TattooedGun wrote:nickb834 wrote:TattooedGun wrote:
There is no such thing as a metric rifle and an imperial rifle.....
That's not true - see the L1A1 - Inch pattern FAL versus the FN FAL say the STG58 - Imperial versus Metric right there...
I think you missed the joke.
Either way, if the sights on those 2 rifles are interchangable then it's not the rifle that's imperial vs metric, it's the sights....

Haha no I trimmed the Star Wars joke off (Empire etc - although, strictly speaking they weren't rifles they were SMGs - props based on Sterlings!).
Anyhoo in the case of the L1A1 vs FAL; two otherwise identical rifles - even chambered in the same calibre (ostensibly) are dimensionally different - they're not just described as being X milimeters which is Y thousandths - they're actually two different dimensions when both are measured in either of the units of measurement.
In point of fact -
regardless of what the sights are or are not - the L1A1 / Lithgow etc are inch pattern wheras the FN FAL is metric. Parts are not 100% interchangeable due to the aforementioned dimensional differences.
Now, it just so happens that the L1A1 sights were graduated in yards and the FAL's were in meters. I'm not sure how in any way this comparison can be seen to be anything other than a legitmate example of an Imperial rifle versus metric rifle - that even have the added benefit of looking near as dammit identical!
Just a for info really, I wonder what other oddities like this exist.......
I do also wonder at what point the Army switched over to metres for range / distance and mills for nav bearings / artillery etc?