YOU ARE VISITING THE NEW IN-BUILD SITE OF THE U.K. HISTORIC ARMS RESOURCE CENTRE - MINIATURE CALIBRE RIFLES REFERENCE FACILITY
Please be aware that some specialist rotational imagery on these pages may take longer than usual to load

The Enfield EM-2 Bull-pup prototype and trials rifles

which stemmed from the EM1 Bull-pup assault rifle

See also the original EM-1 PROTOTYPE BULL-PUP RIFLE (No.10)

N.B. ALL IMAGES ON THIS PAGE ARE COPYRIGHTED TO BOTH
WWW.RIFLEMAN.ORG.UK AND THE ROYAL ARMOURIES

For readers already aware of the British EM-2 rifle, of .280in calibre,

some interesting facts lie within the history of

that rifle's development at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield.

It is not generally known that the original designation

for the RSAF bull-pup design was as the Enfield Rifle No.9.

It was soon realised that this nomenclature had already been put into use,

so the obvious progression was to award the next number , for Enfield Rifle No.10.

For reasons not entirely clear, but probably related to the then imminent change

of nomenclature from plain rifle numbers to the currently employed system of "L" prefixed codes,

(to such as the L1A1 for the incoming NATO selection of the Belgian designed self-loading rifle, or "SLR")

the prototype was named on drawings as the "X1 E1";

both "X" and "E" often being prefixed to the numbers of 'Experimental' weapons.


The EM-2 was the first rifle of "bull-pup" configuration to be adopted, in 1951, into British service. Its life at the top was particularly short. Trials in 1952, and argument in the House of Commons over the direction which the British should take to help bring a common cartridge and rifle to NATO, led to a preference for adoption of the Fabrique Nationale designed FAL - SLR (Self-Loading Rifle). The EM-2 was designed for a .280-inch calibre cartridge, and less suitable for the proposed NATO calibre. Winston Churchill supported adoption of the FAL in anticipation that it might also be taken up by the U.S. Military, who were certainly not intending to invest in the British EM-2 design*. These considerations, and perhaps economics too, led to the early demise of the EM-2, which had not been brought into full production, and the introduction of the FN -SLR in 1954. There is an irony in the more than thirty year delay before British forces were finally issued, in 1985, with another new bull-pup configuration service rifle, the L85A1 (SA80 - shown right). This replacement for the long-serving FN FAL was, to all intents and purposes, that very bull-pup design in .223-inch calibre; oft credited as being the last Enfield rifle, (but certainly not the last Lee-Enfield).

One of the earliest mentions of Enfield's design of the .280" calibre rifle was a brief description of the weapon, detail of which was still restricted. Major W.G.B. Allen afforded what little was then permissible in his book "Pistols, Rifles and Machine-guns" published in 1953.

The relevant extract is shown below.

THE 7mm. (.z8o in.) ENFIELD RIFLE


The needs of security must be served at the time of writing, so it is only possible to summarise the information that has already been released, together with a few remarks of a general character, on automatic rifles. The automatic rifle is not a new weapon. Hiram Maxim made one in 1884, and the Americans and Russians both introduced one into their armies about 1936, whilst Germany began in 1941, and produced several models in the next three years. Attempts were made in this country, during the first World War, to convert the No. 1 Rifle to semi­automatic action. Some specimens still exist and, although rather clumsy, show the same fundamental characteristics as the modern article. The calibre of the new rifle has been allotted the official nomenclature of 7 mm., but it is more convenient to use inches when comparing with other calibres known in inches.

