Talk:L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1

New Zealand Heavy barreled SLR

The heavy barrel variant of the "inch" SLR was also used by New Zealand forces. I was trained on this in the late 70's.218.186.19.10 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference to NATO Bren

Just a minor detail, the reference to the Bren is slightly inaccurate and overstretching:

"as the UK and New Zealand used the Bren light machine guns converted to fire the 7.62mm NATO cartridge."

This was only true as of the Bren MkIV. The Mk I, II and II models all chambered .303 rounds as did the L1A1 SLR. I only mention this because later in the article there is also the contradictory but well known anecdote of soliders sometimes using Bren magazines to feed the SLR variants; the L1A1 had a 20 round box magazine, the Bren had a 30 round mag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.200.71 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"chambered .303 rounds as did the L1A1 SLR." Utter crap. The SLR was NEVER produced in a .303 variant. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk. FergusM1970 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Some of the Brens (designated L4 NOT Mk. IV) were re-chambered for 7.62 NATO and used new magazines that were compatible (save for the gravity feed issue - they would fit, but they had feed issues) with the SLR mags. Also, the SLR is chambered in 7.62 NATO, not .303 --L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Libya??

Should the recent uprisings in Libya not be included somewhere? When you watch the news the two most prevelent rifles you see are the AK47 and L1A1, and it does seem to be the L1A1 specifically as opposed to the FN FAL. Just a thought.English n proud (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


users

just added Brunei ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Brunei_Land_Forces --Kolpo-san (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Century Arms

The Century Arms FN FAL supposedly built from an L1A1 parts lacks the lightening cuts in the receiver that are common to all Inch pattern rifles, and looks like belgian style metric receiver with british style furniture and bolt... As it's not very representetive of the L1A1 I think the image should be removed, if nobody objects.... 91.55.121.229 (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Century is well known for mixing inch and metric parts too. Any FAL assembled by them is suspect. And saying "Canadian C1s issued to naval and army personnel were also capable of fully automatic fire." is nonsense. Canadian C1/C1A1's were semi-auto only. Our C2's were select fire though.

Requested move 7 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, so move back to long term title, namely L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle. I think there are reasonable arguments made by both sides. Sources don't give a clear picture one way or the other as to whether "Self-Loading Rifle" or "SLR" are part of the proper name or not - many sources do include that across the board and capitalise it, but a few don't. !votes are roughly split on which of those interpretations we should use, which means it's a no consensus, and we go back to the stbale long term title.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


