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

#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.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#5
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.
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.
 
#6
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.
The Robinson XCR bears close examination.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#7
I suspect some radical sort would expect it in tan coloured polymer, what's wrong with plain vanilla black and brown
 
#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.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#9
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.
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
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?
The XCR is specifically NOT AR internals in a different shape, quite the opposite.
 
#11
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.
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.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#12
The XCR is specifically NOT AR internals in a different shape, quite the opposite.
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
let's face it the real problem is that the Rifle No9 didn't get the chance to do advanced troop acceptance trials,
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.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#15
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.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#16
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.
Nope I didn't presume a bullpup I opined that the choice was between a folding stock and a bullpup!
I've also just read the truth about guns review of the XCR and even the second production run needs issues sorting, they need to solve that before it damns the future of the company.
That's possibly why most manufacturers choose to release a round or complete configuration using an accepted and trusted rifle configuration often made to their spec by the main supplier, it's a reasonably safe way of ensuring a level of reliability through tested components and parent company QC
 
#17
With the way the EM2 was designed to be machined, you couldn't make nowadays it for a reasonable price, if any price at all. It's a design optimised for 1940s production engineering (zillions of cuts on zillions of specialised analogue machines watched over by zillions of relatively cheap workers). Basically like Irish road directions, "You don't want to start from here".

And internally its operating principle is G43, which itself took inspiration from the DP28. Again, "You don't want to start from here". We've pretty much settled on the multilugged rotating bolt locking into a short barrel extension. You can argue about 7-ish lugs (AR15, AR18, AUG, SA80, G36, F2000 etc) or 2-ish lugs (AK, SIG55x, FNC), but the principle isn't going to change in a hurry, and certainly not back to something that went out of fashion 70 years ago.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#18
The point is though that with modern materials you wouldn't need those expensive machinings and forgings and machining of forgings with loads of cheap labour from Albania watching machines, even Sako went the way of lost wax investment casting many years ago! Yes the design could be updated to make the best use of the newly available materials and technologies, that's what's being stated, would it be the A2 of the No9? I doubt it too!
 
#19
Nope I didn't presume a bullpup I opined that the choice was between a folding stock and a bullpup!
I've also just read the truth about guns review of the XCR and even the second production run needs issues sorting, they need to solve that before it damns the future of the company.
That's possibly why most manufacturers choose to release a round or complete configuration using an accepted and trusted rifle configuration often made to their spec by the main supplier, it's a reasonably safe way of ensuring a level of reliability through tested components and parent company QC
The XCR has not been developed to a satisfactory standard I would agree but I think the combination of best existing design features is very good.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#20
The XCR has not been developed to a satisfactory standard I would agree but I think the combination of best existing design features is very good.
It certainly has merit, it seems to have taken that step beyond just sticking a piston into an AR that everyone else seems stuck on at the moment
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
msr The Intelligence Cell 7
B Aviation 5
Jip Travolta Current Affairs, News and Analysis 8

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads