-
Posts
34 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation Activity
-
mjmoss got a reaction from That_Baka in Bash the EM-2 Thread
Well I wrote my Master's dissertation on it, so I've been hands on with the rifle and I've done archival research into UK govt. records. It's difficult to say when exactly it 'died' because it depends on what you take a the final nail in the coffin. The very final death of it was Churchill and the Conservative Party's return to government in late 1951. His meeting with Truman in Jan '52 ended all hopes of progress with the EM-2. But arguably the project stalled when the ammunition compromises began and the US were still disinterested. From an engineering standpoint the rifle needed a lot more work, Nate and I have discussed several times how the EM-1 probably had a better chance of becoming a suitable service rifle. It was a serious contender for unilateral British adoption certainly if we had decided to go it alone (Churchill very much saw the big picture and did not want us to do that). It is possible Canada may have followed us which may have cancelled out some of the production capacity concerns.
-
mjmoss got a reaction from Collimatrix in Bash the EM-2 Thread
From my research the only fore-thought regarding mass production I saw was a number of letters to 2 fibreglass specialists about the manufacture of fibreglass stock furniture rather than wood and wood veneer used on the prototypes. As regards to the simplification of manufacturing I don't recall seeing any in-depth plans - I just don't think they got to that point. Both the bolt and receiver would have required quite a lot of machine operations per unit. The FCG could have been made from stamped parts but that is about it. The milling needed for the bolt and the locking flaps were unavoidable but perhaps something could have been done to reduce machine time for the receiver. There was a weight limit established by a WO spec that the ADD/ADE worked hard to be close too.
-
mjmoss got a reaction from D.E. Watters in Bash the EM-2 Thread
From my research the only fore-thought regarding mass production I saw was a number of letters to 2 fibreglass specialists about the manufacture of fibreglass stock furniture rather than wood and wood veneer used on the prototypes. As regards to the simplification of manufacturing I don't recall seeing any in-depth plans - I just don't think they got to that point. Both the bolt and receiver would have required quite a lot of machine operations per unit. The FCG could have been made from stamped parts but that is about it. The milling needed for the bolt and the locking flaps were unavoidable but perhaps something could have been done to reduce machine time for the receiver. There was a weight limit established by a WO spec that the ADD/ADE worked hard to be close too.
-
mjmoss got a reaction from Xlucine in Bash the EM-2 Thread
Christ, what a question! I shall try and keep it short - there are both political and technical stories running parallel.
It had potential, that much is clear. It was pursued over the EM-1 because it was slightly further along the development phase. Once Britain put all their efforts into the EM-2 the project was ambitious, more so than anything else at the time. Calibre was supposed to be selected by a panel of ballistics experts (Ideal Calibre Panel) but another working committee's suggestion of .280 was selected over the ICP's recommended .270 - a mistake. Not that .280 isn't a decent round for what it was intended to do. Politically this is all within the context of the emerging NATO alliance when they didn't know what they were aiming to achieve - standardisation proved to be impossible on all but some ammunition and some equipment.
The US, for their own reasons (which are worth a book in themselves) disliked .280 and made concerted efforts (at least in British eyes) to put NATO powers off .280. Meanwhile in the UK the sitting Labour party use EM-2 as a flagship rearmament program, Chruchill's Conservative party against this and believe in preservation of the Anglo-US alliance at all costs. Once Labour lose next election (just 5 months after 'adoption' of EM-2 as the Rifle No.9) the Conservatives move to axe rifle program. Some evidence to suggest Churchill may have used it as a bargaining chip to secure a senior NATO naval command position for UK (this may have occurred during the Jan 52 meeting with Truman).
The project stagnated due to US Ordnance unwillingness to compromise and UK political indecision. Add into this a lack of funding and a design which needed more refinement for general production and you have a complicated narrative.
That's the summary view and I feel like I have probably left out a lot - its been 18 months since I worked on EM-2 properly, other projects have taken priority. But its a fascinating rifle and its development and downfall are equally interesting. I've not doubt Nate can fill some of the inevitable gaps!
-
mjmoss got a reaction from D.E. Watters in Bash the EM-2 Thread
Christ, what a question! I shall try and keep it short - there are both political and technical stories running parallel.
It had potential, that much is clear. It was pursued over the EM-1 because it was slightly further along the development phase. Once Britain put all their efforts into the EM-2 the project was ambitious, more so than anything else at the time. Calibre was supposed to be selected by a panel of ballistics experts (Ideal Calibre Panel) but another working committee's suggestion of .280 was selected over the ICP's recommended .270 - a mistake. Not that .280 isn't a decent round for what it was intended to do. Politically this is all within the context of the emerging NATO alliance when they didn't know what they were aiming to achieve - standardisation proved to be impossible on all but some ammunition and some equipment.