L1A1 self-loading rifle → L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle – "Self-Loading Rifle" is part of its proper name, and should be capitalised. (Talk:Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle set a precedent.) RadiculousJ (talk
) 12:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was moved from upper case to lower case back in December by User:Iazyges who I pinged. He must have been using Talk:Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle as a precedent. Unclear to me why he would take the EBR discussion as being *in favor* of going to lower case. The result of that discussion was No Move, i.e. leave the upper case article at upper case. The simplest way to generalize from Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle move discussion to this article is that the page *was* at upper case and it should stay at upper case until there is a consensus to go to lower. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the EBR article had been lowercase for many months before it was moved and reverted back at which point another editor again moved it to uppercase and promptly went and got the page protected from the edit warring that he was in the middle of. Primergrey (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I was unaware of that RM. The L1A1 move was a technical request that seemed legitimate to me, so I moved it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Capitalise I am thoroughly sick of "technical requests" and the lazy lack of checking before actioning these moves being used to railroad "MOS" uniformity changes over sourced reality. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Which of the technical requests are you suggesting failed to check? This one is not quite like the Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle, which really was borderline, being capped in enough sources that the closer noted it could stay treated as a proper name since Most participants seem to agree that a large majority of sources treat it as such, which fulfills the guideline's line that "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." On this self-loading rifle, on the other hand, it's nowhere near that border; we checked. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I know, don't you hate it when the majority of sources out there are inaccurate? I found a bunch more books that don't do it "right" like you want: [7], [8], [9] [10]. And more here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The strange thing is, the sources you've provided don't all call it the "L1A1 self loading rifle" anyway. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
There is some variation, since it's descriptive, not a proper name. The lowercase form and even some partially-capped forms almost always include the hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose—L1A1 is surely the nominal identifier, as one of a larger class of (generic) self-loading rifles. Otherwise we'd be writing "I own a Macintosh Computer". Tony (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The Mac was sold as "your plastic pal who's fun to be with", rather than a scary old "computer", so it was branded as "Macintosh", not "Macintosh Computer". However the IBM PC was sold as a "Personal Computer", and for that, we capitalise PC and Personal Computer (for the specific IBM product) to this day.
The L1A1, the FN FAL (oh look, capitalised too) or the "SLR" were not merely "a rifle that is self-loading", but it was named the Self Loading Rifle in its British service description. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support such a move since the official UK and Commonwealth name/designation for the rifle was capitalised. The official name had no hyphen, though (as seen here), so I suggest moving the article to "L1A1 Self Loading Rifle" instead. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I've modified my !vote because you're 100% correct - no hyphen. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
How is that Austrialian web page that uses the term in caps only in the title, and uses generic descriptive version in the text support for interpretation as either official or proper name? What are you guys smokingthinking? Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If you're unable to
remain civil, I'd suggest stepping away for a bit. Exemplo347 (talk
) 16:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I modified my playful comment to one that you might find more neutral and acceptable. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
In this case, it's definitely a proper noun. It's not a generic term, it's the official title used to designate this particular item in British & Commonwealth service. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
No evidence has been presented that it's the "official" name, and we don't usually adopting style from other official sources anyway, do we? Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, you were presented with a link from an Australian Government site but you dismissed it - "How is that Australian web page..." - even though it uses the correct method of "L1A1 Self Loading Rifle" twice. You really need to defer to people more familiar with the subject matter - you're just wrong about this. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I stipulate that it uses the form you prefer, twice, as a title. In the text, however, it says "The L1A1 is a gas operated, semi-automatic..." and "The L1A1 SLR was the standard rifle..." and "a local adoption of the British L1A1 SLR"; nothing in here suggests that they are making anything official by the use of that title in the War Memorial collection. Other pages at gov.au call it "The L1A1 SLR (self loading rifle)" and "L1A1 7.62 mm self loading rifle" and other things. I don't see why you'd pick one as "official". And anyway, the article is not about what the Australians call it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Now don't move the goal posts - I've provided a government source - if government sources aren't official enough for you, well then that's too bad. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Also note that : The World's Definitive Guide... says, "The X14E1 was formally adopted as the L1A1 (Rifle, 7.62mm, FN, LI Al ') on March 1 1957". So I'm glad we don't have to stick to official terminology in naming articles. That's why we have
WP:CRITERIA. Dicklyon (talk
) 01:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
An apt automobile analogy would be the "Volvo X90 sedan", or "Ferrari F40 coupe". Primergrey (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Self Loading Rifle (or more commonly "SLR" in British and Australian service) is its proper name, so should have initials caps. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose From the MILHIST MOS, "When using numerical model designation, the word following the designation should be left uncapitalized (for example, "M16 rifle" or "M109 howitzer") unless it is a proper noun." Primergrey (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Luckily, in this case, "Self Loading Rifle" is its NAME, not just some generic descriptor. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2017‎ (UTC)
"unless it is a proper noun." It is, so... RadiculousJ (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Many sources seem to disagree with your circular reasoning. Primergrey (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
