7mm NATO and the EM2 Bullpup...

[SDC]

For the benefit of Langenator, here's a couple of shots of one of the more unusual firearms I've handled, an EM2 bullpup that was made in prototype form, and was seriously being considered for adoption as NATO standard before the decree/decision that the new NATO round would be no less than 7.62/.308. This particular example was manufactured by Canadian Arsenals Limited (C.A.L.), and is the only one believed to exist with a "winter trigger". The rifle is fairly well-balanced, and was one of the first to be designed with an integral optical sight (1X; it works fairly well, but has a limited field of view. It also uses the inverted-post style of reticle, to allow you to hold over a target at longer ranges). The rifle uses an "inside the trigger-guard"/Garand-style safety, and a cross-bolt selector above the pistol-grip, with the cocking-handle oddly placed on the RIGHT sight of the gas tube. An interesting design, but unfortunately a dead-end.

 

[SDC]

7mm NATO ammo...

Next, here's a shot of the 7mm NATO round alongside some of it's past and current competitors; L-R are 7.62x39mm Soviet, 5.56mm NATO, 5.45x39mm Soviet, 6.8mm SPC, 7.62x45mm Czech, 7mm NATO, and 7.62 NATO. The 7mm NATO round was known by a number of names, including .280 Enfield, .280/30, .280 NATO, .280 UK, .280 Short, 7mm FN Short, 7x43mm, 7mm High Velocity, and 7mm HV (the above EM2 is marked as being for the 7mm HV round). This particular round was loaded in 1949 at Radway Green, and bears the headstamp "280/30". Depending on the type of round (ball, AP, tracer, etc.), these rounds were loaded with bullets weighing between 128 and 138 grains, but I haven't been able to find any velocity specs on this round (likely around 2700 fps).

 

[nemesis]

The 7mm NATO round was known by a number of names, including .280 Enfield, .280/30, .280 NATO, .280 UK, .280 Short, 7mm FN Short, 7x43mm, 7mm High Velocity, and 7mm HV (the above EM2 is marked as being for the 7mm HV round).

I am familiar with the many sub-30 caliber rounds the Brits submitted for the trials but I am reasonably certain that none were ever accepted as a NATO round. I apologize if I have overlooked something.

 

[SDC]

Wishful thinking on their part, I'm sure

 

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

The trigger group looks more like a pecan cracker than a workable design for a battle rifle.

It's been awhile since Rube Goldberg came out with a contract bid against FN, hasn't it?



Regards,
Rabbit.

 

[max popenker]

well, some interesting mod of EM2 trigger group. here's some general info on EM2:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm

 

[Langenator]

I do find it interesting how, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, what was probably the better assault rifle round, made by a smaller ally (7.62x45 in the East, and 7x43 in the West), lost out to the inferior round made by the big ally.

How much pain would the Army have been spared if the brass back in the 50s hadn't been so set in their ways? And how much more effective would our Infantry weapons be today?

On the other side, I can imagine a 7.62x45 Kalashnikov would be pretty damn effective as well.

 

[Tony Williams]

The subject of the selection of the first NATO standard rifle/MG cartridge is dealt with at some length by Max Popenker and myself in our book 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition'. It was, I'm sorry to say, a saga of missed opportunities and bullheadedness. For some obscure reason, the US promoters of what became the 7.62x51 NATO decided that they needed a cartridge with equal long-range performance to the .30-06, which could be fired on full-auto and which had to be of .30 caliber. Now anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of firearms, recoil calculations etc will instantly tell you that this could never work, but somehow they stuck with it through all of the tests which proved that it wouldn't work.

Not all of the US Army agreed with this decision. This is a brief extract from 'Assault Rifle' concerning what were meant to be the decisive tests carried by the US Army at Fort Benning:

"At Fort Benning, the Trials Board reported on the cartridges as follows:

'That the T65 Cal .30 [the prototype of the 7.62mm] is not satisfactory because of its excessive recoil, blast, flash and smoke. That the Cal .280 is not satisfactory because of its comparatively high trajectory. That of the two basic types of rounds submitted for test the British calibre .280 is preferred.'

The detailed findings from the Fort Benning tests showed that while the T65 had a flatter trajectory and produced more severe wounds at ranges of less than 1,000 yards (900 metres), the British round became more effective at longer ranges because of its superior ballistic coefficient. At 1,000 yards the .280 could penetrate body armour 70% of the time, compared with 60% for the .30. The British cartridge also produced considerably less flash and smoke. Most significantly, while the T25 was found to be the more accurate rifle and achieved more hits per minute when fired from a bipod, the EM-2 was far superior in this respect when fired from the shoulder.

Clearly, the British designers had achieved all that they had aimed for, but the Trials Board recommendation to focus development on the .280 cartridge was rejected by the Chief of Staff of the US Army. This was due to the clear preference of the Ordnance Department and the American senior military, political and industrial establishment in favour of a full-power .30 calibre rifle of US origin."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

[Langenator]

Grrr...your site is blocked here at work. I hate the filter they use.

Also, Amazon doesn't seem to carry the book. Where can I get a copy?

