Rifle No. 9, the EM2 - could it be updated and used today?

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by Bravo_Bravo, Aug 12, 2015.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Following a Most Illuminating post elsewhere, I've read the article below and it seems to my tour-dodging eyes that the.280 round solves a lot of the issues facing the modern Soldier.

    @ugly mentioned that with modern materials it could be a world beater; whaddyafink?

    http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_EM-2_rifle.html
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Excellent Topic Excellent Topic x 1
  2. Yes.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  3. Thought so; thanks.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. No. By the time you "updated" it you would have changed the nature if it so fundamentally that it would no longer be the same rifle. Could you design a rifle with the same operating system, general layout and calibre? Yes but it would be quite a different beast.

    It would still be better than an "AR18 rammed up the arrse of an EM2" which is what we got.

    It's been covered extensively in the optimum calibres and weapons thread if you are interested in some more details.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    Understood and mostly agreed with however value engineering and making in modern materials are two different things, Value Engineering took the IW and gave us the L85A1 and use of modern practises took the AK47 and gave us the AKM did it not? Not too much difference in performance but a massive improvement in costs which production engineering is supposed to do!
    I feel there would be a merit in producing a Rifle No 10 or 9 A2 even?
    It's a pity we couldn't manage it and would be largely reliant upon buying AR type clones from the cousins.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. The Robinson XCR bears close examination.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    I suspect some radical sort would expect it in tan coloured polymer, what's wrong with plain vanilla black and brown
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. I don't see what possible relevance the EM2 has today, it was a product of a different era and WW2 technology. The working parts were not revolutionary, they were old technology, based on the FG42, and Tokerev.

    They are beutifull mythical pieces of engineering from a bygone age. Probably cost 10 grand to make one nowadays.

    The .280 has been proven right though.

    If you want to go retro the Stoner 63 is another passed over weapon worth looking at.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    Ok so the design question is really folding/collapsing stock or bullpup then?
    Apart from that we aren't really achieving much are we?
    Regards the XCR it does seem an interesting design but then again there is only so much that you can do anyway, the current L85 internals are hardly new or novel neither were they when first decided upon, perhaps going backwards and re engineering the No9 design in modern materials is the way to make a more robust yet lighter version than the usual chuck an AR into a bull pup stock answer. let's face it the real problem is that the Rifle No9 didn't get the chance to do advanced troop acceptance trials, we will never know if it was a good design that would have translated forward the sixty odd years as the FN and AR designs seem destined to do and made the leap into modern materials?
     
  10. The XCR is specifically NOT AR internals in a different shape, quite the opposite.
     
  11. Doesn't mean the design is useless. AR-10 was designed in the 50s, the GPMG similar, the pistols we've only just phased out have been around similar times.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    Because I hadn't given it more than a cursory and not internally I didn't slate it as another AR let's face it there are only so many variations in shape and size available.
     
  13. Wasn't it accepted in to service? The yanks refusing to go below .300 calibre forcing us to ditch it, and all the research in to the .280 British round, and adopt the 7.62 SLR.

    Then the yanks went to .223 (aka 5.56).

    I hope the mongs in charge of that refusal to go below .300 cal were appraised of the decision to smash that hard deck.
     
  14. Your presuming a bullpup is the way to go. I've always hated them, as clumsy and unbalanced, and a totally unergonomic mag change that could cost you your life, while you fumble about.

    A point of note is that in practicle shooting competitions no one uses any bullpups.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    Yes it was accepted but that doesn't mean it was issued in quantity, the No1 MkV had a run of twenty thousand and that was only at troop trials stage and took two years to deliver.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1