JonathanL Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Ok - this will probably **** off loads of people and will doubtless get me accused (again) of being a pointeless pedant but, here goes. Over the past couple of years or so I've noticed an ever increasing trend towards incorrect and confusing use of terminology among many shooters. The classic, of course, is the use of the term 'heads' or 'bullet heads' in reference to bullets. That has been widepread for a long time with even RFD's using it in their adverts in the shooting mags. It's even used in trade price lists. I was talking to a guy yesterday who said he'd heard it used by a regional head of a large shooting sports organisation recently. A couple of years back I was taking to a chap about stuff he was thinking about buying and the conversation turned to sights; 'my scopes aren't suitable for what I want, can you recommend something more appropriate?'. I asked him which rifles he wanted them for, to which the reply was his .308. Which other ones, I asked. Just the .308, was the response. He was using the plural 'scopes' to describe one telescopic sight. I've been shooting for over 25 years and that was the first time I'd ever encountered that. I seem to be hearing it a great deal recently. I have no idea where this comes from as i's just so utterly incorrect that I can't understand how it even came about. Another one is the use of the word 'reticule' in place of the proper word 'reticle'. A lot of the articles in UK shooting magazines these days seem to use the word 'build' when referring to a firearm being reviewed? What on earth does it mean? It seems to refer to the design or construction or something but I really can't see the need for its use. It just sounds stupid, quite frankly. It may possibly have a use if the writer were referring to a custom made item but I've recently seen it used in an article reviewing the Smith and Wesson MP15-22, which is a mas-produced rifle made in very large numbers. I never seem to see this uneducated use of terminology in foreign publications or on foreign websites so how come people here do? Again, people will accuse me of being a pedant but I do think that such incorrect use of language often makes some shooters seem a bit thick, quite honestly. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Perms Shotties Blackies Flying rats Carts Bunnies Charlie Rimmies Cert 'I went out on one of my 'perms' yesterday to decoy some 'flying rats'. I took some 30g no.6 'carts' and managed to kill 2 'flying rats' and 1 'blackie'. Later on I went to another 'perm' with the 'rimmie' and had managed 3 'bunnies' when 'Charlie' appeared from nowhere, about 20 yards to my left. I was sure the 'rimmie' would do the job and I dropped it on the spot. Oh and before anyone says anything I've got 'Charlie' on my 'cert' for the 'rimmie'. Thanks for reading. Jonathon, I think your gripes pale into insignificance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperfection Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Makes me chuckle when people insist on sticking the letter 'd' into pidgeon despite it being correctly spelt on every single page on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 pidgeon is a perfectly acceptable form of spelling pigeon my pet hate....tree rat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeon pete Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Perms Shotties Blackies Flying rats Carts Bunnies Charlie Rimmies Cert 'I went out on one of my 'perms' yesterday to decoy some 'flying rats'. I took some 30g no.6 'carts' and managed to kill 2 'flying rats' and 1 'blackie'. Later on I went to another 'perm' with the 'rimmie' and had managed 3 'bunnies' when 'Charlie' appeared from nowhere, about 20 yards to my left. I was sure the 'rimmie' would do the job and I dropped it on the spot. Oh and before anyone says anything I've got 'Charlie' on my 'cert' for the 'rimmie'. Thanks for reading. Jonathon, I think your gripes pale into insignificance. you forgot treerats bushes silencers ,what are meant to be moderators pigwats bullets/cases/cartrage/powder/propellent/consumables/projectile/live rounds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sako751sg Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Too long,did not read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 What is a 'pigwat'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeon pete Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 GUN = smooth barrel tube = what a ship has RIFLE= grooves in the barrel = rifling FIREARM = non military WEAPON = military expanding ammo =,soft point or hollow point = expands on impact ballistic ammo = molly tip or lead tin com-posit = fragments on impact What is a 'pigwat'? them grey things with wings that drop out the sky when you shoot lead at them ,well in my case i try to hit them lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted October 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 I always use reticle in my articles but one editor always alters it to reticule, the other leaves it alone. I believe both words are used in various written locations and both appear in the dictionary so i dont worry about it. As for the other complaints, the 'head' thing will never go away partly due to the requirements of written documentation regarding their usage/ownership/licence terminology etc and unfortunately im suspicious it derives from police usage that has filtered through dealers and become an accepted term. You will notice it is a term rarely if EVER used by an American who's life has not been affected by match/expanding differentiation issues. At the end of the day whats the point caring, judging by a lot of the written language used sll over the internet and forums, our language is rapidly evolving (in a very negative way?) There isn't any need to use the word 'head' in realtion to legal dealings with expanding ammunition. The Act uses the word 'projectiles' as does the certificate condition. That is a perfectly proper word to use as it is the descriptive term for 'bullet'. In fact, the word 'head' is likely to cause even more confusion because on it's literal interprtation it means you are referring to part of a bullet and not the bulet its self. The usuage of 'head' in relation to bullets pre-dates the expanding ammunition ridiculousness by a very long way. I think there are very good reasons to care. As you say, English is evolving in a rather negative way which is certainly something which is worth caring about. