British adopt EM-2
- Thread starter BigWillyG
- Start date
Maybe the Americans take a more serious look at bullpup rifles and go with one of the Special Prupose Individual Weapon prototypes during the late 50's/early 60's?.
I can see the EM2 being a major export, with 7mm/.280 becoming a common calibre, and maybe Royal Ordnance staying in the game a lot longer, perhaps even (this might be pushing it) keeping up there with HK or FN.
A much earlier worldwide acceptance of Bullpups is on the cards, as well as the acceptance of an intermediate round. Whether people will still be pushing for a lighter round closer to 5.56mm or 4.85mm is something else.
As for effects on actual wars... I can't see much difference, except the possible butterflying away of the M16, and the US possibly having a better rifle for Vietnam. For the same war, Australia would likely be using the EM2, which should serve them better for the jungle than the massive and heavy SLR.
Assuming the Falklands still happens, Britain and Argentina could quite possibly both be using EM2. Or Argentina might still use the OTL FAL, giving them a range advantage over the British soldiers for the wide open featureless plains and mountains of the Falklands. In light of this, might we see a return to heavy calibre rifles in this timeline?
Edit: Scratch that. EM2 has the range advantage over FAL, by 700 to 600 metres, apparently.
A much earlier worldwide acceptance of Bullpups is on the cards, as well as the acceptance of an intermediate round. Whether people will still be pushing for a lighter round closer to 5.56mm or 4.85mm is something else.
As for effects on actual wars... I can't see much difference, except the possible butterflying away of the M16, and the US possibly having a better rifle for Vietnam. For the same war, Australia would likely be using the EM2, which should serve them better for the jungle than the massive and heavy SLR.
Assuming the Falklands still happens, Britain and Argentina could quite possibly both be using EM2. Or Argentina might still use the OTL FAL, giving them a range advantage over the British soldiers for the wide open featureless plains and mountains of the Falklands. In light of this, might we see a return to heavy calibre rifles in this timeline?
Edit: Scratch that. EM2 has the range advantage over FAL, by 700 to 600 metres, apparently.
The M16 maybe but not the Armalite family. If the .280 is adopted by NATO then the contenders for the US assault rifle competition are going to eb chambered for it. That means the .280 M14 will be squaring off against the .280 AR10. Even if the M14 wins you'll probably see most of the same problems it had in OTL appearing so the Armalite design will end up introduced during the 60's, most probably as the M16.
Argentina will go for the FAL in .280, unless the US goes it alone there'll be little demand for 7.62 NATO assault rifles and the Belgians favoured the .280 for the FAL.
Doubtfull. 5.56 NATO was introduced because 7.62 NATO was too heavy, the 6.8 SPC sells itself on being lighter than the 7.62 and heavier than the 5.56, with the .280 you've already got something that does that, shaving a couple of millimeters off the dimensions isn't worth the effort.
At most you'll see the same thing as in OTL when NATO changed 5.56mm rounds in the 80's.
It actually depends on which variant of the .280 round is adopted--the original British one, or the later versions including two spun-off by the Europeans & Canadians. At least three variants had a 49, 50 or 51mm case. Those cases would probably have to be shortened for late century assault rifles.
Even if reducing the case length isn't the intention, I could see the overall length being shortened if the projectile is reduced from 140 grains in order to improve accuracy (the 6.8mm round has a 115 gr bullet).
Last edited:
If the British adopt the EM-2 in the .280 British and the other European NATO memebers adopt a rifle chambered in the .280 British the US will have no choice due to the whole NATO standerdization thing. So you have American troops using an American rifle chambered in the .280 British which will be called something else most likely 7 mm NATO. Now I assume the Americans jump on board with the .280/30 which was made to accomadate the Americans.
Now what I wonder is how the British got the political clout in post WW2 NATO politics to force this through in the face of American ranting and raving over the T65 (7.62 NATO) its gonna take a major POD to change the minds of American High Command when it comes to small arms during this era.
Now what I wonder is how the British got the political clout in post WW2 NATO politics to force this through in the face of American ranting and raving over the T65 (7.62 NATO) its gonna take a major POD to change the minds of American High Command when it comes to small arms during this era.
I feel the need to post these videos again
http://www.rifleman.org.uk/enfield_video_page.htm
The good stuff happens from 3:21 on the first video.
http://www.rifleman.org.uk/enfield_video_page.htm
The good stuff happens from 3:21 on the first video.
Now what I wonder is how the British got the political clout in post WW2 NATO politics to force this through in the face of American ranting and raving over the T65 (7.62 NATO) its gonna take a major POD to change the minds of American High Command when it comes to small arms during this era.[/QUOTE]
The Americans will adopt whatever they want everyone else be hanged. They insisted on the 7.62mm NATO in the 50's, when all the evidence was saying the .280 was a better choice, and when it was proven that the 7.62mm was unsuitable for it's role the US switched to a 5.56mm round wihtout a thought to NATO standardisation.
Argentina will go for the FAL in .280, unless the US goes it alone there'll be little demand for 7.62 NATO assault rifles and the Belgians favoured the .280 for the FAL.
I forgot about that. It seems FN were as up for .280 as anyone. Having a .280 FAL might be as much a PoD in itself...
No you see the it was ok for the US to completely mess up NATO logistics but when other NATO states did it the US got angry. The US, especially during the early days of NATO, thought as the boss and they could do whatever the wanted but everyone else had to tow their line.
I imagine there could be a three or four way split in the Western World's assault rifle market, between the EM-2, the FN FAL, the H&K G3 and perhaps the Armalite AR10, along with wildcards from SiG, Beretta, CETME and the French. Most countries would adopt whatever they did in OTL but I can see the presence of the EM-2 upsetting things.
More or less now that re-read it, but the issue is the US will wan't atleast some uniformity because even post 5.56 adoption many US weapons still used the 7.62 NATO.
CanadianGoose
Banned
Adoption of 7mm British would give NATO an infantry weapon truly capable of full-auto fire. This is more important than every EM-2 produced.
Calling Tony Williams...
I wonder if he still visits? In the Foresight War he has the British Army adopt a bullpup design. Given his ballistics knowledge it would be good to get his view.
I wonder if he still visits? In the Foresight War he has the British Army adopt a bullpup design. Given his ballistics knowledge it would be good to get his view.
I found this thread he's posted in several times, but it's from four years ago. Be interested to see if he's come up with anything new.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=122211
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=122211