Deleted member 1487
Yeah they both were compromise rounds that were inferior to the alternatives.The .280 and 280/30 other hand not so much.
Yeah they both were compromise rounds that were inferior to the alternatives.The .280 and 280/30 other hand not so much.
Issue was EM2 cost more to make then a FAL did. And had issues. Now both could change with further development and mass production but at the start FAL was cheaper to make, and functioned perfectly.
Also I believe FN offered no royalty fees to Britain for production of FAL.
To be pedantic it was adopted as the Rifle No9 Mk1According to Gun Jesus the British Army adopted the EM-2 as their official service Rifle until Churchill made them switch to the 7.62mm NATO round.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle#NATO_standardisationAccording to Gun Jesus the British Army adopted the EM-2 as their official service Rifle until Churchill made them switch to the 7.62mm NATO round.
From what I've been able to gather the EM-2 was officially adopted as far as a statement of intent went, but they weren't actually produced outside of prototypes.With the creation of NATO in 1949, there was a clear preference that NATO forces would have commonality of weapons and ammunition, so weapons designs had to meet with the approval of more than one government, and it was hoped, would be adopted by the organisation as a whole. It was at this point that the US put forth its own designs for NATO standardisation, using the 7.62×51mm NATO round in their prototype T25 and T44 rifles. Matters came to a head in 1951 in a shoot-off conducted at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, with the US claiming the British round was underpowered, and the British claiming the US round was too powerful to be used in a rifle in full-automatic mode. At the same trials the Belgian .280 FN FAL was also tested.
A series of lengthy debates followed, which were finally settled in an unlikely fashion when Canada stated they would use the British .280 round, but only if the US did as well. It was clear this would never happen. Winston Churchill felt a NATO standard was more important than any qualities of the weapon itself and overturned the decision by the previous Labour Minister of Defence, Manny Shinwell, who had already announced an intention to move to the .280 and the EM-2. During this time, prototype EM-2s were built in several different calibres: Chambons built two for the 7×49mm "Second Optimum" cartridge and another two for the 7.62×51mm NATO.[1]One of the Chambon prototypes was even rebuilt for the US .30-06 cartridge.[1] RSAF-Enfield and BSA built 15 and 10 prototypes for the 7.62×51mm, respectively.[7]Canadian Arsenals Limited also built 10 rifles for the 7×51mm "Compromise" cartridge.[8]
Yeah if there is one thing we hate around here its pedantry.To be pedantic it was adopted as the Rifle No9 Mk1
It is, thanks. Now can you explain why FN didn't make a 6.5mm FAL?OK. a bit of clarification here. The EM-2 was the development designation given to the British .270 bullpup rifle, it retained this designation when the calibre was change to .280 in its various guises. When the rifle was formally adopted for issue to the British Army it became the Rifle No9. AFAIK no production rifle No 9's were actually built or issued. This can cause confusion in some reference works. All extant rifles of this series in various collections world wide are AFAIK all EM-2's.therefore to say that they are Em-2's is correct, as is to say that the Rifle No 9 was adopted by the British government for the British army. I hope that is a useful explanation.
The original prototype FAL was in 7.92 Kurz. The one after that was .280 British and a bullpup, but FN dropped that in favor of the regular configuration. From what I've seen .270 never left British testing for use in any foreign rifle and was out early on in the process.AFAIK the original FAL was designed for the same .270 round as the EM-2. For all practical purposes you can call .270 as 6.8mm. I have not seen any documents showing that a 6.5mm round was considered in the immediate post war period.
Same in the magazines used in the Type 96. Britain even produced the rounds in WW2:Wiking Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately the 6.5 Ariska is a semi rimmed round and would I think require modification to work well in an automatic rifle although it was used in the Federov Automat!
Wiking Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately the 6.5 Ariska is a semi rimmed round and would I think require modification to work well in an automatic rifle although it was used in the Federov Automat!
Rimmed ammunition in an automatic weapon is a pain to load to avoid misfeed. I have done on the Bren so I speak from experience!!!
The Royal Laboratory and Kynoch over 550 million rounds so they had some practice at making them....... They also made many millions of 6,5mm Romanian and quite a few million 6,5mm Norwegian Krag-Jorgensen. I think that making any 6,5mm round was not an issue for Britain.Same in the magazines used in the Type 96. Britain even produced the rounds in WW2:
http://quarryhs.co.uk/256brit.htm As Tony titled the linked article, it was a real lost opportunity. Modifying the rim wouldn't have been particularly hard either. If you're modifying it with a modern European powder load, it could be chopped down in length too and lose little to no velocity, especially with a lighter, more aerodynamic bullet.
Rimmed ammo worked flawlessly in Bren, and in a host of other automatic wepons.
Rimmed ammunition still requires mechanical complexity not necessary in belt-feds using rimless ammunition. The cartridges need to be extracted backwards from the belt before being moved forward into the chamber.I wouldn't say flawlessly. Rimlock in a Lee-Enfield was a real problem and any weapon using rimmed cartridges in an automatic magazine fed weapon is generally more prone to such problems, the only place where a rimmed cartridge is not an issue in an automatic weapon is with Belt-feds so the Vickers gun, Russian Maxim, PK series etc were all extremely reliable.
I wouldn't say flawlessly. Rimlock in a Lee-Enfield was a real problem and any weapon using rimmed cartridges in an automatic magazine fed weapon is generally more prone to such problems, the only place where a rimmed cartridge is not an issue in an automatic weapon is with Belt-feds so the Vickers gun, Russian Maxim, PK series etc were all extremely reliable.
Rimmed ammunition still requires mechanical complexity not necessary in belt-feds using rimless ammunition. The cartridges need to be extracted backwards from the belt before being moved forward into the chamber.