Construction


A photograph of the rifle is shown in Figure 63. Modern warfare demands a lighter weapon than has been used in the past; the weight of the 7 mm. rifle is about 8-} pounds. The rifle and cartridge have been especially designed for a specific purpose and include the best features selected from other weapons. The .303 in. cartridge is 3 inches long and the 7 mm. has been reduced to 2-} inches; the reduction allows a shorter feed stroke and assists in shortening the overall length of the rifle. The bullet weight is 140 grains and the muzzle velocity is 2530 feet per second. The illustration shows that a straight-through design has been adopted together with a telescopic sight mounted at a convenient height. The sight mounting has been built in the form of a carrying handle so that the telescope is automatically protected to some extent. It has unit magnification which in addition to eliminating all focussing difficulties (see Chapter 8, telescopic sights), allows a good view of the field offire. Iron sights are provided in case the telescope is damaged. There is no dead wood in the butt, the interior being fully occupied. The fore-end is made of wood and has a full left-hand grip to prevent the fingers reaching the hot gas cylinder; incidentally the grip provides an excellent hand hold for both shooting and bayonet fighting. The position of the breech is indicated by the front edge of the magazine and shows that the barrel is of normal length for the calibre, in spite of the short length of the rifle. The position of the twenty round magazine ensures that its weight is in the optimum place near the shoulder. There is no waist to the butt, as in conventional rifles, so a pistol grip has been fitted in a convenient location for the right hand, and a linkage operates the trigger. The safety catch is mounted in the front part of the trigger guard and is similar to that on the Garand rifle; it is operated by the back of the index finger. The weapon handles well in all firing positions, including the waist. Figure 65 is a photograph of the rifle in action.

A Comparison between .280 in. and .30 in. Calibres


During the summer of 1951, when information concerning the 7 mm. rifle was first released, there was a lot of correspondence in the daily press which showed the interest of the country in its new weapons of defence. Many of the letters, clearly emphasising the need for an exposition of the salient factors involved, were from misinformed enthusiasts whose opinions were based on out-of-date concepts. There is no doubt in the minds of the people whose task it is to study these matters that a semi-automatic rifle is a vastly superior Infantry arm compared with an orthodox rifle. A comparison is drawn in a later section. (See entire book) The main point about which discussion centred, however, was the calibre of .280 in. Many of the eager scribes contended that it was too small, and this opinion appears to be shared by the U.S.A.


Let us settle this point as far as is possible without contravening security. The real weapon is the bullet, for it is this that strikes the enemy, and the rifle is the projector which discharges the bullet in a known direction, at a known velocity, and at a predetermined angle of elevation, depending on the range. It follows that the first item to design is the cartridge containing the bullet and propelling charge. Now the army requires one type of cartridge for its rifles, light machine guns, and medium machine guns, in order to keep the supply problem within practical limits; therefore the bullet will have to be effective at the extreme range of the longest range weapon-the medium machine gun. Suppose this range to be 2500 yards. What is the target? Probably a man wearing normal uniform and field equipment. The bullet must pene­ trate his body sufficiently to inflict, at least, a severe wound, but it must not be excessively powerful because the recoil velocity of the rifle has to be kept down, and this is dependent on the momentum of the projectile. Furthermore, powerful cartridges require heavy rifles to absorb the recoil energy.


The ranging ability of a projectile depends on its ballistic coefficient, which in turn depends mainly on the shape, stability, and the ratio of weight to cross sectional area. (A golf ball has a better ballistic co­ efficient than a ping-pong ball-try throwing them.) The numerical value of the ballistic coefficient should be as high as possible. A small cross-sectional area will suffer less air resistance than a large one, and in addition a bullet should have the greatest possible density; these factors dictate a long thin bullet, but stability limits the length. The .280 in. bullet weighs 140 grains, and the M.2 of the Garand rifle, 150 grains. For the purpose of drawing a rough comparison no great error will accrue if the two bullets are deemed to have the same weight. In this case, all other things being even, the .280 in. bullet will have the better ballistic coefficient. Discharge both at the same muzzle velocity and their respective momenta will be equal, so if the two rifles are also of equal weight, they will have much the same recoil velocities for all practical purposes.