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazed Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 There isn't any need to use the word 'head' in realtion to legal dealings with expanding ammunition. The Act uses the word 'projectiles' as does the certificate condition. That is a perfectly proper word to use as it is the descriptive term for 'bullet'. In fact, the word 'head' is likely to cause even more confusion because on it's literal interprtation it means you are referring to part of a bullet and not the bulet its self. The usuage of 'head' in relation to bullets pre-dates the expanding ammunition ridiculousness by a very long way. I think there are very good reasons to care. As you say, English is evolving in a rather negative way which is certainly something which is worth caring about. J. What is "English" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) ft/lb. For some reason it seems to be more widely (mis-)used in airgun circles. ft.lb ft-lb or ft lb could all be acceptable nomenclature for foot pound but ft/lb (ie foot per pound) will always be wrong no matter how often it is misused, because it has a specif different meaning. Edited October 28, 2012 by HW682 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad1 Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Over / under or under / over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sconer Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 That was 2 mins of my life ill never get back, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted October 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 GUN = smooth barrel tube = what a ship has Most ship guns are rifled and have been for a very long time. Although you are correct that the term 'gun' actually refers to shotguns. If you look at many high-end makers like Holland & Holland they describe themselves as 'Gun and Rifle Makers'. RIFLE= grooves in the barrel = rifling The word rifle refers to a rifled long arm. Pistols usually have rifling but are not rifles. FIREARM = non military I'm pretty sure that the military also use the term. Their firearms are still firearms though, whether they use the term or not. WEAPON = military I do agree that the the, 'weapon' shouldn't generally be used for civilian owened firearms, at least in the UK. expanding ammo =,soft point or hollow point = expands on impact Well, the bullet expands (and I suppose even that is debateable), not the ammunition. The legal definition of an 'expanding' bullet is one which is 'designed or adapted to deform in a predictable manner...' ballistic ammo = molly tip or lead tin com-posit = fragments on impact No idea where you got this one from. Something deriving from Ballistic Tip, I assume, which is only produced by Hornady. All bullets are 'ballistic' as ballistics is the study of projectiles in motion. The proper term for a bullet which is designed to fragment is 'frangible'. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 We've been here before. Heads in particular really bugs me, as you'll see if you follow the link! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 I abhor the use of the term "caller" when referring to a blown duck or goose CALL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted October 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 We've been here before. Heads in particular really bugs me, as you'll see if you follow the link! Yep, agreed entirely. I see that on the other thread there are similar comments to those which have been made here. Namely, references to people using terms such as shotty, rimmie, carts, etc. These comments miss the point somewhat. We're not talking about colloquialisms or abbreviations. There is a difference between that and something which is simply incorrect and often logically absurd. The 'bullet head' discussion is a case in point. By using that term you are logically referring to a part of a bullet or you are saying that the whole round of ammunition is called a bullet. Similarly the plural term 'scopes' when referring to a single telescopic sight (a scope) is a logical absurdity. I'm actually quite confused as to how that came about. As I say, I've only heard it being used for, at most, a couple of years so I wonder how and from where it originated. I mean, why would it suddenly come in to usuage? A scope is a single item so should be referred to in the singular. Am I being too harsh in suspecting that it possibly originates from people who are a touch thick who were trying to make themselves appear brighter than they actually are? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 I abhor the use of the term "caller" when referring to a blown duck or goose CALL. What about 'Canadian' instead of 'Canada' geese? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted October 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Yep, agreed entirely. I see that on the other thread there are similar comments to those which have been made here. Namely, references to people using terms such as shotty, rimmie, carts, etc. These comments miss the point somewhat. We're not talking about colloquialisms or abbreviations. There is a difference between that and something which is simply incorrect and often logically absurd. The 'bullet head' discussion is a case in point. By using that term you are logically referring to a part of a bullet or you are saying that the whole round of ammunition is called a bullet. Similarly the plural term 'scopes' when referring to a single telescopic sight (a scope) is a logical absurdity. I'm actually quite confused as to how that came about. As I say, I've only heard it being used for, at most, a couple of years so I wonder how and from where it originated. I mean, why would it suddenly come in to usuage? You don't hear people saying that they want to replace their cars or their televisions when they need to replace a single one of those items. A scope is a single item so should be referred to in the singular. Am I being too harsh in suspecting that it possibly originates from people who are a touch thick who were trying to make themselves appear brighter than they actually are? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 What about 'Canadian' instead of 'Canada' geese? Yes, that is a pet hate. Talking of 'fowling I've just got back from taking a new member on a flight. No Canadians unfortunately, but we did have a few arthur's come over...just out of range though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magman Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Too long,did not read. :lol: that's as far as got :lol: ****** owes me a new screen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeon pete Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 J. the first guns on ships were very old shipsrifle was a musket that had rifling ,thus called a rifle expanding ammunition is on my FAC not bullets ballistic tips are well none and also VMAX ,,,lead tin composite was designed for airline Marshall's and close hostage work ,the projectile will fragment inside the target and cause no penetration Barnes grenades do the same please try not to make me sound out to not know about this ,you should do a bit more home work first , Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeon pete Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 its like tomato tomateo ,you can go on and on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazed Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 I was under the impression that expanding projectiles were labeled under the term "lead exposed core" and subsequently banned by the Hague convention for use in warfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeon pete Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 I was under the impression that expanding projectiles were labeled under the term "lead exposed core" and subsequently banned by the Hague convention for use in warfare. that's a good point ,it might be to do with terrorist after 911 ,i will have to find out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.