Surprisingly, the calibre has a wiki page. As one could imagine: if the article in the original post is correct recoil would have been significantly less that a .308 NATO round. Wouldn't see a 3 shot burst in .308, no sir.
However, that could also have attributed to the bullpup design.
smurf said:Apart from being a bullpup, the EM2 is internally not much like the 4.85 and the SA80 developed from it to fire NATO 5.56mm. That, although your text says "mechanically more advanced" has had rather a chequered career, with a complete mid-life redesign to make it work.
Abraham Gubler said:smurf said:Apart from being a bullpup, the EM2 is internally not much like the 4.85 and the SA80 developed from it to fire NATO 5.56mm. That, although your text says "mechanically more advanced" has had rather a chequered career, with a complete mid-life redesign to make it work.
Just because its in print doesn't mean it isn't BS. The EM-2 and the SA80 are completely different only sharing a rough configuration. The EM-2 used an internal workings designed by Janson while the SA80 was just a bullpupisation of the AR18 and suffered for it.
Firefly said:Still, I wonder. Would FN have made a lighter FAL if the .280 Britisch had been accepted as nato standard round.
Abraham Gubler said:Firefly said:Still, I wonder. Would FN have made a lighter FAL if the .280 Britisch had been accepted as nato standard round.
The FAL was originally designed for the 7x43mm (.280 round) after the prototypes used the WW2 German 7.92x33mm. It was only after the US insisted on a modernised .30 (7.62x51mm) that it was re chambered.
These kind of questions can be answered on Wikipedia or using Google. This web forum has always been for posting new information not answering questions for people who can't do a simple web search.
overscan said:Secret Forum Rules 5.0
- Google is your friend. Try searching the internet to see if the information you seek is already out there.
Firefly said:I will not stand corrected on an honest question, sir, so please vent your frustration elsewhere. Merely dumping information in this forum defeats its purpose as an information platform for both the amateurs ( like me) and the zealous.
Firefly said:Supposedly, if one has the time, yes. In my case, no. Time is in short supply.
In 1950, the United Kingdom presented the redesigned FN rifle and the British EM-2, both in .280 British calibre, to the United States for comparison testing against the favored United States Army design of the time - Earle Harvey's T25.
Selective quotes can give different impressions.General Conduct
* Always be polite, especially to new users, even if they ask questions you find irritating. Nobody was born an expert.
* New users in return should respect that some of the forum's "grumpy old men" do have years of industry experience. Be respectful and appreciative where appropriate.
Abraham Gubler said:If you want to know more about the 1950 EM-2 7mm vs FAL 7mm vs T25 (XM14) 7.62mm trial then here is a link to the original US Army report. It’s a 15 MB .pdf (so no downloading on dialup) and a pretty rough copy (photocopy) of the original report but is fantastic reading.
A Comparison Test of United Kingdom and United States Lightweight Rifles
To obtain information on the characteristics and performance of 3 models of lightweight rifles, two models of which (EM2 and FAL) were furnished by the United Kingdom and one (T25) by the United States.