The energy of the bullets is found from the formula: ½mv2 , where m is the mass, and v the velocity. Both bullets have been given the same mass and muzzle velocity, and will therefore have identical muzzle energy, but the .30 in. bullet with its inferior ballistic coefficient will lose velocity along the trajectory more rapidly than the .280 in. bullet. Thus, after leaving the muzzle the striking energy of the .30 in. bullet will deteriorate more rapidly than that of the .280 in. bullet. All that can be said in favour of the larger calibre is that it will make a larger hole in the target, but the penetration of the higher velocity smaller projectile will be greater. At the longer machine gun ranges the .280 in. bullet will be much superior in striking energy and also the flatte trajectory assists in compensating for errors in range estimation. Even if the velocity of the .30 in. bullet is raised by, say, 200 feet per second, it will still be inferior at the long,er machine gun ranges, so great is the advantage of a good ballistic coefficient.

Of course the .30 in. bullet could be given a comparable performance by increasing its weight to improve the ballistic coefficient, but then the muzzml omentum would also increase, and with it the recoil velocity of the rifle. Nothing is gained by over-hitting, or in everyday language: why take an axe when a dagger will do the job? The two big advantages of a low recoil velocity may be stated now. The first is the greater facility with which men can be trained up to a given standard of proficiency. A heavy recoil velocity makes many men gun-shy, and in consequence they flinch as they fire and the_degree of accuracy is poor. The second is a lessening fatigue during prolonged fire.
The reduction of cross sectional area cannot be taken too far, .280 in. is about the lower limit, bearing in mind the performance required. For instance a .22 in. bullet would have too low a ballistic coefficient to give a satisfactory performance because it is not possible to obtain the necessary weight in this small calibre. Perhaps this brief excursion into external ballistics will "debunk" some of the nonsense that has been published regarding the .280 in. calibre. The treatment is necessarily incomplete but, factually, it is based on sound reasoning. The reader may also recall that in the last war both the Italians and the Japanese used 6.5 mm. (.25 in.) rifle and machine gun cartridges, and that the adoption of a .276 in. being considered in this country in 1913.


To sum up: there is nothing new in the adoption of a smaller calibre than .303 in.; ballistitians have long realised that a light rifle can only be achieved by a reduction in the muzzle energy of the bullet, and further, that a correctly designed small calibre bullet is adequate for both rifles and machine guns. Since the case has been established for a light rifle (8½ - pounds) with a low recoil velocity (under 10 feet per second) a compromise must be accepted, and there are excellent grounds for believing that the .280 in. rifle and cartridge are the best possible solution to the problem. It seems that the only way of convincing the hard-boiled sceptics would be to invite them to stand at the extreme range of the bullet and submit to a peppering by machine gun fire - I doubt if they would have the courage of their convictions.

 

The above extract is from Chapter 11 of Allen's book, and the whole section on service rifles used at the time, covering the Lee-Enfields of several marks and the U.S. Garand and Russian Nagant can be viewed HERE - "RIFLES" by Allen.

______________________

Below: the "battle-ready" example of the 'standard' EM-2 that lies on display in the collection of the Small Arms School at Warminster.

The bayonet bears more than a passing resemblance to the less common option for the earlier Lee-Enfield No.4 rifle,

the swivelling-pommel No.7 Mk.I bayonet .

The grooved hand-hold is a separate component affixed to the fore-end furniture.

 

 

The photographs of the next 'standard' EM-2 rifle are by courtesy of

the Small Arms Collection of the Defence Academy at Shrivenham, Wiltshire.

 

There are notable differences between this rifle and the Warminster example.

The fore-end's hand-hold grooving is at variance, and in one piece with the furniture.

as is the steel side pressing above the pistol-grip on the right-hand-side.

The trigger-guard is more angular, and the trigger is a flate plate type.

 

The frequently published 1951 dated photograph below shows two British soldiers

at the military demonstration described in the NYB report attached.

The nearest is one Corporal Unwin, holding the "new" EM-2 (short-lived) service rifle.

