Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I think the British hatred of flash hiders came from the idea that flash hiders were these things like grenade attachments that you mounted to the rifle only sometimes, such as when operating at dusk or at night. And some of the early flash hiders were pretty large and heavy.

 

What is really bizarre to me is that the Brits had already fielded the very successful No. 5 Carbine, which had a pinned on flash hider that was not terribly heavy. But maybe they believed this was not compatible with bayonet fighting or something stupid like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Yeah, I think the British hatred of flash hiders came from the idea that flash hiders were these things like grenade attachments that you mounted to the rifle only sometimes, such as when operating at dusk or at night. And some of the early flash hiders were pretty large and heavy.

 

What is really bizarre to me is that the Brits had already fielded the very successful No. 5 Carbine, which had a pinned on flash hider that was not terribly heavy. But maybe they believed this was not compatible with bayonet fighting or something stupid like that?

 

It's a borderline forgivable delusion to be under in the early 1950s.  I'm actually not sure on how they managed to remain so ignorant of subsequent developments that they still thought the same thing thirty years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

It's a borderline forgivable delusion to be under in the early 1950s.  I'm actually not sure on how they managed to remain so ignorant of subsequent developments that they still thought the same thing thirty years later.

 

For the record, they weren't the only ones. The flash hiders and grenade launchers on Stgw. 90s are also milled out of the barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:

 

For the record, they weren't the only ones. The flash hiders and grenade launchers on Stgw. 90s are also milled out of the barrel.



Oh, good.  So they were on the same page of arms design as the country that has fought literally nobody since 1847.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 2:23 PM, D.E. Watters said:

Is the EM2 receiver an entirely machined piece, or is it merely a machined section solely for the barrel trunnion and locking abutments, encased in a stamping?  Say like a StG44?



I'm still not sure what that little piece in front of the receiver is, but it is clearly a separate piece, and it is none too securely attached:
 

 

Go to 14:02 when Ian's hand brushes against it.


So, it would appear that the actual machined receiver of the EM-2 only goes from the stock to about the forward edge of the rear strut of the carry handle.  That's still way too big.

 

 

This also brings up the question of exactly what the optical sight is attached to.  The cross-section is a bit ambiguous:

DgRJfU7.jpg?1

(I think that "7mm x 45mm" is a typo, but I'm not sure.  By that point in the program they were making up new 7mm cartridges like they were pokemon or something.)


 

The EM-2's atrocious accuracy problems in the 1950 tests are often attributed to bad ammo.  While the ammo definitely was shit, and the .280 needed a lot more development in order to not suck, I am not convinced that the rifle had great potential for accuracy.

 

The barrel was also quite thin, and as you can see from the cross-section, decidedly not free-floated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a number of threads in various modelling fora, a fix is available for the Photobucket issue for the Chrome & Firefox browsers:  http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/125705-photobucket-fix/

 

Sorry if this isn't the right place, it was the most recent occurrence of the PB problem I could find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 4:44 PM, Sturgeon said:

I want to know how they made the receiver.

 

 

We now have more information on this matter.  Further EM-2 content is incoming soon(ish).

 

In the meantime, have a picture:

8u2XOXt.jpg

 

This is rifle number nine of batch number three, which according to the Collector's Grade book on the EM-2 was Stephan Jansen's personal rifle.  This picture was taken mere minutes before some absolute idiot tried to demonstrate how the firing pin shroud cams the locking flaps out, not realizing that this would cause the locking flaps to lock in the outward position so that the bolt would not fit back into the rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, xthetenth said:

Is that permanent? I can't imagine a thought process by which that would be irrevocable, but that's not what this thread is for.

 

No we fixed it. But it had us sweating there for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Ulric
      So, in the time between the suppressor design that I am doing for work, I decided to go after a semi clandestine manufactured SMG. The criteria driving the design is that round tube is incredibly common in SMG designs, so I wanted to avoid that and use rectangular tube and bar stock. This minimizes the operations that require a lathe, and while they ideally would be done on a mill, they can be accomplished with a drill press and hand tools if you have the patience. Some of these parts are innocuous enough that they could also be farmed out to local machine shops without raising eyebrows. Strangely, one of the larger issues that has faced clandestine small arms manufacturing is an acceptable human interface. Other people solve this by traditional methods such as carved wood grips, or cast/molded plastics, but that is a time consuming process to make a part that should be very simple. My solution was to use handlebar grips from a bicycle. They are already designed to provide a griping surface for your hands, and they are common enough and varied enough that you could will not have a problem sourcing them.
       
      As far as the design goes, it is still a work in progress. The receiver is pretty much dialed in, as are the trunnions, the barrel, barrel retention system, etc. The FCG has been a sticking points, as designing them is probably my greatest weak point when it comes to arms design. As the FCG is horribly incomplete, the bolt may similarly undergo changes. It is currently planned to have a linear hammer, but that is still in the works. I have only begun to consider what to do for the stock, and the forearm will probably come last. The design uses Uzi magazines, and I'm toying with the idea of being able to change magazine compatibility by having alternate lower receivers.
       
      There are two primary versions; the 9" barrel original design, and the 5" barrel design.
       

       

       
      Early assembly
       

       
      Charging handle/bolt/action spring interface
       

       
      Early receiver, designed to be cut out of 1x2" 11ga rec steel tube. The notches near the trunnion and front barrel support are to allow the components to be welded together.
       

       
      charging handle and barrel retention system details. The action spring guide rod runs through the front barrel support and in conjunction with the receiver it locks the barrel retainer plate in place. The retention plate slips into a grove cut into the barrel. This prevents the barrel from moving backwards out of the receiver, while the square section at the breech of the barrel nests in the trunnion to prevent forward movement. The barrel is not rigidly fixed to the receiver, but this is acceptable considering the intended applications of the weapon.
       

       
       
       
       
    • By Sturgeon
      I've spent the past few years building a database of rifle and submachine gun masses for research purposes. This archive contains masses of some 145 weapons and their accessories. Please do not share this outside of this forum.

      Download link.
    • By Wiedzmin
      have question about 12.7x99 AP M2 cartridge  WWII time books gives muzzle velocity for AP M2 - 895 m/s for 45in barrel, modern days firing tables and manuals gives 856 m/s for 45in barrel, which is correct, or both correct but 1st for WWII and 2nd for modern dayes cartridges ?
×