Talk: SMLE MKIII

Latest revision as of 20:20, 5 October 2016

Merging[]

Given the fact that weapons variants (that are close to each other) are usually together in one page on the BF wiki, shouldn't this be merged with the No 4? Ultimate94ninja ^{talk · contribs} 19:51, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

BF1's No 1 SMLE and 1942's No 4 differ about as much as the M16 variants; to my knowledge the No 4 really just has a stronger bolt and a heavier barrel. Compared to the case with something like the CAR-15 and the M4 Carbine, the SMLE and No 4 are still the same gun, so I'd support merging them into either one SMLE or Lee-Enfield article. -

Apprentice125^(Talk)21:18, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

They are as different as M16 and M4. Юра 23:57, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

Not based off of what I've read so far. The No 4 functions identically to the No 1 minus it having a flip-aperture sight and it being front heavy because of the new barrel. There were no real design changes and it wasn't supposed fill out a role different from the No 1, whereas the M4 is intended for a close-quarters carbine role in the AR-15 family. I still say the difference is closer to the case with the M16 variants, the difference between the A1 to the A2 comes to mind here, but it's your call. -

Apprentice125^(Talk)03:59, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

You are overlooking the huge production differences between the rifles. No.4 and MkIII/* have significantly different constructions methods which create significantly different rifles. There is a much larger gap between the Mk. III and No. 4 than between the M16A1 and M16A2. They are functionally identical from the perspective that they're rifles that share the same basic action, sure, but so are the M4 and M16 according to that argument. Talking about differences in doctrinal employment isn't really relevant to the discussion, either, because the M4 is a service rifle just the same as the M16 was. Юра

04:19, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

True, I did overlook the construction methods... aaand the fact that the M4 is a service rifle now. I do tend to forget about the actual role a weapon is officially used in compared to their doctrinal usage, stupid mechanical way my head works. I have nothing else to argue for the merger then, so unless anyone else has anything they'll stay separate. -

Apprentice125^(Talk)04:33, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 :BF1's No 1 SMLE and 1942's No 4 differ about as much as the [[M16]] variants; to my knowledge the No 4 really just has a stronger bolt and a heavier barrel. Compared to the case with something like the [[CAR-15]] and the [[M4 Carbine]], the SMLE and No 4 are still the same gun, so I'd support merging them into either one SMLE or Lee-Enfield article. -{{Signatures/Apprentice125}}21:18, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
-They are as different as M16 and M4. [[User:YuriKaslov|<span style="color:green">Юра</span>]][[file:YuriKaslov - Sig image.gif|15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov]]  23:57, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
+They are as different as M16 and M4. [[User:YuriKaslov|<span style="color:green">Юра</span>]][[file:YuriKaslov - Sig image.gif|15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov]] 23:57, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
 :Not based off of what I've read so far. The No 4 functions identically to the No 1 minus it having a flip-aperture sight and it being front heavy because of the new barrel. There were no real design changes and it wasn't supposed fill out a role different from the No 1, whereas the M4 is intended for a close-quarters carbine role in the AR-15 family. I still say the difference is closer to the case with the M16 variants, the difference between the A1 to the A2 comes to mind here, but it's your call. -{{Signatures/Apprentice125}}03:59, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
-::You are overlooking the huge production differences between the rifles. No.4 and MkIII/* have significantly different constructions methods which create significantly different rifles. There is a much larger gap between the Mk. III and No. 4 than between the M16A1 and M16A2. They are functionally identical from the perspective that they're rifles that share the same basic action, sure, but so are the M4 and M16 according to that argument. Talking about differences in doctrinal employment isn't really relevant to the discussion, either, because the M4 is a ''service rifle'' just the same as the M16 was. [[User:YuriKaslov|<span style="color:green">Юра</span>]][[file:YuriKaslov - Sig image.gif|15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov]]  04:19, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
+::You are overlooking the huge production differences between the rifles. No.4 and MkIII/* have significantly different constructions methods which create significantly different rifles. There is a much larger gap between the Mk. III and No. 4 than between the M16A1 and M16A2. They are functionally identical from the perspective that they're rifles that share the same basic action, sure, but so are the M4 and M16 according to that argument. Talking about differences in doctrinal employment isn't really relevant to the discussion, either, because the M4 is a ''service rifle'' just the same as the M16 was. [[User:YuriKaslov|<span style="color:green">Юра</span>]][[file:YuriKaslov - Sig image.gif|15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov]] 04:19, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
+:::True, I did overlook the construction methods... aaand the fact that the M4 is a service rifle now. I do tend to forget about the actual role a weapon is officially used in compared to their doctrinal usage, stupid mechanical way my head works. I have nothing else to argue for the merger then, so unless anyone else has anything they'll stay separate. -{{Signatures/Apprentice125}}04:33, June 7, 2016 (UTC)