This model is as the Warminster example above.

To his left, another soldier carries the outgoing Lee-Enfield No.4 rifle, soon to be replaced by the Belgian

FN Self-Loading Rifle (SLR) to be afforded the upcoming new nomenclature "Rifle, L1A1".

PLA A 97666               NEW YORK BUREAU

      NEW RIFLE HIGHLY PRAISED
 
 
WARMINSTER, ENGLAND. THE NEW BRITISH SERVICE RIFLE (FOREGROUND),
 
 
HELD BY CPL.E.UNSWORTH, WAS HIGHLY PRAISED AFTER A DEMONSTRATION
 

BEFORE 200 RANKING OFFICERS OF THE U.S.A., THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH
 
 
NATIONS, AND OTHER FRIENDLY COUNTRIES,INCLUDING YUGOSLAVIA.

  
 
  DEVELOPED AFTER  FIVE YEARS OF INTENSIVE RESEARCH,THE .280 IS ALMOST A
 
 
FOOT SHORTER THAN THE U.S. GARAND, MORE THAN A POUND LIGHTER AND CARRIES 20
 
 
ROUNDS TO THE GARAND'S EIGHT.A RADICAL DEPARTURE IN DESIGN, IT IS EQUIPPED WITH
 
 
AN OPTICAL SIGHT, AND THE WOODEN STOCK HAS BEEN ELIMINATED. IN THE BACKGROUND IS
 
 
THE STANDARD BRITISH BOLT-ACTION .303 RIFLE, WHILE IMPRESSED WITH
 
 
THE SEVERAL  FEATURES OF THE NEW WEAPON, U.S. OBSERVERS INDICATED LITTLE
 
 
LIKELIHOOD THE U.S. WOULD OR COULD SWITCH AT THIS TIME.
 
 
 
 
NY-1-2-3-4-5 CAN MX SA MGS
 
  
 
CREDIT (ACME)      8/11/51                   (PS)


 

Recent publicity, of the hitherto all but "forgotten" EM-2 rifle, has raised discussion of the political reasoning
behind the selection of the 7.62mm round as the new NATO rifle ammunition, and the demise of what has often been deemed,
in the ensuing years, to have been an error in dismissing the .280in round and its well-designed and practical weapon of projection.

Even now, the EM-2 appears almost modern, apart from the aesthetically pleasing and traditional
employment of walnut furniture, rather than green or black composite material.

The text of the report makes quite clear the fact that a decision not to approve the EM-2, and its .280 calibre ammunition,
as a NATO service weapon, had been made by the United States long before the rifle's appearance at this demonstration.

Some of the factors then involved are discussed in the documents available on both this page and that for the EM-1 rifle.


 

The EM-2's progression from the EM-1 Rifle was made over several years, between 1951 and 1954,

during which time various trials and costings resulted in the selection of

the Fabrique Nationale designed self-loading rifle, in 7.62mm NATO calibre,

as the next British individual Service Weapon.

..

Above left: the gently curved magazine for the new rimless cartridge.

Above right: the full-length rifle's muzzle, showing the Lee-Enfield No.4 rifle form

of barrel lugs that locate the bayonet, of aforementioned No.7 swivelling-pommel type.

With the spring-loaded

ejection port open,

bolt is visible.

 

 

In 1951 an article was written, covering the introduction of the EM-2

during a meeting at the home of the Small Arms School at Warminster, Wiltshire.

 

Below is a searchable facsimile of the document, may take a few moments to display.

N.B. The search magnifier may need to be clicked twice.

It was remarkable that the EM-2 had rate of fire near twice that of the U.S. M1 Garand service rifle and,

if the above article is correct, with significantly greater hitting power.

The smaller .280 calibre probably also resulted in the advantage of a flatter trajectory.

This last factor was later repeated with the introduction of the 5.56mm round,

its British service rifle, the SA80, (or L85A1) and its successor, the L85A2.

