Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ross rifle"

From Gunsopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
I've made corrections to the chart. I recognize the chart given, but the copy/scan/whatever they were reading must have been too blurry. The original poster has put down Mk II** in places where it should read either Mk II<sup>3</sup>*, <sup>4</sup>*, or <sup>5</sup>*. This was generally how the stocks were marked (3* rather than ***).
 
I've made corrections to the chart. I recognize the chart given, but the copy/scan/whatever they were reading must have been too blurry. The original poster has put down Mk II** in places where it should read either Mk II<sup>3</sup>*, <sup>4</sup>*, or <sup>5</sup>*. This was generally how the stocks were marked (3* rather than ***).
  
And, I've made further corrections to the chart. The original source <b>The Ross Rifle Story </b>, while the most extensive and authoritative source on the Ross Rifle that I know of, appears to have a corrupted chart printed in it. It is missing the Mk IIIB and has one incorrect number for the Mark III. The correct chart (originally by the Army Historical Branch) was also reprinted in <b>A Question of Confidence</b> without the apparent corruption. I also added reference footnotes for the chart next to its title.
+
And, I've made further corrections to the chart. The original source <b>The Ross Rifle Story </b>, while the most extensive and authoritative source on the Ross Rifle that I know of, appears to have a corrupted chart printed in it. It is missing the Mk IIIB and has one incorrect number for the Mark III. The correct chart (originally by the Army Historical Branch) was also reprinted in <b>A Question of Confidence</b> without the apparent corruption. I also added reference footnotes for the chart next to its title. I also cleaned up the referencing for a couple books to reduce duplicates. And, I added a note below the chart about one model the Army Historical Branch had omitted (100% of which no longer existed at the time the document had been produced).

Revision as of 20:07, 14 June 2018

I've made corrections to the chart. I recognize the chart given, but the copy/scan/whatever they were reading must have been too blurry. The original poster has put down Mk II** in places where it should read either Mk II3*, 4*, or 5*. This was generally how the stocks were marked (3* rather than ***).

And, I've made further corrections to the chart. The original source The Ross Rifle Story , while the most extensive and authoritative source on the Ross Rifle that I know of, appears to have a corrupted chart printed in it. It is missing the Mk IIIB and has one incorrect number for the Mark III. The correct chart (originally by the Army Historical Branch) was also reprinted in A Question of Confidence without the apparent corruption. I also added reference footnotes for the chart next to its title. I also cleaned up the referencing for a couple books to reduce duplicates. And, I added a note below the chart about one model the Army Historical Branch had omitted (100% of which no longer existed at the time the document had been produced).

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox