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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 years later...

I'm not going to bash the EM-2 as a concept, but in some ways it was flawed.  Namely, as has been pointed out, in it's original for, the .280 round (like most non SCHV intermediate rounds) has issues with accuracy due to a fairly heavy bullet being propelled at fairly low velocity.  Like Ian pointed out in his EM-2 and .280 FAL videos and Forgotten Weapons articles, .280, though designed mostly as a 600 yard round, tended to have a high arc between the muzzle and most of the longer ranges it was intended to be used in.  If it was chambered in the 6.25mm/.280 (6.25x43mm round) or the intended 6.25x46mm round (sort of a shorter OAL 6mm SAW) or even 5.56mm NATO, it would've been more effective across all ranges. 

 

Biggest issue I have with the EM-2, as already mentioned, was it would've been a relative pain in the ass to mass produce.  The EM2, like say the FN FAL, had a forged receiver, a steel forged receiver.  Not forged aluminum, or extruded aluminum, but forged steel.  The original mass produced AK-47s that had forged receivers were replaced with the AKM (perfected stamped receiver) due to cost and production reasons.  FN even tried to make investment cast receivers for the FAL in the 1970s to reduce costs and speed up production times.  If the EM-2 was made from forged aluminum or an aluminum extrusion, it would've been great, but that technology had yet to be proven in the late 1940's/early 1950s. 

 

Not to mention that the EM-2, as good as it was, never the less still had the normal issues that most bullpups have in regards to ergonomics.  They're short and handy, but most bullpups don't have length of pull or cheek weld adjustable stocks, and if you're among the 10% of people who happen to be left handed, you're kinda screwed.  One of the things that HK couldn't fix on the SA80 was it's right hand ejection only, and hence almost impossible to fire left handed if you're a southpaw or from cover.  The AUG and FAMAS can be converted to right or left ejection, but that requires a field strip and a new bolt or replacing parts on the bolt.

 

So the EM-2 in my opinion?  Very good rifle, but would've been better in a newer, more modern caliber and more modern production techniques.  Not to mention in some ways the .280 and .308 FALs were superior to the .280 and .308 EM-2s from a practicality stand point. 

 

Ironically, if a production optimized/modern EM-2 was out today in .308 and Enfield were still making firearms, they'd kinda have a bullpup HK433 in as far as (alleged) caliber conversions.  After all, there's a chance that the 433 was designed by HK to take rounds up to .308 though being rebarreled and fitted with a new bolt and lower.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

Namely, as has been pointed out, in it's original for, the .280 round (like most non SCHV intermediate rounds) has issues with accuracy due to a fairly heavy bullet being propelled at fairly low velocity.

 

No. The accuracy problems were due to the British not being able to construct consistent steel cored projectiles.
 

20 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

Like Ian pointed out in his EM-2 and .280 FAL videos and Forgotten Weapons articles, .280, though designed mostly as a 600 yard round, tended to have a high arc between the muzzle and most of the longer ranges it was intended to be used in.  If it was chambered in the 6.25mm/.280 (6.25x43mm round) or the intended 6.25x46mm round (sort of a shorter OAL 6mm SAW) or even 5.56mm NATO, it would've been more effective across all ranges. 


That shows a lack of knowledge on your part, since the 6.25mm British has both lower muzzle velocity and lower BC.
 

20 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

Biggest issue I have with the EM-2, as already mentioned, was it would've been a relative pain in the ass to mass produce.  The EM2, like say the FN FAL, had a forged receiver, a steel forged receiver.  Not forged aluminum, or extruded aluminum, but forged steel.  The original mass produced AK-47s that had forged receivers were replaced with the AKM (perfected stamped receiver) due to cost and production reasons.  FN even tried to make investment cast receivers for the FAL in the 1970s to reduce costs and speed up production times.  If the EM-2 was made from forged aluminum or an aluminum extrusion, it would've been great, but that technology had yet to be proven in the late 1940's/early 1950s. 

 

Did you know the M1 Garand used a forged steel receiver? We made those in the millions. So, you do not really know what you're talking about here.
 

20 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

Not to mention that the EM-2, as good as it was, never the less still had the normal issues that most bullpups have in regards to ergonomics.  They're short and handy, but most bullpups don't have length of pull or cheek weld adjustable stocks, and if you're among the 10% of people who happen to be left handed, you're kinda screwed.  One of the things that HK couldn't fix on the SA80 was it's right hand ejection only, and hence almost impossible to fire left handed if you're a southpaw or from cover.  The AUG and FAMAS can be converted to right or left ejection, but that requires a field strip and a new bolt or replacing parts on the bolt.


Sounds regurgitated. Ever held an EM-2?

 

20 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

Very good rifle

 

Based on your extensive experience with it?
 

20 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

but would've been better in a newer, more modern caliber and more modern production techniques.


