I was just watching Forgotten Wepons and Ian the gun jesus was talking about the Em2 and I was wondering if after the 1950 trials and it adoption in NATO had said very nice you stick to 30cal US. The rest of us are adopting .280 british. What would small as development be like with a bullpups intemediate cartridge with optics in service in a major military from 1950 probably seeing action in Korea. But also in all those end of empire scraps the UK got into would the fall be the right arm of freedom in .280 would the M16 arrive?
Em2 adoption
- Thread starter Moglwi
- Start date
As the US was paying for much of the new weaponry one way or another 7.62 X 51 would still be the defacto Nato standard from the mid 50's to mid 60's. Once the US gets bogged down in the Vietnam war they'll still switch to the M16 and it's possible that would be in .280 but I think it more likely the US would opt for 5.56 simply because it was invented in the US.
As for the EM2 rifle I can see that ultimately being only issued to specialist units due to its cost, with the L1A1 in .280 being the standard rifle for the rest of the armed forces.
As for the EM2 rifle I can see that ultimately being only issued to specialist units due to its cost, with the L1A1 in .280 being the standard rifle for the rest of the armed forces.
And they were that powerful because the US Army kept insisting they wanted ballistic performance similar to the outdated 30-06. If Britain, Belgium and Canada make the choice to tell Washington to get stuffed then it's possible that they opt for one of the earlier rounds that were definitely intermediate rounds.
The competition was rigged anyway so trying to satisfy the US was pointless.
The competition was rigged anyway so trying to satisfy the US was pointless.
You missed the U.S. response to the NATO allies saying they are going with the .280.
It would have been some version of "Okay. Y'all can pay for that crap yourselves. No U.S. dollars are available for ammo that will not work in U.S. weapons if the need arises. We will still have our stocks of ammo available for the needs of anyone who is wise enough to go with the 7.62."
Especially in the 1950s the U.S. was both the largest country in the Alliance AND the Money (pretty much ALL of the money until around 1960, when the various Western European countries got their damage completely repaired and, more importantly, the repair bill down to a manageable figure. Golden Rule* applies
* Guy with the gold makes the rules.
Except that France told them what they could do with the 7.62 and stuck with their 7.5 with no repercussions. They guys with the battlefield made the rules. Then they went on to take their ball away and play by themselves.
A POD with a Labour win in the elections instead of the Conservatives would have seen the EM2 and 7 mm MK1Z (.280 30) being the non USA NATO round in EM2 or FN FAL which were both designed around it. When the USA belatedly realised the .30-06 and 7.62 were over powered then I would expect a change to 7 mm MK1Z earlier than the OTL 5.56 as the rifles and ammunition were already there and in service. Just USA made versions. The French had been too busy with Algeria to change but would have followed suit after Algeria. We would all still be using 7 mm MK1Z and it would have covered all small arms needs for infantry in Afghanistan etc. and not be out ranged by ancient .303s. Ideally reverting to the original .280 and not the over charged 7 mm MK1Z which was a sop to appease the USA.
Edit: Properly the EM2 in service was the Rifle No9 Mk1.
Last edited:
The statement that france suffered no reprecussions is misleading considering france left NATO in 66. Their general relationship with the alliance was tenous and they always went their own way with their own equipment during this period.
In any case .280 isn't the only candidate for this as a lot of other calibers were being experimented with at the time. .22-23 is still around the ideal caliber for these sorts of engagements expected during the cold war as both superpowers discovered.
In any case .280 isn't the only candidate for this as a lot of other calibers were being experimented with at the time. .22-23 is still around the ideal caliber for these sorts of engagements expected during the cold war as both superpowers discovered.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Moglwi, post: 15231018, member: 4077"With the introduction of the EM 2 and its primary optic as a sighting method would that drive other armies to follow suit and would it drive innovation in the optics industry perhaps an earlier red dot sight?[/QUOTE]
The British experimented with the same optical sight on the early L1A1 but went with the FN iron sights. The Single Point red dot sight was tried mounted on the L1A1 slide and I tried it out and it was superb out to 200 metres but then started obscuring the target and was over bright in poor light. Also somewhat vulnerable. Vastly lighter than the SUIT sight though which was a bit like strapping a L2A3 to the top. Veering further OT; the Single Point was an ideal match to the L2A3 IMHO. The limiter in red dot sights was the sight technology not the openness to innovation.