That circle can be broken by looking at sources, which very clearly show that self loading rifle is NOT a proper noun or proper name (as seems obvious by inspection anyway). Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of a pile-on, M1 Garand is a similarly named rifle, Garand is a proper name, so is SLR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't actually help here, because Garand was the designer's surname. RadiculousJ (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Cases like the M1 Garand are what that guideline quite obviously means to make an exception for. Not for every pettifogger's favourite peice of weaponry. Primergrey (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This really does appear to be down to a simple misunderstanding about British and (sometimes) Commonwealth military equipment nomenclature. In the US, for example, weapons are nowadays just given a model designation. The British military still uses "Model Number Proper Name"-style nomenclature - for example the L86 Light Support Weapon is a light support weapon with the designation L86 Light Support Weapon. Yes, it sounds odd and at first glance to an editor unfamiliar with the subject it may appear to clash with the Manual of Style, but the interpretation in this case - that "Self Loading Rifle" is merely a description, is incorrect. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The US actually does use a similarly system, for example, Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle, M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, et cetera. RadiculousJ (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected! I'm always happy to learn new things. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
That one's pretty commonly capitalized in sources, except not on the US .mil sites. So to say the US uses such a system may be an unjustified inference. Dicklyon (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Self Loading Rifle is used as a proper name. - BilCat (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It is "used as" a proper name if we cap it. But it's not one, so let's don't. Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Your argument has become recursive. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
And it's wrong too. Just because some people don't cap it doesn't mean it's not one. One user who commented here has decapitalized actual proper names such as Army National Guard, so I'll ignore y'all's opinion on the matter as uninformed and/or biased. - BilCat (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I apologise that one of my edits caused you to lose completely your collaborative spirit and open mindedness. Although, I see you changed "reserve" to "US Army Reserve", so ya'll are learning. Primergrey (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
You're arguing that it become a proper name when used next to L1A1, even though it never is otherwise. This is opposite to what the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military_history#Capitalization guideline suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Not all self-loading rifles are Self Loading Rifles, just this specific type. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this refusal to accept the facts is deliberately tendentious or just due to a basic ignorance of reality in this case. If I assume good faith, it's due to the latter. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If others are ignorant of reality as you see it, maybe it's because you haven't provided any links to where we can see that reality (caps in one Australian web page don't tell us much about "reality"). I've provided a number of links to source usage that don't seem to agree with your view of reality. It's not for lack of looking, or deliberate tenentiousness; just how I see it, relative to WP's title and style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Why is the fact that it's an Australian government site such a problem? Australia was one of the major users of the SLR. I get the feeling you're never going to accept that you're incorrect this time, but you just are. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that it's just one site; sorry to distract you, I was just referencing which one web page was linked. You acted as if that page link settled the matter. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per
    WP has no "WP:COMMONSTYLE" rule, and never will. WP uses the style that best complies with our own guidelines, written for our own audience. The only exception to this is when some unusual stylization is almost universally used by reliable sources, including general-audience ones not just specialist ones; thus we have a few unusual cases like Deadmau5 and iPad, not given as "Deadmaus" and "Ipad" because sources virtual never ever do that, yet we have Pink (singer) and Alien 3, not "P!nk" and "Alien3", because few RS use these stylizations, and most of them do are specialized publications (entertainment industry magazines, fansites, etc.). As in those cases, it's permissible to note somewhere in the article text that the subject of this article is sometimes stylized, as "L1A1 Self Loading Rifle" and "L1A1 Self-loading Rifle"; but this is not really necessary in this case (it wouldn't actually add anything encyclopedic, compared to, say, observing that Sony is stylized "SONY" in marketing materials but is not actually an acronym).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢
     ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong in this case. SLR (Self Loading Rifle) is the
WP:IAR would apply if the MoS was a policy, but it isn't. Exemplo347 (talk
) 08:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Your last sentence is clearly wrong.
WP:IAR is Ignore All Rules, not Ignore All Policies. ―Mandruss ☎
12:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
(
MOS:CAPS is to not capitalize for emphasis. I think that about covers it. PS: I'm an NRA member and a sharpshooter bar-9, from a multi-generation military family, so don't give me any of that "only gun and mil people would understand ..." guff. This is a run-of-the-mill "guidelines don't apply to my topic because it's a special snowflake" RM.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢
 ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. The most positive aspect of this MoS pile-on is that none of you can close this discussion. I'm sure the uninvolved admin that closes this will see through the fluff. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If you're not reading things because they're too long, how do you know they are fluff? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose So far the sources presented indicate that there is no published standard regarding the term "self-loading rifle". For example this link [11] shows a mish mash in how the term is presented. Also, it is common knowledge that Government publications routinely use caps to emphasize words that are not proper nouns, as do marketing materials. This is simply the style of their specialized publications. These are not suitable for a reference work with a large target audience of general readers per
    WP:SSF
    .
Wikipedia applies a formalized writing style in agreement with other style writing guides, which are: "current editions of The Chicago Manual of Style, The Oxford Guide to Style (ex-Hart's Rules), The New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors – and others, such as Fowler's Modern English Usage, Strunk & White's The Elements of Style, the MLA Handbook", and the "AP Stylebook".
Although the specialized sources and newspaper sources are reliable for characterizing the topic, these are not reliable for titling and usage on or in Wikipedia articles. "Reliable source and specialized sources are not synonymous, and facts aren't style."
As can be seen , newspapers newsletters, specialist publications and marketing materials are not considered reliable as a style guides because they are not meant for a general readership. These are geared toward the hobbyist or aficionado, and professionals. Hence, we (on Wikipedia) use our own style guides for these situations
WP:NCCAPS and so on, derived from those other general readership guidelines. This maintains consistent standards across Wikipedia. -Steve Quinn (talk
) 06:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I originally created this article by spinning it off of the main FAL one, and I specifically capitalized the title because as far as I could tell, "Self-Loading Rifle" was being used as a formal designation akin to Mk. 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle, M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, M24 Sniper Weapon System, etc. Additionally, while it is not in any page titles, I do believe that the name "Short Magazine Lee-Enfield" is generally capitalized as well.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of weapon in specific battles

