I have done lots of successful metrication edits on www.wikipedia.org I was also converting weapon calibers for example converting: ".50 machine gun" to "0.5 in (12.7 mm) machine gun'
I was aware that before 1954, the British and Americans disagreed about the size of an inch but was ignoring that (I claim 'translators licence') and simply converting using the google converter which uses the 'international inch' of today. However, I received some feedback that I would like some help with. This is what was said: ******************************************** Re: your edit on the Northrop YB-49 page. Note that .50 is an ammunition calibre and there is not always a 1:1 correspondence between metric and imperial calibres. For example, the 7.62 mm NATO round is not equivalent to a .30 round - it's a .308, and guns designed for the 7.62 can fire a .30 round only if specifically modified to do so. Similarly, the 5.6 mm NATO is a .223 round. The problems arise because different weapon and ammunition manufacturers are measuring different things when they specify calibre. If we were to try standardising, we would have to decide on an independent, arbitrary standard. IMHO, best practice is not "translating" calibres. Note too that imperial calibres are most conventionally specified as .50, not 0.50 in (which might be the same as the weapon's bore, but also might not be - in the case of the M2 or M2-derived guns on the YB-49, it just happens to be true although this isn't a given). Artillery and naval guns are a whole other ball game though, and are conventionally specified as bore diameters. I'm not sure that I would convert those either, though. Note that the US Army specifies its howitzers as 105 mm and 155 mm, not 4.13 in and 6.10 in. ******************************************** -- Terry Simpson Human Factors Consultant Connected Systems Ltd