The British experimented with the same optical sight on the early L1A1 but went with the FN iron sights. The Single Point red dot sight was tried mounted on the L1A1 slide and I tried it out and it was superb out to 200 metres but then started obscuring the target and was over bright in poor light. Also somewhat vulnerable. Vastly lighter than the SUIT sight though which was a bit like strapping a L2A3 to the top. Veering further OT; the Single Point was an ideal match to the L2A3 IMHO. The limiter in red dot sights was the sight technology not the openness to innovation.
The relationship issue is certainly valid (although they were in the middle of a major war at the time) but my point is that there were no repercussions from the USA for not following the USA diktat.
The original .280 was a practical 300 meter true intermediate 'Assault Rifle' round (the overwhelming evidence from WW2 showing that the mass majority of engagements were under 100 meters and weapons that used a full power rifle rounds placed their users at a disadvantage vs those using Carbines, SMGs and Assault rifles under these conditions and those encountered conducting FISH - that Fighting In Someone's House) the later .280/30 turned the EM2 and FN designs from Assault Rifles to Battle Rifles (that were just about controllable on Full Auto) - the 7.62 NATO round over whelmed the EM2 and all but over powered the FN FAL
I have no doubt that had Britain persisted in issuing the "Number 9 Enfield Rifle" then the round may very well have survived particularly with British Commonwealth and Belgium militaries.
However as it was now a battle rifle round and not a true Intermediate I think that the M16 would still find that 'assault rifle' niche of carbine/smg and given the true nature of infantry battles remained almost overwhelmingly under 300 meters with the majority of those that did taking place at under 100 meters.
Thank you for the videos. Ian's comments certainly show how even the late 7 mm MK1Z/.280-30 was a touch more powerful than a rifleman needed and the original .280 was ideal. I would still leave it as a semi automatic even so and can see no reason why it would not still be in service (obviously with the ability to mount the modern bells and whistles).
The French did a lot of things specifically designed to oppose the U.S. up to an including pulling France out of the NATO command structure in the mid 1960s.
The only repercussion would have happened if there had ever been a conventional war in Europe during the relatively short period that the 7.62 cartridge was the U.S./NATO standard. Ironically, at the same time the French were pulling out of the Alliances joint command structure they adopted the new NATO standard 5.56 round.
Ok, .276 Pedersen then. It's pretty ballistically similar to .280, and Made In America. One of my personal fanboisms is the US adopting the Garand in .276 Pedersen as God and the Infantry Board intended. In addition to making the Garand even more awesome, we might still be using the cartridge today. At the muzzle it's not terribly ballistically different than a modern 6.5mm Grendel- I'm not sure about the performance at range, though. Anyway, have the US adopt the .276 in some capacity and that could easily be a universally-adopted cartridge for NATO that would be very appropriate for the EM-2.
Ew. The charging handle reciprocates. Right next to your fingers. -2 style points. Also, using a safety like the Garand's is worth at least another -1.
Still, yes, I always thought the EM-2 was a missed opportunity, and a damned interesting rifle. It looks sexy, if nothing else- which is difficult for a bullpup.
Incidentally, bullpups are not the revolutionary advancement that a lot of people think they are. They certainly have their advantages, but I would be hard pressed to say they are superior to a conventionally laid-out rifle. Changing magazines quickly takes a LOT of practice, especially if you don't want to unshoulder the rifle. The long/massive trigger linkages tend to lead to rough triggers. And unless it has the added complexity of a downward- or forward-ejecting action you can't shoot around corners to the offhand side easily in MOUT (what was above called FISH), lest you find the brass implanted into your face.
Last edited:
I just wonder why it was seen to be so important to adopt a standard rifle cartridge? Artillery shells, bombs, mines I can understand but small weapon ammunition? Was there ever an incident during WW2 where this caused problems? Considering NATO worked fine and dandy without standardizing the most important stuff, like missiles or airplanes, heck, a rifle is a rifle. Procurement of rifles and their ammunition is a tiny proportion of any Army equipment spending spree.
They probably felt that it was one of the things that ghe could do also after ww2 everyone using a bolt action was going to change over to semi automatic so it was a chance to do it. Also the cost is not as prohibitive as all new tanks and planes
The .280 British wasn't as good as people seem to remember it. Depending on which cartridge load was accepted NATO would either have a round akin to the 7.62x39mm round or the 7.62x51mm round. Either way there would still be a perceived need to adopt a 5.Xmm round.
Or just do what the Croats did an put a brass deflector by the ejection port