 

[shoobe01]

Ignoring the winterized bits, that grip looks just like what ended up on the L.85/86. Looks comfy enough. Do try to envision this in plastic, with a modern sight... its fun.

Nothing involved got near adoption by NATO. I think the .280 was submitted to the caliber trials, but when it went bad, the brits bought the FAL (also in another caliber originally, and also a bullpup version). The UK government did adopt the gun, otoh. Not that it means anything. None were fielded or anything and I don't even think any production pieces were ever made.

 

[Tony Williams]

Also, Amazon doesn't seem to carry the book. Where can I get a copy?

Amazon.com has the book here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=sr_1_12/104-6065368-9521518?v=glance&s=books

It is available from other on-line booksellers, suc as Barnes & Noble: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=Er72Weww8X&isbn=1861267002&itm=24

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

[Tony Williams]

Nothing involved got near adoption by NATO. I think the .280 was submitted to the caliber trials, but when it went bad, the brits bought the FAL (also in another caliber originally, and also a bullpup version). The UK government did adopt the gun, otoh. Not that it means anything. None were fielded or anything and I don't even think any production pieces were ever made.

A further quote fom the book:

"The British felt that the Aberdeen trials should have settled the matter so didn't give up easily. They set about meeting the American objections by producing more powerful versions of their cartridge, with the support of Belgium and Canada. The first change was to upload the 43 mm case to 2,550 fps (777 m/s) with the 140 grain (9 g) bullet, to meet the criticism of the trajectory and also to address complaints that the low temperatures of Arctic conditions reduced the performance to an unacceptable level. This raised the energy remaining at 2,000 yards to 126 ft lbs (170 joules). However, the British cause was severely damaged by a change of government, which led early in 1952 (reportedly followed a meeting between the US President Truman and Winston Churchill, the new Prime Minister) to a decision to rescind the adoption of the EM-2 and its 7 mm cartridge before any had been issued.

Despite this setback, Britain, Belgium and Canada combined (in the 'BBC Committee') to make one last attempt to develop a new 7 mm round which would be acceptable to NATO. Various lengthened cartridges with such designations as 'Optimum', 'High Velocity', 'Compromise' and 'Second Optimum' were developed, mostly with 49 mm cases although the final attempt was simply the 7.62 x 51 necked-down to 7 mm. Muzzle velocities were in the range 2,750-2,800 fps with the 140 grain bullet (9 g at 840-850 m/s). However, the Americans would not be convinced. In any case, the recoil had by this time increased significantly and the balance of the original EM-2 concept had been lost. At the end of 1953, the BBC Committee reluctantly bowed to American pressure and the 7.62 x 51 was formally adopted as the new NATO cartridge."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

[Langenator]

Oi...Amazon's search engine must be really stupid...I run a search using Max Popenker and it can't find it (no insult to you Tony, I just figured a name like Popenker would give me better unique results than Williams.)

 

[ARperson]

I have got to say the EM-2 has got to be the best looking bull-pup ever made. Just my opinion. It really is too bad that the best cartridge and rifle were again overwhelmed by politics.

 

[shoobe01]

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen a crappy photoshop job up on the board for a while. So, we present the Rifle, Caliber .280 Mk9 Mod. 4, circa 1989:

Now you can pretend it was adopted.

(Too much work to take off the winter trigger. Sorry...)

 

[max popenker]

Nice work shoobe01, but you forgot a plastic cheek pad

 

[Langenator]

Definitely nice work. Now, to get the U.S. Army to adopt it, we just need to add some 1913 rails and BUIs and we should be good to go.

 

[NMshooter]

That would be easier if it was manufactured by a company with ties to a powerful senator.

Not a bad looking rifle, even if it does remind me of a L85.

If you had to pick one which would be more important, a 7mm cartridge or a bullpup rifle?

 

[shoobe01]

Oh, no. Make no mistakes. I didn't forget to change the cheekrest color. That's just laziness.

Someone else can do the all-railed version. Lotta barrel. Bet you could fit a couple of lights, a 203, a vert grip, laser... Who doesn't want a 30 pound rifle?

 

[Langenator]

If you had to pick one which would be more important, a 7mm cartridge or a bullpup rifle?

That's a toughie...I'd have to see how the 7x43 performed in something with a shorter (15-16") barrel.

Compactness is important in a close quarters fight, but so is the ability to reload quickly-and I'm assuming here that the magwell location on the bullpup is going to slow that down.

If I can get enough performance from a shorter barrel, I'd go with a short barrel and a conventional design.

 

[Tony Williams]

If you had to pick one which would be more important, a 7mm cartridge or a bullpup rifle?

It would depend on what the alternative cartridge to the 7mm might be!

If you mean the 7.62x51 then I would choose the traditional 7x43 rifle rather than the bullpup 7.62mm, because:

1. A traditional gun in 7x43 would work very well on full-auto.

2. A bullpup in 7.62x51 wouldn't - too much recoil.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

[Famaldehide Face]

Thats a damn good photojob there!

I wish this rifle would have took off or lead to a derivative of it today.