ww2 AHC: ideal automatic rifle...

Deleted member 1487

You seem to have a different definition of LMG than me.
The Wikipedia definition agrees with me, and all the weapons I mentioned are included in it's list of LMGs along with a lot of other mag feed post WW2 LMGs I didn't mention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_machine_gun
Wikipedia's definitions aren't always perfect.

Is the EM-2 & Taden Gun too outrageous?

The British Army had been trying to replace the .303 since before WW1.
The EM-2 was a battle rifle, the Taden a MMG.
 
Improved BAR. Pistol grip, fifty rd. drum or optional thirty rd. mag. Folding carrying handle, shorter barrel, muzzle break, improved spiked folding bi-pod and hooded front sight. Cartridge has also been downsized (let you guys sort what the new caliber would be).
A WWII RPD but in a larger caliber.

SjDyQrJ.gif
 
Last edited:
The Rifle No9 (EM2) Was adopted by the British army with both long and short Barrels as a replacement for both the bolt action rifle and the Sten SMG, It fired a mid powered cartridge designed for automatic fire so IMHO it qualifies as an assault rifle.
 
The Rifle No9 (EM2) Was adopted by the British army with both long and short Barrels as a replacement for both the bolt action rifle and the Sten SMG, It fired a mid powered cartridge designed for automatic fire so IMHO it qualifies as an assault rifle.
Wasn't that a bull-pup design or am I thinking of another experimental British gun?
 
Yes it was a bull pup design, the designers wanted a compact weapon the had a long enough barrel to get the maximum performance out of the .280 intermediate round. The cartridge and the rifle were designed together as one weapon system. Antony, G. Williams has a good history of this weapon and it's place in the development of the assault rifle.
 
Yes it was a bull pup design, the designers wanted a compact weapon the had a long enough barrel to get the maximum performance out of the .280 intermediate round. The cartridge and the rifle were designed together as one weapon system. Antony, G. Williams has a good history of this weapon and it's place in the development of the assault rifle.
Then I would call that an assault rifle too.
 
There were a few magazine fed LMGs designed, and used post WW2 such as the RPK used by the Warsaw Pact and just about every other Communist Country. The RPK-74 which was designed to replace the RPK when the AK74 replaced the AKM. The British L86 LSW which replaced the Bren Gun, and some L7 GPMGs in British service. The Ultimax 100 from Singapore which has been used by over a Dozen Countries. The M27 Infantry Automatic Weapon which is replacing a portion of M249 Light Machine Guns in USMC service.

Autorifles in SAW role. Not LMGs.

Ultimax is certainly a LMG.
The countries 'drawing' weapons from the USSR used RPK and RPK-74 as light machine gun and called it like that. The longer and heavier barrel (additionally finned in ex-Yu version), along with bipod was not for cosmetic purposes. Same goes for the L86 LSW.

The EM-2 was a battle rifle, the Taden a MMG.

EM-2 was an automatic rifle.
 

It was 'automatic rifle', since it was a rifle capable to fire in automatic mode while being hand-held. Being 'automatic rifle' does not mean it is not a 'battle rifle' as well. Look at the Garand - it was 'semi-automatic rifle', but it was also a 'battle rifle'.
 
Please note in that Pathe video that the first EM2 being actually fires is the short barrelled version. Though with the short version still having a barrel of 19.5" in modern terms it is hardly short! also in the Forgotten weapons video Ian is firing an EM2 chambered for 7.62 x 51mm full powered rifle cartridge rather than the .28 inch intermediate cartridge it was actually designed for.
 

Deleted member 1487

It was 'automatic rifle', since it was a rifle capable to fire in automatic mode while being hand-held. Being 'automatic rifle' does not mean it is not a 'battle rifle' as well. Look at the Garand - it was 'semi-automatic rifle', but it was also a 'battle rifle'.
In that sense then the M16 is an automatic rifle.
 
If we are going EM 2 then....No thanks. To complicated. Too expensive to make.

FN made a Bullpup version of the FAL with a 24" barrel which given that its a FAL means its better than.

