If the yanks hadn't killed it, would it have revolutionised military small arms?

If the yanks hadn't killed it, would it have revolutionised military small arms?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No because even if not adopted future arms development could borrow elements if they wanted for their new rifle.
    But you don't and any features you could trace back, like bullpup layout and integrated optics, are falling out of fashion.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What the fuck are you even trying to say?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Learn to read, retard

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Don't be arrogant, you do not use the art of punctuation, wizzkid

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        its an older meme sir but it checks out

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the ammo alone would:
    mild rifle cartridge, alluminium cased.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The project was already continued into the L85 and we already know how well that went. If it wasn't delayed it'd just turn out as the L55 chambered in .308, and you can imagine how disastrous that would be.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, not really. Most other nations wouldn't have adopted it. UK was never able to large export gear and picking its choices for a standard were pretty silly. Additionally everyone was still on 30cal so all you would have seen is a big fight in the UK MOD and then eventually if it gained any ground other NATO members tweaking their armory to recycle existing things.

      >UK was never able to large export gear
      Moronic takes really. The british developed the L7 tank gun, which was basically THE western tank gun of the cold war. They also managed good sales of a lot of their planes, including the Hunter, the Tornado and the Harrier.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don't forget Type 42 destroyers as well as numerous other classes of ship (Hunt Minesweepers, River OPVs etc)

        The project was already continued into the L85 and we already know how well that went. If it wasn't delayed it'd just turn out as the L55 chambered in .308, and you can imagine how disastrous that would be.

        The EM-2 is completely unrelated to the L85, I can't believe this myth is still going around. I don't understand the "L55" comment, I'm assuming you mean the EM-2 would be designated that? which is just wrong. It'd have been called L1A1, just as the FAL was when it entered service.

        the ammo alone would:
        mild rifle cartridge, alluminium cased.

        >Mild
        Depends entirely on loading if it's mild, it started mild and increasingly got hotter and hotter to the point it was nearly as Hispanicy as 7.62x51.
        >Aluminium cased
        Most ammunition produced (including the standardized Mk1z ball) is not aluminium cased and also they made 7.62x51 aluminium cased at the same time. I don't believe ally cased even made it past 1950.

        No, not really. Most other nations wouldn't have adopted it. UK was never able to large export gear and picking its choices for a standard were pretty silly. Additionally everyone was still on 30cal so all you would have seen is a big fight in the UK MOD and then eventually if it gained any ground other NATO members tweaking their armory to recycle existing things.

        More likely you would have seen .280 FALs used rather than recycling. Indeed Venezuela actually had 7x49.5mm Liviano (developed from 7mm HV which in turn was developed as part of the whole NATO standard trials) in their early FN FALs before 7.62x51 was fully standardised (pic rel)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The project was already continued into the L85
      These two rifles are completely unrelated and don't share a single common element or firearms engineer for that matter. The people who designed the L85 had zero experience with firearms design whatsoever.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Considering the SA80 started life as a chopped and screwed Sterling rifle I don't think it matters which state the rifle was in initially for it to end up in the same place.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, not really. Most other nations wouldn't have adopted it. UK was never able to large export gear and picking its choices for a standard were pretty silly. Additionally everyone was still on 30cal so all you would have seen is a big fight in the UK MOD and then eventually if it gained any ground other NATO members tweaking their armory to recycle existing things.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >UK was never able to large export gear
      lmao
      >and picking its choices for a standard were pretty silly
      Yeah, it made much more sense for NATO to adopt some fucking retarded fudd's target round and jam it into a gun designed for .280 instead.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >retarded fudds target round
        My brother in Christ, 7.62x51 was adopted because it was objectively better for the purposes of the trial and was further along in development.
        .280 was not going to be adopted by all nations for machine guns, which would have meant no ammunition standardisation.

        >would it have revolutionised military small arms?
        Not really, but it would've served England very well. By the time its design was finalized, 90% of all the revolutionary ideas in firearms engineering had already been pioneered by John Moses Browning.

        I don't think you're giving enough credit to some other engineers of the time but it checks out.

        >The project was already continued into the L85
        These two rifles are completely unrelated and don't share a single common element or firearms engineer for that matter. The people who designed the L85 had zero experience with firearms design whatsoever.

        Some engineers did transfer into the XL60 program. The idea that the L85 engineers had no experience with firearms design is completely false btw.
        With that said, the L85 and EM-2 are almost entirely unrelated (The only relation being two EM-2s converted to 6.25x43mm for bullet trials)

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I believe that many people often conflate specs for different loads of 280 to create a sort of wonder cartridge with high power and low recoil when in reality the higher power loads would have had higher levels of recoil and vise versa. Although you can debate the merits of bull pups, i do not believe that the simple adoption of the em2 by the Brits would have revolutionized the weapon industry by causing people to adopt the bull pup as there were later more mature bullpup designs which did not cause widespread adoption after their unveiling. While optics are undoubtedly beneficial, it is very likely that they were not mature enough at the time; simply because a concept is demonstrated in some form, does not yet mean it has matured enough for widespread adoption-think of how many semi automatic rifles were designed and manufactured in limited numbers during the 1900s-1910 and yet it would take until the m1 garand for one to reach wide spread adoption

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, it's probably one of the most over-hyped and over-rated guns on the internet and most people with any actual experience with them will tell you that.

    It was a very impressive rifle for the time, and it's an incredibly comfortable rifle to hold.

    However, major things people get wrong:
    >"MuH oPtIc"
    The optic sucks, it's absolute shit and would have been memed to death if it had ever seen service. It's just a shitty iron sight replacement
    >"mUH inTerMeDIaTe"
    By the final stages of .280 testing it was almost reaching the same figures as 7.62x51 except .280 steel core suffered horrible accuracy issues due to inconsistent manufacture leading to groups of 14 MOA in some cases
    >MuH bUllpUp
    Yes revolutionary, but also the gas system is literally known to spew gas back into the face of the user. The final version (Rifle No10 or X1E1) was meant to fix this with a gas shield around the piston tube.
    Also the trigger is like 10lb.

    However, despite all of this, I fucking love the EM-2. It is by far my favourite gun of all time and I don't care that it has flaws. For the time it really was quite impressive so to answer your question, sort of? but it needed a lot more development and compared to the FAL which was ready at the time it just doesn't really make sense to be adopted.

    Also no the yanks didn't kill it, the transcript of the final defence of the rifle by Shinwell (iirc Shinwell) in Parliament is available online and I don't believe the Americans are mentioned at all.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >would it have revolutionised military small arms?
    Not really, but it would've served England very well. By the time its design was finalized, 90% of all the revolutionary ideas in firearms engineering had already been pioneered by John Moses Browning.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I agree with the aspie in the first post. Bullpups turned out not to be very good, and intermediates in the 5mm range are just better than bigger rounds.

    Of course, now the US is using a 6.8mm round, so time is a flat circle and shit.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >pointless speculations by internet retards
    Dumb thread.

Your email address will not be published.