing material based on that reference will require more authoritative references. Good on you if you find one. There are sources which disagree, however when two sources disagree, the more authoritative one wins out. All of the duly referenced facts in the NCJRS article are reflected, to the best of my ability, in the text of the article. I removed erroneous information that was there before and I believe I made a bullet-proof case for removing the statement you brought up. Now, please bring up another issue with the Foster Slug section and I'll either fix it or defend it. --Winged Brick (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the incorrect information yet again, and restored the full cite with the actual quote that clearly shows that the spin does not provide stabilization, as the quote in the reference plainly shows. Also, Mr. Forster invented it. He spelled his name as Forster. However, it was noted in the earliest publications as a "Foster" slug, due to a misspelling of his actual name. The misspelling stuck. Much the Same as the derringer spelling, which also misspelled the inventer's name, too. Independently, Bryan Litz's books provide equations that clearly show that the small amount of spin imparted by the web on these slugs does not provide any significant stabilization. Just by virtue that there is a small spin does not impart stabilization. The small amount of spin also cannot improve accuracy. The FBI report clearly states that the spin does not stabilize the slugs (either type.) Please do not edit war, and continue wanting to believe what the cited quote clearly shows is not the case. Please. Thanks. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I have no clue where you are getting the 'incorrect' part since I have have point-by-point followed what was in the reference. If you doubt the reference, find you another one. It's Foster, BTW, unless you changed his name. Feel free to mention that it is MISspelled in some locations, but also do a darned good job of referencing that one. Since the majority of your edit was OR, unreferenced, speculation, or advice to handloaders, I reverted it en masse. --Winged Brick (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The man's actual name was Karl M. Forster. The first people who published the info in the 1931 time-frame misspelled his name. The common spelling of the inventor's name has become Karl M. Foster, even though it is not how he spelled his name. The round was then marketed in 1936, and has been sold commercially since then. No speculation. Fact. The quote from the reference also states that there is no stabilization from the spin. Youre edit warring needs to stop. Two editors are trying to correct the information, and you insist on edit warring, while reading references incorrectly. Stop it. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that he should sign his name, "Karl M. Foster" on his patent then. Are you confusing Karl Foster with the "Forster" brothers who made reloading equipment? Please see the next section for the explanation of why I reverted your edit. Please cease edit warring and reversions. --Winged Brick (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you still blanking article content, and the supporting FBI ref, which state "There is no spin stabilisation"? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not blanking article content. See the next section in Talk where I, point-by-point, explain my removal of said content. As for "spin stabilization", the edit I am reverting to does not advocate spin stabilization. What is said is wholly supported, if not word-for-word, in the FBI article. If you have not read what I have written here, do not read the references, and do not read my edits, I find it tedious to work with you. --Winged Brick (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that thing which you do? It's removing content: several hundred bytes of it, just look at the page history and the red figure as you reduce the size.

Also, "I'm not edit warring, I am editing" is nonsense: that thing which you do? It's edit warring.

When you remove this content you remove a specific detailed ref from the FBI and also a near quote from it, "this is not spin stabilisation". Just because you keep the bare and unintelligble URL from the FBI source doesn't mean that you are not removing this sourced content. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you keep taking a quote out of content from the REFERENCE I provided, does not mean that what the article says, what you are reverting, is not supported in the reference. I already explained this in nauseating detail above. You have not read this, apparently, or you would understand MY POINT. I understand your point. You say that your quote from the article means you are right, when I did not assert spin stabilization ANYWHERE in ANY of my edits, which you have not read. READ my edits then READ the referenced article. --Winged Brick (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'm calling your reverts as simple vandalism from here on. The other active editors have expressed some degree of consensus over the other version (further editors are very welcome to comment) and all you do is the same revert, stripping the good ref and its "there is no significant spin stabilisation" quote. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can call them whatever you want, but you continue to REFUSE to address the line-item edits I made per the section following this. I will continue to edit. What I am doing is not reverting. I am restoring the edit that YOU or YAF have reverted. --Winged Brick (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new section to explain my reversion point-by-point: 1) "Ribs" are the preferred term per U.S. patent 2,414,863. They are also a more accurate description as 'fin' implies that they stabilize the slug by spinning it through the air. Rather, they act more like reverse rifling acting on the projectile in the bore, per the patent. It is also desirable to use the same nomenclature throughout the article. 2) Spin: The spin is, indeed, imparted on the projectile. Two separate styles of slug use external rifling to spin the projectiles. This spins them slowly and improves accuracy. This has been authoritatively demonstrated by the article I linked. 3) Range: The slug has no intrinsic range. It is wholly subjective and in the place of any statutory/manufacturers recommendation, or broad consensus, 'range' should be left out as arbitrary and, frankly, silly. 4) Choke wear: Manufacturers consistently state that the slug is SAFE to be fired from any choke. Modern choke is designed to withstand steel shot without damage. A lead slug that is DESIGNED to be shot safely through the choke does not wear the choke. That is, of course, unless you have a darned good reference that says it does. I need measurements and barrel life estimates. 5) Handloading: Wikipedia is not a reloading manual. I removed reloading suggestions. --Winged Brick (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The long-standing English language convention has been to express shotgun loads in terms of ounces and grains. Likewise for rifle bullets, the long-standing English language convention has been to specify grains for rifle bullets. Changing to rounded metric units loses all the precision in terms of providing useful English language information. The 7/8 oz. slug is the lightest slug in common use. The 150 grain and 168 grain 30-06 bullets are typically within a tenth or two of a grain of these units. Converting to "rounded" metric units loses all precision, where the precision of the weight in grains becomes other than 150 gr and 168 gr. This is the English Language Wikipedia. The long-standing practice of using both grains and ounces for shotgun loads, and grains for rifle bullets are what all the English language reloading manuals are written in, too. Force-fitting an ill-fitted metric rounding loses all the precisions that are required. As noted in the article, there is no substitution of components when reloading shotgun shells and slugs. The pressures are too close to the maximum. Introducing approximations to very precise English units is simply dangerous. Force-fitting metric rounded data is simply not a way to maintain understanding of the folly of not following longstanding convention. The English units for precise grains and ounces must remain as the primary units, with metric conversions being secondary. The English language shotgun shell reloading books are not written in Metric units. Have restored the English units to prevent misleading readers. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Miguel Escopeta:. Sorry for the long delay to get back to this article. I was the one who took initiative to add more SI unit conversions to this article, as well as ordering them first with U.S. customary units second in parenthesis.

According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Units of measurement, "The main unit in which a quantity is expressed should generally be an SI unit or non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI." In other words, SI units are the default primary units. There are listed some few exceptions to this according to the Manual of Style:

• "In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the main unit is generally a U.S. customary unit (22 pounds (10 kg))."
• "In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, although the main unit is generally a metric unit (10 kilograms (22 lb)), imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts (7 miles (11 km) by road)."

I do not see how this article subject has strong ties with the United States or the United Kingdom, as shotgun slugs are used across the globe. Shotgun slugs in Europe have commonly been designated with projectile weight in grams and cartridge length in millimeters for probably over a century. Most people outside the U.S. and U.K. do not understand their respective U.S. Customary unit system and English unit system. It could also maybe be argued that this article is a somewhat scientific, which would also would result in not meeting the criteria for U.S. customary units being the primary units.

Sauer202 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]