Have this and belt fed bren type weapon in the original .270 Enfield and not the later .280 and .280/30 as these were much more powerful rounds much closer to the .30 and .303 rounds they were trying to get away from.

The 270 was a 100 grain / 6.5 gram bullet - whose long range performance was not as good as say .30 or .303 but was superior out to 300 meters (a range band at and below which the mass majority of infantry combat takes place) and controllable on full auto

So I think the FN FAL Bullpup - possible a para version with a shorter 20" barrel and a Belt fed Bren - both in .270 would make for a very decent Section/squad level combination.

The Bren and FALL are staggeringly easy to field strip and very reliable and one would hope that a Belt fed Bren would be just as simple and reliable as the OTL WW2 one was

Please note that the Taden was an MMG and fired from a Tripod - I do not know if a 'GPMG' version existed or was intended to be developed - the Belt fed Brens came after the EM2 and Taden projects ended and ultimately the FN MAG was chosen and existing Bren guns modified to 7.62 Nato.

However all this came about as a result of WW2 combat experience (Both British and German.....and technically US as well but they chose to ignore it) and so we are back to pre war ammunition and arms.
 
Last edited:
It was 'automatic rifle', since it was a rifle capable to fire in automatic mode while being hand-held. Being 'automatic rifle' does not mean it is not a 'battle rifle' as well. Look at the Garand - it was 'semi-automatic rifle', but it was also a 'battle rifle'.
Err, no. A battle rifle needs selective fire among with its doctrinal use.

We really need to clear out the definitions here. I don't think anyone here is on the same page.


Automatic rifle refers to a very specific type of weapon in US doctrine. Not just a rifle that's automatic.
 
Err, no. A battle rifle needs selective fire among with its doctrinal use.

We really need to clear out the definitions here. I don't think anyone here is on the same page.

Automatic rifle refers to a very specific type of weapon in US doctrine. Not just a rifle that's automatic.

Yes, we probably are not in the same page with regard to nomenclature. On the other hand, the US military is not the only military in the world, thus their nomenclature is no law for the others.
IMO the term of 'automatic rifle' points out to, at least, a rifle that can fire automatically. What the militaries of the world will add to that definition is something all together different.
 
Can you add a detachable barrel (say from the FN derivatives) and reverse the bi-pod and fit it to the gas block, so you don't have to carry one on each barrel?
I pretty sure I can change the bi-pod around, I'm not sure about the detachable barrel but I'll give it a try. Most of the extra parts on my drawing came from an FN-FAL BTW.
 
If and it is a huge "if" these had been properly developed and refined;

Johnson Model 1941 rifle.

Johnson light machine gun.

It would have gone a long way toward rationalizing US small arms in WW II, especially in the Pacific war.

Both weapons needed simplification for manufacture, dust proofing for use, and perhaps in the LMG's case a belt-feed since the magazine clip was awkwardly long for walking fire and it needed a stronger pawl to pull a belt.

There is also the M-1 Garand as is, and this as a B option :

Apparently, Bill Ruger and others just before and leading up to WW II worked on an American near copy of the Bren gun/Czech VZ26. It featured belt feed, a quick change barrel and an attempt to devise a replacement for the BAR that would have the near empty weight of around 20 pounds for walking fire purposes. It came out to between 25-27 pounds (loaded) and still needed some work when WW II erupted. Then the Americans dropped it to favor a new project. They tried to reverse engineer an MG 42 captured in North Africa and goofed that head space problem up, both in their version of the MG and between the ears.^1

Then they developed the M-60 post war by incorporating features of the failed T24 and the reverse engineered FG-42. Just sad. They should have adopted the MG-3 and been done with it.

^1 NEVER give anything to General Motors to reverse engineer.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

If and it is a huge "if" these had been properly developed and refined;

Johnson Model 1941 rifle.

Johnson light machine gun.
Apparently neither were particularly good, though they do look cool and I like the 'what if' factor.
A big problem was the too powerful cartridge...they might have been viable with something like a 6mm cartridge....like say a modernized Lee Navy ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6×45mm_SAW Something like that in WW2 would have been pretty ideal IMHO.

So this + this + with the magazine layout of this = win
 
Top