.280 was one of the most modern calibers of 1951 and steel forgings were the most modern production techniques for small arms of the period. So you just want it to have come from the future?
 

20 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

Ironically, if a production optimized/modern EM-2 was out today in .308 and Enfield were still making firearms, they'd kinda have a bullpup HK433 in as far as (alleged) caliber conversions.


Something I find very frustrating about young people in this age is that they do not seem to be able to think clearly. They pass around tokens of memes, laundering self-contained ideas to each other and assembling them into a modular "philosophy" in which each individual piece is interchangeable and stitched together with cheap chinese thread. The problem is these philosophies fall apart under the most modest stress.

Stress such as, what the fuck are you talking about, the EM-2 had no caliber conversion provision and it's hard to think of two more different rifles from the past 100 years than the EM-2 and HK433. If my guess is right, you just have both weapons stuck in your mind, so out comes the cheap chinese thread and stitched together they go.

Some advice: First, read the starter guide for this forum, or we'll kick you off. You can't just strut into a place like this and put on the airs of an expert and spout whatever you like. Us folk here don't like that much. And, based on what I've seen, heaven help you if you get into a real argument with any of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just commenting on what I read in this thread.  One of the criticisms I read was how difficult the EM-2 would've been to mass produce with 1950's tech.  Yes, we built nearly 6 million M1s in World War II, as well as numerous BARs, Browning 1917s and 1919s and Thompson SMGs that relied heavily on forgings for assembly.  Also, Enfiled made the Bren LMG, which was made almost entirely out of forgings.  But two things are worth remembering.  One, for the Bren, until it was made in Canada, almost all Bren LMGs were made at Enfield, and there was a worry that if the factory was badly damaged enough in an air raid that Bren production would've been crippled until the factory could be repaired. 

 

And two, I wouldn't want to go to war against the Russians in the Cold War if shit hit the fan and World War II broke out between the Warsaw Pact and NATO knowing that I had a great rifle, but it costs a relative fortune in time and money to make.  The AK-47 or the AKM, probably a much inferior rifle than the EM-2 performance-wise, but especially the AKM could be made in larger numbers quicker and cheaper.  Paradoxically, the SA80's problems really began in earnest due to Enfield by the late '60s or early '70s having most of the design talent having retired or gone elsewhere (such as EM-2 designer Stefan Janson going to the US to work for Winchester after the EM-2 program ended), combined with the demands to make the rifle cheap on top of that.

 

And yes, I read your commentary on the .280, where you basically said (as the ARES blog article on the EM-2 also commented) that 280 as it was wasn't an optimal round compared to 7.62mm NATO for the given time.  One issue that the British had was simply what should they use for bullet cores.  The ideal cartridge committee recommended steel or tungsten cores for rounds between .250 to .270 caliber, but if they had to stick to steel or lead, then they'd be better off going .270 or larger in caliber.  And I do remember the comments that the steel cored rounds had erratic accuracy.  Of course, I do question why the British opted for trying steel cores for .280 ball ammo (even 5.56mm M193 still used lead cores).  I know that the Russians did it for 7.62x39mm for cost and barrier penetration reasons, but I doubt that was well known to anyone outside of the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact at the time (early to mid-1950s).

 

And the US Army (though much of it was the old "Not Invented Here" adage speaking) was critical of the .280 round's trajectory at longer ranges.  Cited on Forgotten Weapons is that when shot out to 800 yards, .280 would tend to miss and fly over anyone at 400 yards when being shot at with a rifle zeroed for that 800 yards even with a center of mass aim.  Of course, the same reports cited also argued that 7mm rounds didn't have enough capacity for tracer elements or incendiary filling (both of which are obvious BS, as 5.56mm proved).  And of course, cold weather (like in the arctic) or in Russian winters would make that issue worse. 

 

Of course, the whole irony with that is that the US Army shortly there after (starting near the end of the Korean War I believe) to research SCHV rounds, like say .22 rounds.  And yes, modern SCHV rounds will do better in terms of ballistics than the .280 will.  However, even early 5.56mm ammo wasn't at it's best when pushed out to it's max range (which is why the 6mm SAW was worked on for a while), and what we have now, we have the benefits of decades worth of R&D, something that the British didn't have when .280 was developed.

 

As for the construction of the EM-2.  I've been reading this thread, and I'm wondering how they intended to make it.  I may not understand it completely, which isn't helped that it never did make it mass production, but it does seem to be a fairly complicated rifle to make.  It seems almost akin to the Thompson SMG, which was criticized for being a pain to mass produce.  For all of that, though, not even the M3 completely replaced it and the Thompson remained in production until the end of World War II.  At least the EM-2 as far as mis-handling ought to have been a tank like the FAL or the forged AKs tend to be. 

