my current Lee Enfields ,Full bore

[Ridolpho]

In the extreme case, Beerhunter, people get nervous about entering into a discussion for fear of being made to look silly over often cyptic and complex jargon. We all knew which rifle he was referring to just as we all knew there would be a reaction to the terminology. So far the focus of discussion of Dwg's rather nice collection has been jargon.

Dances with gophers: the MkV SMLE looks rather nice. Is it mainly original?

Ridolpho

[enfield303t]

A member with 25 posts and some great Lee Enfields and who gives a rats arse if the gun is called a P17 or M17? Thanks for the post, welcome to the Lee Enfield addiction!

No wonder, as Ridolpho said, " people get nervous about entering into a discussion for fear of being made to look silly over often cyptic and complex jargon".

[Peter Laidler]

Just being the Devils Advocate here for a moment, but in a technical world, the correct designation and terminjology Is important....., VERY important indeed. I mentioned before of answering something about '..... the pin sticks in the hole where the sight is......' . So, being helpful, you mention how to push up 'the pin' from below only to find that the turkey isn't even on the same wavelength as you........... Oh, no! It's not the PIN, retaining, pin axis backsight he's talking about but the PLUNGER, backsight!

Or the King screw........ Or the classic 'safety catch that won't go fully forwards...........' Yep........ or no........ It's not the safety catch he's talking about but the BOLT, locking.

When you've written a few technical papers you very soon learn NOT to use any ambiguous terms such as '.... the whole lot will come out .....' Bren gun breech block and piston! No it won't, it will come out as a breech block and piston assembly (the BB&PA). Only thereafter can ........... anyway. just my 2c's worth because if something can be misinterpreted or misread or misunderstood then guess what WILL happen?

[WarPig1976]

I have to say the Us Model of 1917. :-) is the more accurate of the 2,

Well, since they are basically identical the deciding factor must be the superior accuracy potential of the .03-06 round...

[Brian Dick]

Our friends in New Zealand and Australia call them "Long Toms". Come to think of it, didn't the USA have 155mm cannons called "Long Toms"? Might be easy to confuse the two. Sorry guys, I couldn't resist. I got called to attention and lectured at a gun show by an elderly, knowledgeable patron, (God bless him!), many years ago about using the term P'17. I've made sure I say "U.S. Model 1917" ever since!

[A square 10]

ill weigh in on actually reading first before saying anything stupid ,

i am speaking from experience going back a lot of years , i will admit i still say stupid things on occasion , and i expect to do so in the future , but not intentionally ,

so having said that - it IS a pattern 1914 rifle evolved from the pattern 1913 rifle , acceptably a P14 here in the colonies - now independent

and it IS a model 1917 rifle evolved from the pattern 1914 also acceptably an M17 for simplification ,

[Bindi2]

ill weigh in on actually reading first before saying anything stupid ,

i am speaking from experience going back a lot of years , i will admit i still say stupid things on occasion , and i expect to do so in the future , but not intentionally ,

so having said that - it IS a pattern 1914 rifle evolved from the pattern 1913 rifle , acceptably a P14 here in the colonies - now independent

and it IS a model 1917 rifle evolved from the pattern 1914 also acceptably an M17 for simplification ,

[rayg]

There is no such beast as a P17

There's nothing wrong with a well meaning correction to a term or model but the above version was not called for, it just belittled the poster for his lack of knowledge. And it didn't even offer the correct term to use. A little consideration of other persons knowledge or lack of it folks, Ray

[Bindi2]

There's nothing wrong with a well meaning correction to a term or model but the above version was not called for, it just belittled the poster for his lack of knowledge. And it didn't even offer the correct term to use. A little consideration of other persons knowledge or lack of it folks, Ray

If I was blunt that is not what I would have said that is light humour where I come from. Read #8

[Beerhunter]

In the extreme case, Beerhunter, people get nervous about entering into a discussion for fear of being made to look silly over often cyptic and complex jargon. We all knew which rifle he was referring to just as we all knew there would be a reaction to the terminology. So far the focus of discussion of Dwg's rather nice collection has been jargon.

Forgive me but I did not react to the OP's post. My post was in answer to someone claiming that using the correct terminology doesn't matter. I think that it does and so does the British Army, e.g. "Today we had naming of parts."