Hello, Synaptic peach, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Harrison49 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, some good info on the 4.85mm Enfield, but I have a couple of suggestions to amend it for clarity if I may:
"5.56mm Remington" is a conflation of the military (5.56x45mm) and the sporting (.223 Remington) versions of this cartridge, which though generally interchangeable, are produced to different specifications, including soft point sporting projectiles of various weights for the .223 Rem. The version that I think you are referring to as "then existing" is the US 5.56mm M193 round, which was introduced with the original M16/M16A1 which had a 55 grain projectile. The version that competed with (and was victorious over) the 4.85mm was the Belgian FN-designed SS109 5.56x45mm round which used a heavier 62 grain projectile.
Your reference to "Armalite" should be replaced by "M16/M16A1" for clarity and linked to the M16 page, as the AR18 (which page you have linked to) was never a US standard issue weapon.
You probably need to find a source for the assertion that the 4.85mm round was seen to be superior. There is one, as I have read it somewhere, can't remember where though. If I recall correctly it is related to the greater sectional density of the projectile which (other things such as muzzle velocity and projectile weight being similar) would mean superior performance at longer ranges.
"far more rounds of ammunition could be carried by an individual soldier". Undoubtedly true when compared to the 7.62mm, which is where the comment undoubtedly originated, but the weight difference between the 4.85mm and 5.56mm rounds is negligible - they are almost the same overall size (i.e. fit in a M16 magazine) and based on the same case, and the projectile weight is within a few grains (437.5 grains in an ounce).
"Remington and its supporters" Remington wasn't the advocate and was really nothing to do with it - it was the US Government who once again wanted its chosen solution to be adopted by NATO (unsurprising as they constitute more than 50% of NATO contributions). You are right about money being a big factor though.
There is an expert who contributes on here who has written an entire book on the 5.56 who knows way more than me though - he might comment at some stage. Strangways (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I actually handled the prototype at Warminster and talked to the trials team from Enfield. They were adamant that it was superior to the then available 5.56 round. As for it fitting the M16 magazine - I'm not sure about that. The impression given was that they had developed the 4.85 round from scratch based on some calculations around weight, size, muzzle velocity etc. The problem is that it was such a long time ago - one sunny afternoon in the middle of an all-arms course. However the actual weapon PLUS its ammunition made a huge impression and I've always wondered what might have happened if the 5.56 ammunition had not held sway in the final analysis. I remember distinctly asking what was so special about the 4.85 (taking into account that the kinetic energy of the 7.62mm NATO round was sufficient to pass through a brick wall and kill someone on the other side - a fact that is extremely useful in CQB). I asked if the 4.85 had similar capability and was told something along the lines that it was not quite so penetrative - but not far off and more accurate at range. We also had some discussion about the comparison with the 5.56 round as that was being touted as the likely NATO replacement standard. That was where the team talked about the development curves of the respective munitions and it is quite obvious that even by the mid-1970s the 5.56 had been around for quite some time. They hinted that the 4.85 development ammunition they had been testing had come through trials performing better than 5.56 munitions (presumably fired from an M16 or similar). This doesn't make the conversations any easier to verify as I have no idea where any test reports might exist and I certainly wouldn't have access to them anyway.
I was not in the infantry (Officer in the Royal Artillery) and retired from the British Army in 1988 - shortly before the SA80 was introduced widely into service, so never actually got to use it. Synaptic peach (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Sack of Rome (410), you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)02:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Wiki Loves Monuments
Thanks for all those who took part in the annual Wiki Loves Monuments, assuming that there is Yorkshire in the image detail, we achieved 566 new images. Most of these were from North Yorkshire with 560 of those images indicating thay are from there. The other 6 are from elsewhere in Yorkshire.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The October 2024 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered October 2024 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Sack of Rome (410), you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
