Talk:Ishapore 2A1 rifle/Archive 1

Front Sight Assembly

The "squared-off" wings/guards for the front sight are not unique to the 2A and 2A1 rifles. Rifle Factory Ishapore adopted this simplified design sometime in the 1950s during production of the .303 caliber rifle No1 MkIII* and simply retained it during production of the 7.62mm NATO rifles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.169.226 (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The title "Rifle 7.62mm 2A1" seems too technical, given that "Ishapore 2A" and "Ishapore 2A1" are clearly the common-usage names for this rifle. We don't, for example, title the M14 rifle article as "United States Rifle, Caliber 7.62mm, M14", though that is the technically correct US military designation. It's normally just called "M14", so that's what the article is titled (with "rifle" added for disambiguation purposes). Thus, I'd recommend moving this article to either Ishapore 2A or Ishapore 2A1. — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you; I'd suggest Ishapore 2A1 rifle as the 2A variant is not commonly encountered. --Commander Zulu 08:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been a year and there have been no objections, so I've moved the page- actually, I'd completely forgotten about it until now. How time flies! Commander Zulu (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Ishapore 2A would've been better, because it's the 2A1 that's the variant, while the 2A is the original design. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The 2A rifle is very rarely encountered; the 2A1 is the most commonly found variant and the various articles I found in magazines and on the net refer to the "Ishapore 2A1" and not the "Ishapore 2A" rifle. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be akin to moving M16 rifle to M16A2 rifle, since it's the most common version. "Ishapore 2A rifle" can encompass both version, since the 2A1 is simply a minor revision of the original design. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

7.62 vs .308

The "7.62 vs .308" portion of the article strikes me as rather unencyclopedic. Encyclopedias aren't meant for giving shooting advice to readers. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If anything this section of the article is getting even worse, to the point that it's overshadowing the actual subject (the Ishapore 2A rifle), and it has definite overuse of italics and worse yet all-caps text for emphasis. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this information is due to the misrepresentations when these rifles were imported; they were commonly imported as (.308 Winchester), hence the historically and relevant debate of (.308 vs. 7.62). The second reason is due to a NRA warning about the Enfield rifle actions converted to 7.62 from .303 which has been mistakenly applied to the Ishapore 2A/2A1 variants.--192.88.94.254 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this section again - it has nothing to do with the rifle itself. Wikipedia isn't a self-help guide; this information is sufficiently covered in the articles on the cartridges themselves. 206.117.89.5 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added this information back again - this is relevant information that is part of this rifles history... the cartridge information is not sufficiently covered with regards to this specific rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.67.85.52 (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So, I and the two IPs (192., from near Wichita, Kansas; 97., from near Arab, Alabama) had a brief edit summary conversation about this:

22:08, 4 November 2014‎ 192.88.94.1 (talk)‎ . . (6,844 bytes) (+2,495)‎ . . (Undid revision 632244356 by Ansh666 (talk)Due to the complete history of the rifle, the information is very relevant... please learn the history prior to whole sale deleting of valid data) (undo)

05:52, 3 November 2014‎ Ansh666 (talk contribs)‎ . . (4,349 bytes) (-2,495)‎ . . (Undid revision 632243151 by 97.67.85.52 (talk) no, it's not relevant to an encyclopedic description of the weapon itself, per WP:NOTGUIDE - has been discussed already on talk page) (undo)
05:35, 3 November 2014‎ 97.67.85.52 (talk)‎ . . (6,844 bytes) (+2,495)‎ . . (Undid revision 631969873 by Ansh666 (talk)Due to commonly being imported as a 308 Win, this information is relevant.) (undo)

03:26, 1 November 2014‎ Ansh666 (talk contribs)‎ . . (4,349 bytes) (-2,495)‎ . . (→‎Additional Facts: rm irrelevant info) (undo)

I, and the other IPs above, contend that detailed information about the difference between cartridges, NRA warning or not, does not belong on this page, per WP:NOTGUIDE. A quick note about the import errors is fine, but a full-blown discussion about something not directly related to the rifle itself is not needed. The content that I believe should be removed is this: all of the #Additional Facts section, minus the first three sentences.