 

However, a lot of this is hard to say beyond those who used and handled EM-2 have said and contemporary reports.  Seeing Forgotten Weapon's videos on the EM-2, I do generally agree it was probably the best Cold War rifle that never was.  And it's damn sure better than the SA80 that the British Army ended up with until HK overhauled them (and that was just HK tuning up the SA80 to the production standards and fit and finish standards they should've been built to in the first place).  Naturally, none of this conjecture is helped by the fact that only 59 EM-2s ever got built, and it wasn't adopted long enough for much to happen aside from field trials. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

One of the criticisms I read was how difficult the EM-2 would've been to mass produce with 1950's tech.

 

Not because you'd have to forge the receiver.
 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

Yes, we built nearly 6 million M1s in World War II, as well as numerous BARs, Browning 1917s and 1919s and Thompson SMGs that relied heavily on forgings for assembly.


This really makes you sound like you know nothing about manufacturing technology. It's like saying your Dodge Neon must be fast because it's painted the exact same red as a Ferrari.

 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

One, for the Bren, until it was made in Canada, almost all Bren LMGs were made at Enfield, and there was a worry that if the factory was badly damaged enough in an air raid that Bren production would've been crippled until the factory could be repaired. 


You are literally equivocating the produceability of the EM-2 and the Garand with the Bren. Incredible.
 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

And two, I wouldn't want to go to war against the Russians in the Cold War if shit hit the fan and World War II broke out between the Warsaw Pact and NATO knowing that I had a great rifle, but it costs a relative fortune in time and money to make. 


What's remarkable about this is that you completely fail to understand the criticism of the EM-2's produceability that Collimatrix and I made. You think the EM-2 "would be too expensive". You don't understand that no production standard for the EM-2 was ever made. It's not that you couldn't ever make one economically, but that the design much more immature and hadn't reached that stage yet.

 

Then you strut around making strong statements like "I WOULDN'T WANT TO GO TO WAR" well ok but you clearly haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, you aren't contributing anything to this conversation, and nobody cares what you want.
 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

The AK-47 or the AKM, probably a much inferior rifle than the EM-2 performance-wise, but especially the AKM could be made in larger numbers quicker and cheaper.


I love how you just come out of the gate with this with no citation or understanding of the topic at hand, and you're comparing a gun from 1950 with a gun from 1958. Just amazing.
 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

Paradoxically, the SA80's problems really began in earnest due to Enfield by the late '60s or early '70s having most of the design talent having retired or gone elsewhere (such as EM-2 designer Stefan Janson going to the US to work for Winchester after the EM-2 program ended), combined with the demands to make the rifle cheap on top of that.


HURR DURR I'VE READ THE LAST ENFIELD TOO
 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

And yes, I read your commentary on the .280, where you basically said (as the ARES blog article on the EM-2 also commented) that 280 as it was wasn't an optimal round compared to 7.62mm NATO for the given time.

 

You evidently have horrible reading comprehension then:

 

Quote

Although the round was conceptually superior to the American .30 T65,

 

 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

One issue that the British had was simply what should they use for bullet cores.


This is an incredible statement. Truly amazing. You have about as much understanding of this subject as a mussel has of the tides.

 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

The ideal cartridge committee recommended steel or tungsten cores for rounds between .250 to .270 caliber, but if they had to stick to steel or lead, then they'd be better off going .270 or larger in caliber.


The fuck does this have to do with anything? You seemingly just dropped this in here because I mentioned that the Brits couldn't make complex steel cored projectiles consistently.
 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

And I do remember the comments that the steel cored rounds had erratic accuracy.  Of course, I do question why the British opted for trying steel cores for .280 ball ammo (even 5.56mm M193 still used lead cores).


Oh, I dunno, probably due to the critical lead shortage of 1949-1951.

 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

I know that the Russians did it for 7.62x39mm for cost and barrier penetration reasons, but I doubt that was well known to anyone outside of the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact at the time (early to mid-1950s).


They did not do it for barrier penetration reasons, so this is rather like everything else you "know".

 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

And the US Army (though much of it was the old "Not Invented Here" adage speaking) was critical of the .280 round's trajectory at longer ranges.


Yes they were, because its trajectory was not very good. That has nothing to do with the precision of the rounds, though.

 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

Of course, the whole irony with that is that the US Army shortly there after (starting near the end of the Korean War I believe) to research SCHV rounds, like say .22 rounds.  And yes, modern SCHV rounds will do better in terms of ballistics than the .280 will.  However, even early 5.56mm ammo wasn't at it's best when pushed out to it's max range (which is why the 6mm SAW was worked on for a while), and what we have now, we have the benefits of decades worth of R&D, something that the British didn't have when .280 was developed.


Wind. Bag.
 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

I may not understand it completely


You don't. Stop acting like you do.
 

2 hours ago, BarnOwlLover said:

Seeing Forgotten Weapon's videos on the EM-2, I do generally agree it was probably the best Cold War rifle that never was.


You say, never having held nor shot one, and getting your opinions about it from other people. Are you from /k/?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...