We cover on site the SA80's training equivalent, the now obsolescent straight-pull Enfield Cadet Rifle, L98A1, and the L98A2.

The mention in the article of the rifle being capable of use by gloved hands,

does not mean there was just a modified cocking-handle,

as was the case on the alpine models of the Swiss Schmidt-Rubin rifles;

but rather that a fully specialised "Arctic" model of the EM-2 had been produced.

The trials rifle of this type is shown further down this page.

We show below the Prototype of the "Short Rifle", effectively the carbine, or paratrooper's version,

held in the National Firearms Centre collection at the Leeds Royal Armouries,

in common with the following examples illustrated on this page.

 

 

This rifle has the same general features as the Warminster example.

 

 

 

 

Here viewed from above and below.

 

And a close-up of the center section.

 

The sight picture through the early optic unit, incorporated into the rifle's carrying handle, is shown right.

The inverted reticle pointer was employed, and magnification was minimal.

The old target is from the Solano training series.

...........................

 

The heavily grooved hand-grip was a quite marked and unusual feature.

The cocking-lever handle is in the upper center-left of the photograph.

Unusually, the front sling-swivel was mounted on the top of the fore-end rather than below.

The "straight-line" configuration of the rifle ended with a simple butt-plate with a rubber recoil pad insert,

and the rear sling-swivel at its base.

 

As previously mentioned, number of prototype and trials rifles were produced,

by BSA, of a rifle specifically designed for cold climes.

This was designated the "Arctic Model", with a very special trigger configuration for use by heavily gloved hands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The magazine and ejection port cover are shown left,

and the rubber recoil padded light-weight butt-plate to the right.

The carrying handle with intergral optical sight is shown below.

The rather agricultural appearance suggests that the sight unit

and its mounting would have proved significantly more robust than those

of the current SA80 service weapon,

although the optics were rather less sophisticated.

 

 

 

That the rifle can be used with very heavily gloved hands, indeed mittens, is apparent from the photograph below.

 

.....................................

 

And finally, an image of the magazine, with a .280 inch round on the staggered follower platform,

 

with another round stood alongside.

 

A proof manual was produced for the rifle's trials users.

It is illustrated below as a flip-page booklet.

N.B. Two pages (23 & 24) were missing from the original.

Double tap tablet or click for full page display.

View a Pathe news clip of the rifle in use at a contemporary 1950's military demonstration.

This would quite possibly have been the same international event described in the New York Bureau's news report attached to the photograph,

already here illustrated, of Corporal Unworth and a colleague respectively carrying the EM-2 and Lee-Enfield No. 4 rifles.

 

________________

An informative article affording a brief history of the development of British Self -Loading Rifles between 1900 and 1914 was written by Peter Labbett and published in the June 1964 edition of Guns Review Magazine.

The searchable article is replicated below as a flip-page facsimile.

Double tap tablet or click for full page display.

 

In April 1961, Peter Labbett had already written an article asking the worthy question

"Was the finest rifle thrown out?"

This was also published in Guns Review.

This can be viewed as a text-searchable flip-page document
or with vertical scrolling by clicking the portrait icon.
Depending upon the number of pages it may take a few moments to load.
Double tap tablet or click for full page display.

 

A later related article was written by John Weeks

in the July and August 1976 issues of Guns Review.

It was entitled "A New British Weapon".

Covering the introduction of the 4.85mm precursors to the

SA80 personal (individual) weapon, and the Light Support Weapon ( LSW).

it well illustrated the legacy belonging to the EM2 design.

It is shown in its two separate parts.

 

An EM2 in its transit chest

Thank you for taking the time to view this page. We hope it has been of interest

Click here for Chronology of Enfield genre Training Rifles, Adapters & Cartridges

Contact - email: Miniature-Calibre-Rifles@rifleman.org.uk

* "EM-2 Concept and Design", 1980 by Thomas B Dugelby

Return to: TOP of PAGE

See this website's Raison d'être