The US, for their own reasons (which are worth a book in themselves) disliked .280 and made concerted efforts (at least in British eyes) to put NATO powers off .280. Meanwhile in the UK the sitting Labour party use EM-2 as a flagship rearmament program, Chruchill's Conservative party against this and believe in preservation of the Anglo-US alliance at all costs. Once Labour lose next election (just 5 months after 'adoption' of EM-2 as the Rifle No.9) the Conservatives move to axe rifle program. Some evidence to suggest Churchill may have used it as a bargaining chip to secure a senior NATO naval command position for UK (this may have occurred during the Jan 52 meeting with Truman).
The project stagnated due to US Ordnance unwillingness to compromise and UK political indecision. Add into this a lack of funding and a design which needed more refinement for general production and you have a complicated narrative.
That's the summary view and I feel like I have probably left out a lot - its been 18 months since I worked on EM-2 properly, other projects have taken priority. But its a fascinating rifle and its development and downfall are equally interesting. I've not doubt Nate can fill some of the inevitable gaps!
-
mjmoss got a reaction from D.E. Watters in Bash the EM-2 Thread
Well I wrote my Master's dissertation on it, so I've been hands on with the rifle and I've done archival research into UK govt. records. It's difficult to say when exactly it 'died' because it depends on what you take a the final nail in the coffin. The very final death of it was Churchill and the Conservative Party's return to government in late 1951. His meeting with Truman in Jan '52 ended all hopes of progress with the EM-2. But arguably the project stalled when the ammunition compromises began and the US were still disinterested. From an engineering standpoint the rifle needed a lot more work, Nate and I have discussed several times how the EM-1 probably had a better chance of becoming a suitable service rifle. It was a serious contender for unilateral British adoption certainly if we had decided to go it alone (Churchill very much saw the big picture and did not want us to do that). It is possible Canada may have followed us which may have cancelled out some of the production capacity concerns.
-
mjmoss got a reaction from D.E. Watters in Bash the EM-2 Thread
I'm afraid it's not available electronically at the moment :\ I did suggest it to them. I'm in the process of improving it, more learnt since I finished it 18 months ago. Nate is doing good stuff on the US angle though. Hopefully we can team up and put something together.
-
mjmoss got a reaction from Sturgeon in Bash the EM-2 Thread
Yeah, the IPC was set up in '46 IIRC, first of the EM designs were in prototype form by '47. Even before '46 the Armament Design Department was looking at ways to meet the 1944 Infantry weapon specification put out by the War Office.
-
mjmoss got a reaction from Collimatrix in Bash the EM-2 Thread
Christ, what a question! I shall try and keep it short - there are both political and technical stories running parallel.
It had potential, that much is clear. It was pursued over the EM-1 because it was slightly further along the development phase. Once Britain put all their efforts into the EM-2 the project was ambitious, more so than anything else at the time. Calibre was supposed to be selected by a panel of ballistics experts (Ideal Calibre Panel) but another working committee's suggestion of .280 was selected over the ICP's recommended .270 - a mistake. Not that .280 isn't a decent round for what it was intended to do. Politically this is all within the context of the emerging NATO alliance when they didn't know what they were aiming to achieve - standardisation proved to be impossible on all but some ammunition and some equipment.
The US, for their own reasons (which are worth a book in themselves) disliked .280 and made concerted efforts (at least in British eyes) to put NATO powers off .280. Meanwhile in the UK the sitting Labour party use EM-2 as a flagship rearmament program, Chruchill's Conservative party against this and believe in preservation of the Anglo-US alliance at all costs. Once Labour lose next election (just 5 months after 'adoption' of EM-2 as the Rifle No.9) the Conservatives move to axe rifle program. Some evidence to suggest Churchill may have used it as a bargaining chip to secure a senior NATO naval command position for UK (this may have occurred during the Jan 52 meeting with Truman).
The project stagnated due to US Ordnance unwillingness to compromise and UK political indecision. Add into this a lack of funding and a design which needed more refinement for general production and you have a complicated narrative.
That's the summary view and I feel like I have probably left out a lot - its been 18 months since I worked on EM-2 properly, other projects have taken priority. But its a fascinating rifle and its development and downfall are equally interesting. I've not doubt Nate can fill some of the inevitable gaps!
-
mjmoss reacted to Collimatrix in Bash the EM-2 Thread
Well, I'd love to see it once you're done.
