-
It does illustrate how ambiguous some things can be worded though. As apprentices we were not permitted to use certain words during out written exams. Words like '...it can be tightened onto the shaft' were taboo. It was '..... the retaining or locking nut can be tightened on the shaft'. If something can be mis-interpreted, guess what WILL happen?
I was tasked to re-write the L2A3 Sterling EMER as a small project many years ago with strict instructions to follow the apprentices technical authorship guide lines. To illustrate the point, I saw a deliberately ambiguously written set of instructions of how to use a car jack. Interpret it the wrong(?) way and you were crushed!
-
Bear,
Up here in Canada, we still see quite a lot of No 1 Mk 111's with the windage adjustable rear sight.
I think if they "weren't broke don't didn't fix it" so to speak.
-
I bet those dial sights on the fore-end played havoc with uniforms during the Order Arms and 'Unfix Bayonets' parts of the drill movement. I wonder if this was the reason why old SD's had a reinforcing patch on the shoulder.
Many of the old UK Army Apprentices will remember that we STILL wore old pre-war serge SD's right up until 1965 or so when we gradually changed to Battle Dress and then very late on, into the then 'new' No2 Dress. Our SD's were a mixture of open and closed neck
-
Bear: Nice rifle and nice job getting it back in shape. That Indian forend looks right- nice and dark and a bit used. Far better for restoration than a pristine NOS piece in my opinion. Any evidence that the action body is a recycled older part? My own 1916 Enfield was built with a Mk I body which I believe was salvaged and reused.
Ridolpho
-
Ridolpho; No, there is no sign of the body being anything other than an original 1917 body. However, I used to own a 1916 rifle that I wish I had back because it was a salvage. It was a Mk III* from BSA. The rear sight had been replaced (struck out serial and new one matching receiver), had a 1917 barrel, had a Mk I front handguard and a Mk I nosecap (ground and numbered to the receiver). It was a very interesting piece of history.
Peter, I always appreciate your thoughts and insight! The bit about ambiguous descriptions is excellent. I have written a few technical documents in my line of work (software programmer) and the principals do carry over. It must be explained precisely or someone will muck it up. I try and use the terminology and nomenclature as best I can but I am always grateful for the guidance and corrections provided.
-
I have wondered if the use of the term "may embody" in the LoC of 1916 is related to the fact some MkIII*s were produced in 1915 prior to the LoC & if those MkIII*s (or some) were made with all the Volley sights etc was the LoC was worded that way so those rifles would conform
-
I have always considered the time of 1915-1917 to be a "never say no" period of production where the exhausting of stores, etc., makes anything possible. That is a period of time that causes the most confusion for me.
-
I always maintain that ambiguously worded instructions and orders are done deliberately so that afterwards, when things have gone pear shaped, those WRITING the orders can always blame the other party. While those making a mockery of those same orders by misinterpreting them can/will always have a let-out clause.
-
Isn't it the clause of "All care - No responsibility."
-
I think 5th Batt is correct - it would make sense to word the LoC as it was, if only to reflect that all sorts of permutations may arise depending on how big a stockpile of various parts the different factories had on hand at the time of the acceptance of the Mk3*& rifle; it would be foolish to reject a Mk3* rifle (no cut off) just because it had been fitted with a windage adjustable rear sight or a Mk3 rifle that lacked one, for example.
