The Best Service rifles ever (argument starter)

[Rearlugs]

Interesting, pretty much everyone in SASC and ITDU at Warminster who are in a position to know (i.e. they have the sample rifles and the ammo to shoot them with), reckon that the FAL was the right choice anyway and that the No9 Mk1 (EM-2 initial production issue) wouldn't have been a success. The EM-2/No9 rifles do feel fragile when you handle them.

Had development of the No9 continued and incorporated more modern technology, then it probably would have been a better rifle than the SA80 series and could have been introduced earlier than the L1A1/SA80 changeover in 1988-ish.

[saddler]

The EM-2 may "feel" fragile, but unlike the SA80 it passed ALL the standard acceptance tests...

ONE important aspect of the EM-2 is too often overlooked;
its .280 cartridge was a marked improvement over the .303 it was designed to replace AND had ballistic advantages over the 7.62NATO & 5.56NATO

[huntervixen]

The EM-2 always raises a lot of debate doesn't it, it's in the same "What if "category as the TSR-2, another great British missed opportunity!

I wonder why very little is ever mentioned about the EM-1, another very similar looking bull pup design, though from a completely different design team I believe.

Once the Americans "dictated" 7.62x51mm was NATO's preferred choice, the EM-2 was a dead duck, I wonder if studies were made about converting the design for 7.62mm, not a viable option I would think.

Was the correct alternative choice made.... The L1A1 was a great rifle, best of it's breed and era, I say yes!

With regard to the L85, I never got the chance to handle or fire one, a friend of mine though was involved in the testing of the initial A2 trial examples.

He got to travel all over the shop with the trials rifles, from Norway to Brunei. I remember him saying the rifle was a breath of fresh air in comparison to the A1.

He said, the A2 trials rifles (not production representative) were superior to the control rifles (M16A2 and others) used in the hot and cold trials in most of the tests.

So, we got there in the end with the troubled L85, British Aerospace did very well out of the whole sorry saga.

As the owners of Royal Ordnance, they got paid to churn out the rubbish and as the owners of Heckler & Koch, they got paid again to put them right....!!! sign01 :cool2:

[saddler]

T I wonder if studies were made about converting the design for 7.62mm, not a viable option I would think.

YES - some WERE converted to 7.62NATO

...not viable, why is that then??

[huntervixen]

T I wonder if studies were made about converting the design for 7.62mm, not a viable option I would think.

YES - some WERE converted to 7.62NATO

...not viable, why is that then??

Well, considerable difference in caliber and recoil I suppose...it wasn't adopted so I am guessing it wasn't successful with the caliber change?? or was it??

[dave_303]

Once the Americans "dictated" 7.62x51mm was NATO's preferred choice, the EM-2 was a dead duck, I wonder if studies were made about converting the design for 7.62mm, not a viable option I would think.

Was the correct alternative choice made.... The L1A1 was a great rifle, best of it's breed and era, I say yes!

On the previous page I have put up a link to a video of some guys trying out a 7.62x51NATO

The L1A1 was originally designed to be in .280 it felt that the FAL could handle it better than the No.9

[Sim G]

As the owners of Royal Ordnance, they got paid to churn out the rubbish and as the owners of Heckler & Koch, they got paid again to put them right....!!! sign01 :cool2:

From what I gather, the eventual production model of the SA80 wasn't due to RO or BAE, but the bean-counters of the MoD. Everytime the weapon was presented for evaluation, MoD wanted money shaved off. I heard from an ex member of SASC that with the A1, all of the money was spent on the barrel and the SUSAT, (which is why it was so accurate, requiring qualification sores in the APWT to go up!), leaving about sixteen and a half quid to make the rest!

As for BAE making money on the A2, they sold H&K to H&K USA some years before the refit, I believe. Likewise, the "refit" was more of "taking the weapon to the original spec, with a twist....."

Yes, I believe that the EM2 was battered by 7.62 Nato. Ironically, the recent research for the "perfect combat cartridge" has resulted in stuff almost the ballistical evquivilent of .280 British.....

[saddler]

Ironically, the recent research for the "perfect combat cartridge" has resulted in stuff almost the ballistical evquivilent of .280 British.....

Hence my 'ickle 6.8SPC rifle

[huntervixen]

Just watched the EM-2 in 7.62mm vid here...lucky sod!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wdhN5_RpX4

Rather vicious recoil in 7.62! I do like the port dust cover and push pins, I have to say the way it stripped, it looks like a very good basic design indeed...another great British waisted opportunity it would seem!

[dirtbag]

Here is a cat amongst the pigeons.

As far as revolutionary.

Mauser G98 / K98. Yep extra mag capacities can easily be added as I have one myself and works. (Thats for you mons "machine gun fire" people)

The 1898 action still being used / Made today in modern hunting and military sniper rifles. Accurate too. There has to be a reason why they are still being used someover 100 years later ?

As far as from the list of "what we cannot own and shoot properly" I would have to go with an M1 Garand, superb weapon. In fact I am looking for a cheap deact I can hang above one of my fireplaces along with my musket !