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.

That (thread 7) was a 7.62mm version and 7.62mm was definately over powered for that rifle. Mind you, the UK originally specified FN/FAL's in the 7mm EM2 type cartridge........ It's mind bogglingly hard to believe - but true! Thank god common sense prevailed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

without proper sleep even the world's brightest person degrades

---

And then you start to see the bushes doing fire and movement toward you...been there, done that.

Does any-one know if the design team behind the EM2 was unusually large? If so was there an element of every-one in the design team wanting their input to go into the project resulting in too many cooks spoil the broth?

Great thread so far guys, many thanks for everyone's input ... give yourselves a pat on the back for getting to page 2 without our usual going off on a tangent!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Does any-one know if the design team behind the EM2 was unusually large? If so was there an element of every-one in the design team wanting their input to go into the project resulting in too many cooks spoil the broth?

---

I would guess it was, it seems most defence programmes of that era were monstrously bloated and poorly controlled, both here in the UK and in the rest of the world.

I recognise that range the rifle was tested on, I have been lucky enough to put rounds down it myself :).

We had an em2 traded to us that didn't work from Halifax, Nova Scotia. I don't remember who got it from us.

When you say, didn't work, was it deactivated, or parts missing/damaged?

As Peter said it had "issues" that would have required engineering effort to rectify before it was ready for service.

It was a pleasure being able to study an example of Firearm history though, historically it sits alongside other British doomed engineering efforts like the TSR2 programme.

The difference between the TSR-2 bomber and the EM2 rifle is that sooner or later, you'd get the TSR-2 off the ground. The EM2 was never likely to make the grade. I think that the complexity of the bolt was greater than that of the control surfaces of the TSR2

Parts were missing. The owner lost some of them

Attachment 79153Attachment 79154I believe the 7mmHV, EM-2 that I once owned was the only totally complete rifle in Canada at the time.
My EM-2 had the rotating iron/scope sight and was complete with the Canadian arctic trigger guard.
Only fired about 10 rounds out of it as as 7mmHV ammo was almost impossible to find but it was nice to be able to fire one for the few rounds that I did have.
The only thing that was of concern to me was the chamber beside your head.
I was never a fan of the bullpup design.
The EM-2, 7mmHV that Tom Dugelby (who wrote the EM-2 book) once owned went to the UK in trade for a 7.62 calibre EM-2 around 1975, if memory serves me right and is still there.
The British senior armourer at the UK EM-2 .280/30 trials was an old friend who picked up a biscuit can of empty British RG .280/30 brass that he gave me some years ago and that I think I still have it around ..somewhere, or maybe LeeEnfield got those also.
If anyone needs a spare EM-2 mag for either the 7mmHV or .280/30 let me know..... :-)##
*******Just made a quick run to the cellar and actually found the can of EM-2 .280/30 brass....
As we always have a doubter here, the head stamp picture is also included....
can14..(RP) ..drop me a private email.....

Well, that's quite somthing to have owned one of those rare birds!

Thanks for sharing the case pics. That has to be some of the rarest spent brass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

The difference between the TSR-2 bomber and the EM2 rifle is that sooner or later, you'd get the TSR-2 off the ground. The EM2 was never likely to make the grade. I think that the complexity of the bolt was greater than that of the control surfaces of the TSR2

---

Do you think it would eventually have been shelved as a lost cause Peter, or I wonder would it have eventually evolved almost beyond recognition like 1970's trials IW to the L85A2?

That said, the Army really couldn't carry on into the 1960's with the No4, so perhaps the luxury of waiting it out wasn't an option.

My views on the EM2 from the technical point of view are well known. On reflection, it was overrated and in reality, a total pig-in-a-poke compared with what else was in the offing from FN. During the 80's a lot of the old 7mm EM ammo surfaced from limbo somewhere and was quite plentiful and we regularly used to shoot it as Ensci and Bombdoc will confirm. I seem to think that it was all pink tipped ?. So I'm not surprised at the quantity of cases or live sloshing around. I saw quite a lot of it at one of those cartridge collectors things at Bisley a couple of years ago. Rare...... No. Expensive...... ain't got a clue!