The unnecessary text.

One of the most noted misconceptions between the 7.62mm NATO and commercial .308 Winchester ammunition; "the .308 Winchester generates significantly higher pressures than 7.62mm NATO ammunition". This is due to incorrectly substituting the SAAMI (piezoelectric transducer) pressure measurement system with the (Copper Units of Pressure, "CUP") measurement system. The original specifications for 7.62mm NATO (M80 BALL) ammunition uses the CUP (Copper Units of Pressure) method. The commercial ammunition usually conforms to the SAAMI standards using the (piezoelectric transducer system) AND/OR the (Copper Units of Pressure, CUP) pressure measurement systems. For example, 7.62mm NATO ammunition that has been subjected to 125°F to -65°F storage conditions can have an average pressure that shall not exceed 55,000 CUP (Copper Units of Pressure). Whereas commercial .308 Winchester ammunition can have a SAAMI/ANSI maximum average pressure of 62,000 PSI (piezoelectric method) OR a maximum average pressure of 52,000 CUP (copper units of pressure); both of these measurements from SAAMI are one and the same, they just represent different methods of measuring (such as inches and millimeters). The real issue is the differences in the NATO vs. COMMERCIAL cartridge cases, typically the commercial cases are thinner than the NATO cases. Firing commercial cases in NATO chambers can possibly lead to problems, such as a ruptured case, because NATO chamber head space is longer. Prior to firing ANY .308 Winchester ammunition through a 7.62mm NATO chambered rifle, it is strongly advised to check the headspace using a "field" gauge for commercial .308 Winchester ammunition. Doing so will ensure that it is truly safe to fire commercial ammunition in a NATO chamber. The simplest and safest solution is to use 7.62mm NATO ammunition exclusively. References

When reading this, note the complete lack of mentions of the Ishapore 2A/2A1, including for example the words "this rifle" or anything else. It is solely about the difference between two roughly equivalent but not identical cartridges, one of which happens to be the cartridge the rifle was designed for. Moreover, three of the five sources used in this section are not even close to reliable, one of the others (the primary source) does not discuss this at all, and the last is a dead link. Not even the individual articles for .308 Winchester and 7.62×51mm NATO mention this information (again, per WP:NOTGUIDE), but those would be the correct place for a general discussion of the matter.

I am going to revert one last time to catch the IPs' attention to draw discussion to the talk page instead of continuing to edit war. ansh666 00:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Improved" steel

The comments about "improved" steel need to be qualified, What was the improvement / grade of the steel? I have seen it described as "EN steel". This is meaningless on its own: "EN" stood for "emergency Number" used to classify proprietry steel alloys for WWii, to allow steels of the same composition to be produced by other makers, "EN" was accompanied by a number, and sometimes a letter, for example EN1a was a free cutting engineering grade of mild steel, EN8 was a 0.4% carbon steel, EN19 was a 0.4% carbon, chrome molybdenum, or chrome molybdenum nickel steel equivalent to American SAE4140 or SAE4340 steels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.236.13 (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Differences between 2A/2A1 and SMLE MkIII*

Other than the obvious use of different barrels and magazines, there are several other changes.

The 2A-series use the buttplate from the 1A SLR, a flat-bottomed aluminum unit, rather than the curved brass, steel or zinc unit used on other SMLEs. Presumably because the 1A buttplate was readily available and requires less precise woodworking to fit.

The ejector screw is in a different location. This also serves as a confirmation that the 2A-series were built on new receivers rather than being conversions of SMLEs.

The sights are different.

The squared-off front sight ears of the 2A-series are a simplified version of those used on the SMLE, and are also found on many late-production Indian-made SMLEs. 2A1 production appears to have ended circa 1973, while SMLEs have been observed with production dates as late as 1987 and the SMLE-based IOF .315" sporing rifle is still in production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.94.226 (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)