| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Enfield EM-2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Commando552 (talk | contribs) m (Additional Images) |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Additional Images == | == Additional Images == | ||
[[Image:Enfield bullpup prototype.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Enfield EM-2 - .280 British]] | [[Image:Enfield bullpup prototype.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Enfield EM-2 - .280 British. This image from Wikipedia is cropped from an image of a gun on display at the Springfield Museum, and includes at least two brackets holding the gun up that appear to be part of it but are not (the diagonal band at the muzzle and the block between the stock and magwell) and an L-shaped plate on the magwell which appears to be some kind of device to stop patrons from stealing the magazine.]] | ||
[[Image:EM-2 arctic model.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Enfield EM-2 arctic model with enlarged trigger guard for use with heavy cold weather gloves - .280 British]] | |||
== Specs?? == | |||
Why make a page with NO specs?! --[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] 12:35, 31 May 2012 (CDT) | |||
:TBH the specs for a gun are mostly a piece of trivia, it isn't a cardinal sin to make a page without them. Especially when you consider that this gun was only at the prototype stage so the specs will possibly be different for different prototypes, there were less than 100 made, and has only appeared in one thing. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 12:54, 31 May 2012 (CDT) | |||
::I've pulled the Battle Rifle category; while a couple were rebarreled for 7.62mm, that only really proved it wouldn't actually ''work'' in that calibre which is why it was dropped in favour of the SLR. Certainly, nobody's going to go to category:battle rifle looking for this. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 02:42, 1 June 2012 (CDT) | |||
:::I used the term "rebarrelled" in the specs to simplify it, but I think the battle rifle caliber rifles were all actually newly built. And it was more than 2 out if 59, there were 27 built in 7.62x51mm. However, will concede that as this was basically a failed prototype it doesn't need the tag. TBH I doubt that anyone will ever be looking through the categories for this thing anyway. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 03:36, 1 June 2012 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:53, 4 August 2021
Additional Images
Specs??
Why make a page with NO specs?! --Zackmann08 12:35, 31 May 2012 (CDT)
- TBH the specs for a gun are mostly a piece of trivia, it isn't a cardinal sin to make a page without them. Especially when you consider that this gun was only at the prototype stage so the specs will possibly be different for different prototypes, there were less than 100 made, and has only appeared in one thing. --commando552 12:54, 31 May 2012 (CDT)
- I've pulled the Battle Rifle category; while a couple were rebarreled for 7.62mm, that only really proved it wouldn't actually work in that calibre which is why it was dropped in favour of the SLR. Certainly, nobody's going to go to category:battle rifle looking for this. Evil Tim 02:42, 1 June 2012 (CDT)
- I used the term "rebarrelled" in the specs to simplify it, but I think the battle rifle caliber rifles were all actually newly built. And it was more than 2 out if 59, there were 27 built in 7.62x51mm. However, will concede that as this was basically a failed prototype it doesn't need the tag. TBH I doubt that anyone will ever be looking through the categories for this thing anyway. --commando552 03:36, 1 June 2012 (CDT)
- I've pulled the Battle Rifle category; while a couple were rebarreled for 7.62mm, that only really proved it wouldn't actually work in that calibre which is why it was dropped in favour of the SLR. Certainly, nobody's going to go to category:battle rifle looking for this. Evil Tim 02:42, 1 June 2012 (CDT)