EM2 production

Morning all, following on from our lively debate regarding the SA80, I wanted to take us back to another era and another bullpup, the EM2.

I had the great opportunity to inspect an example a few weeks back and was very impressed with the overall design, it appeared very advanced for its time and seemed to offer great promise for further development.

Considering the rifle was officially adopted (briefly) under the designation No9 mk1, how far had production plans evolved and how many of the .280 calibre prototypes / pre production rifles were made?

Any plans made for Canadian series production?

I would assume production plans would have echoed it's replacement, the L1A1 and been undertaken by Enfield and Fazakerley or indeed BSA had events unfolded in the same way.

Any info avalable anyone, plus, for those of us lucky enough, what does the file shoot like, I would love to shoot an example of this fascinating rifle!

Only approx 60 of the principle soon-to-be No9 or so were made. Plus some others in various guises. Was it the No9 or the No10 rifle? Even the nomenclature was never officially decided upon.

I would disagree about nearly all you have said about it and my reasons have been written here several times if anyone is prepared to drag them up or resurrect them again under this new EM2 heading. If it had been introduced, it would have been another SA80 as it wasn't fully trialled nor had the final spec even been decided on. Mind you, with a bit more time...... As for the bolt and firing mechanism/breech block........... well! The mere notion that a squaddie was going to field strip that on some dusty dirty range or in a slit trench in Korea.......... Let's not even go there!

Firing it with the action next to your ear was like listening to zebidee's spring going haywire. The action was like stirring a box of bolts with a spoon. Thank heavens the FN FAL came along to rescue the situation. I used to show the examples we had to design students of what the average soldier DIDN'T want!

It is a bit like the DeLisle......... Something that has gone into firearms folklore as mystical could-have-been wonder weapons. Too many people look at it through rose tinted spectacles

Thanks for the insight Peter,

Obviously I am not an armourer, just a keen collector with an interest in firearms design, development and fielding. From my personal layman's perspective, I thought the design shouldered well with very good balance, the sight line also seemed very natural. From what I read up on the the design, it appears to be well thought out, but the proof of the pudding as they say ... is it an accurate rifle Peter?

Regarding the types design immaturity, I must admit I thought it a lot closer to production standard than that, lots of kinks still to iron out by the sound of it.

Interestingly, I first fired the 7mm one at Shrivenham while on some obscure course together with another couple of forumers who venture here occasionally. At the end of firing we all used to muck-in to clean the weapons but the EM and the FG42 were left for the senior Armourer there to clean, simply because of their complexity. Which says it all really. When I went to Warminster he gave me a crash course on both........ Then I understood what he meant

I only met one person who was on the trials was a platoon sergeant in a rifle Company of The Royal Fusiliers had them while acting as the Demonstration Battalion. He wasn't impressed except that it was a big leap forwards from their old No4 bolt action rifles. They'd moved on by the time the FN's came into trials but they heard that the FN was good and 800 (?) off the shelf/different variations had gone to Malaya for combat troop trials under war conditions. Hardy war....., but you know what I mean!

I suppose by a twist in international politics and plain good luck, the UK (and Commonwealth) ended up with a fine rifle in the L1A1, a rifle that was right for the time. I would imagine though, had it been adopted the No9 would have eventually come right, just look at the initial issues with the M16 when it was first fielded, the basic design is still in front line service with the US 50+ years later.

As we have no facility to design or manufacture our own small arms today (with the exception of a few niche Companies) at least the next service rifle ... sorry "weapon System" will be a proven design.

Ian from Forgotten Weapons did a small shoot with it about 4 years ago:

https://youtu.be/_wdhN5_RpX4

Never having actually handed one, let alone fired one my opinion is limited to just that...what it's worth. But, I WAS infantry for decades and SA instructor for longer than I care to recall...and frankly want nothing to do with such a rifle. Neat to study and perhaps fire for curiosity but as Peter points out, the collection of small parts are not for infantry in the field under duress or fatigue, let alone darkness.

This one falls into the same category as the Johnston rifle, where the designer thinks it's a great idea and perhaps a few others that don't need to actually use it. The young men that do need to use it and deal with it soon reject it when shown... The reason they seem to climb to the heights of a wonder weapon is because they never did come to use and be proven a dismal failure.

Yes. The FN was the proper thing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Neat to study and perhaps fire for curiosity but as Peter points out, the collection of small parts are not for infantry in the field under duress or fatigue, let alone darkness.

---

This plays a major factor in weapons design, not every soldier is inherently a moron, however after 24, 48, and 72 hours without proper sleep even the world's brightest person degrades to a drooling, knuckle-dragging, neanderthal. It is at those times that weapons need to to be straightforward, as simple as possible, and drills hammered home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

Ian from Forgotten Weapons did a small shoot with it about 4 years ago:

[video]https://youtu.be/_wdhN5_RpX4[/url]

---

Back on my phone now, so can't see the video, but if it's the 7.62 version they are shooting I have seen it in the past .. got to say it seems quite the handful in 7.62mm, bucks about like a mule! Glad they never carried on flogging the dead horse in 7.62mm and saw the Fal shaped light!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Morning all, following on from our lively debate regarding the SA80, I wanted to take us back to another era and another bullpup, the EM2.

I had the great opportunity to inspect an example a few weeks back and was very impressed with the overall design, it appeared very advanced for its time and seemed to offer great promise for further development.

Considering the rifle was officially adopted (briefly) under the designation No9 mk1, how far had production plans evolved and how many of the .280 calibre prototypes / pre production rifles were made?

Any plans made for Canadian series production?

I would assume production plans would have echoed it's replacement, the L1A1 and been undertaken by Enfield and Fazakerley or indeed BSA had events unfolded in the same way.

Any info avalable anyone, plus, for those of us lucky enough, what does the file shoot like, I would love to shoot an example of this fascinating rifle!

---

EM-2 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (info on numbers)

- .30-06 EM2 In 1952 and 1953 with the likelihood of... (one of the ones converted to .30-06)

British EM-2 Forgotten Weapons (excellent disassembled photos)


10 were built at Long Branch (member "wheaty" owned one at one time)...

The EM-2 is basically a vertical feed, flapper locked (more parts!!) upside down FG42, (with the op rod above the barrel), [while the FG42 was simply a lightened side feeding Lewis gun]... with the receiver lightened to such an extent it probably wouldn't have had a long lifespan in the field...and was horribly complex to machine.

As has been said here (and other places) repeatedly, successful combat weapons (historically & today) are as simple as possible.