Since you have studied this in more detail, what is your summary view of the EM-2 program?
-
mjmoss reacted to Collimatrix in Bash the EM-2 Thread
Excellent!
Do you, by chance, have a link to this dissertation?
-
mjmoss got a reaction from Collimatrix in Bash the EM-2 Thread
Well I wrote my Master's dissertation on it, so I've been hands on with the rifle and I've done archival research into UK govt. records. It's difficult to say when exactly it 'died' because it depends on what you take a the final nail in the coffin. The very final death of it was Churchill and the Conservative Party's return to government in late 1951. His meeting with Truman in Jan '52 ended all hopes of progress with the EM-2. But arguably the project stalled when the ammunition compromises began and the US were still disinterested. From an engineering standpoint the rifle needed a lot more work, Nate and I have discussed several times how the EM-1 probably had a better chance of becoming a suitable service rifle. It was a serious contender for unilateral British adoption certainly if we had decided to go it alone (Churchill very much saw the big picture and did not want us to do that). It is possible Canada may have followed us which may have cancelled out some of the production capacity concerns.
-
mjmoss got a reaction from Sturgeon in The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.
Now you're thinking like US Army Ordnance!
-
mjmoss reacted to Tied in Turkish MPT-76
First Iran and the Khoozi now this
Jee there seem to be allot of people reverse engineering M16s or buying foreign reverse engineered M16s to replace G-3s
German engineering huh?
-
mjmoss got a reaction from Xlucine in Help Wanted: "Battle of the Battle Rifles"!
Effectiveness against aggressive watermelons is usually entertaining. Just throwing that out there...
-
mjmoss reacted to Sturgeon in The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.
That "setup" must weigh about four pounds unloaded. I put together the dumbest combination I could find.
-
mjmoss got a reaction from LoooSeR in The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.
That feel when you adopt a full power rifle cartridge but try and use it like an intermediate
-
mjmoss got a reaction from xthetenth in The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.
That feel when you adopt a full power rifle cartridge but try and use it like an intermediate
-
mjmoss got a reaction from Sturgeon in So lets say you had to equip a WW2 army...
I don't know if we've descended into shit posting in this thread yet but I want to post my choices anyhow haha.
Rifle: StG-44 Carbine: M1 Carbine Submachine gun: Pratchett SMG or Hyde M2 Light Machine gun: Bren Heavy Machine gun: MG42 Anti-tank weapon: PIAT... jk Panzerfaust Pistol: Browning: High Power can opener: Swiss Army knife -
mjmoss got a reaction from Sturgeon in The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.
That feel when you adopt a full power rifle cartridge but try and use it like an intermediate
-
mjmoss reacted to Virdea in Das Gee-Sechsunddreißig Ist Tot.
I have found many weapons get bad press rather than are bad weapons. I fired a Chauchat last year, and know a number of owners of the weapon. The weapon is reliable and accurate, and as a team weapon it caused the Germans to go so far as to put a stock on the huge 08 trying to get a weapon as effective into the hands of soldiers. Its reputation was earned when it was chambered for an overly powerful cartridge using bad metric conversion tables and assigned to one man gun teams (it was designed for two) who were not told to clean it each day... But if it was so bad why did the French make 175,000 of them and why did the French users love it so much?
The British PIAT was during WW2 hated because it would fail to recock, but it was a very effective weapon. The M60 now has a reputation as a dog but performed very well for America for two decades. The M14 was cancelled because it was the wrong rifle at the wrong time, but decades later it is well respected and back in issue.
I think the worst weapon ever issued, and it would be a problem for the Russians until the 1950s, was none at all. Although often assumed to be a piece of fiction from movies like Enemy at the Gates, it was in fact a long standing requirement of the Russian military, Imperial and Communist.
-
mjmoss reacted to Belesarius in Das Gee-Sechsunddreißig Ist Tot.
From the comments section of the article:
"Or a complete surprise, like a pre-order for the ak-12 in 6,5 Grendel."
WAT?
-
-
mjmoss got a reaction from Belesarius in Das Gee-Sechsunddreißig Ist Tot.
I'd love to see some impetus towards the developing of new caseless ammunition. But this isn't it sadly, the Brundeswehr on paper seem like one of NATOs strongest members but like most European armies they're a hollow force with limited spending power. I think the most realistic option would be an upgrade - aluminium trunnion perhaps? Otherwise it will be an off the rack purchase from with HK (if as you say they haven't burnt all their bridges) or from FN.
Given today's news out of Colt it's unlikely we'll see them winning any major European contracts anytime soon. Colt Canada on the other hand...
-