It's common to include the use of weapons in specific battles. Yet an entry was deleted because "it's part of the Troubles and does not merit separate mention".[14] The article on M4 Sherman, for example, doesn't just say it was used in WWII. Instead it gives a detailed history of its use in a variety of individual battles. Why should this weapon be treated differently? Felsic2 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

After doing some research I found a remarkable fact - two individual SLRs were used in separate conflicts decades and thousands of miles apart. I added that into to the "UK" section.[15] Felsic2 (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you expand on that? Who had them in Sierra Leone? Why were they presumed destroyed? (I'd have expected them to be held as evidence, if anything) How did they get there? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I can add more from the source. However the source doesn't say how they got from NI to Africa. Felsic2 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The original note was not any sort of detailed history, it was simply a bullet-point list. I cannot see why Bloody Sunday warrants special mention there, in such a constrained space? The same weapon was used in plenty of other Army encounters and ambushes in NI and even if Bloody Sunday is particularly well-known, the others are no less a political issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If there are sources talking about those incidents then lets add those too. I would say that Bloody Sunday is a particularly notable event. Felsic2 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
And I disagree. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
What is your threshold for including a battle or incident in an article on a military history topic? Felsic2 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a military history topic, it's a rifle. In "Timeline of The Troubles" then Bloody Sunday is rightly distinct. For this article though, it doesn't matter how important a linked topic is, only how important it is in the context of this rifle. The Troubles are important to this rifle: this was the service rifle used through the majority of it. A single incident though is not particularly important: the Paras didn't use a different rifle that day, just the same issue rifle used by other units, at other times. It still falls within the general history and the Troubles link. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a rifle that was designed for and used by military units. It includes extensive information on how it was sold to military units. It's part of WP:WikiProject Military history. It contains a section titled "Combat use". Most of its sources are combat oriented. So I think it's legitimate to say this is a military weapon.
Regarding discussions of the use of a weapon in combat, similar arguments could be made about M4 Sherman. That article includes battles in which the tank was used because it was part of the unit's regular equipment.
Considering the length and breadth of this article's attention to rather minor issues, like the long paragraph on the replacement of walnut furniture with Maranyl, means that its employment in an infamous incident is not out of proportion. Felsic2 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Where is India?India used this rifle and this rifle was India's standard rifle,it was used in Indo-Pak war. 14:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 14:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done India is mentioned in the current version.--Xzinger (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle/Archive_1&oldid=1077503985"