The EM2 Canadian bullpup rifle. Only $25,000 at Switzers Auction

@ GAFF: Kjellman flap-lock. Goes back a long ways. Works very well although no primary extraction. Likely worked better with a long-stroke piston, although the G.41 and Kar. 43 used short-strokes. Article on the Kjellman MG in "The Machine Gun" by George M. Chinn, USN. You can download the whole set in the MKL over at Milsurps. MOST interesting! Volume 1 has all the histories and pictures.

Hope this helps.
 
And exactly what's wrong with the L85? Perhaps you would care to elucidate, rather than simply dropping in, slagging and leaving.

We are all eager to learn, here.

I believe this is the answer: From forces.military.blog


Difficulties with the SA80 were first reported in the 1991 Gulf War, where British troops fought in the desert heat, but it was not until 1995 that the concerns were confirmed by tests. Original SA80 weapons (both L85 and L86) were plagued with many problems, some being very serious. In general, L85 was quite unreliable and troublesome to handle and maintain, so, finally, in the year 1997, after years of constant complaints from the troops, it had been decided to upgrade most L85 rifles then in service.
The SA80 Assault Rifle family was designed and produced (until 1988) by the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock. In 1988 production of the rifle was transferred to the Royal Ordnance's Nottingham Small Arms Facility (later British Aerospace, Royal Ordnance; now BAE Systems Land Systems Munitions). The upgrade program, committed in years 2000 - 2002, was completed by the famous Heckler&Koch, whichwas then owned by British Royal Ordnance company (German investors bought the HK back in the2002). the SA80 IW also appeared in the shortenedCarbine version, and inthe manually operated L98A1 rifle, which got its gas system removed and a larger cocking handle attached. This weapon is available in two versions, L85A1 Assault Rifle and L85A2,the latter being fitted with additional Picatinny rail on the right side of front grip base.

The current L85A2 Assault Rifle rifles are recognized as reliable and very accurate,especially when using standard issue SUSAT telescope sights. The drawbacks ofthe L85A2 are somewhat poor balance (which can be improved with installation of HK-made 40mm underbarrel grenade launcher), right-side only extraction and rearward placement of the fire mode selector.

The L852A1 and L852a2 Assault Rifle With the NATO trials complete, the 5.56x45mm round was selected by the organization as the standard ammunition set. As a result, the L85 was reconfigured to utilize ammunition standard and the SA80/L85A1 system as seen today was born. The bullpup layout allowed for a shortened design without sacrificing much to overall functionality for an assault rifle type. Ammunition capacity is provided through a 30-round curved magazine. An integrated carrying handle is also provided as are iron sights.

The L22A1 Assault Rifle was also developed with a short, 442 mm barrel (the weapon's weight, with the optical sight – 4.42 kg, length – 709 mm). The forward handguard was replaced with a vertical grip. The weapon uses the same SUSAT sight as found on the full size L85. The weapon has been upgraded with a Picatinny rail accessory rail instead of the fixed front grip. These carbine variants are used in small numbers by armoured vehicle crews.

The L22A1 Carbine Assault Rifle to some extent, the M4's problems could be addressed by adopting a much more compact 5.56 mm weapon: which means a bullpup. One already in service is the British Army's L22A2 Bullpup Assault Rifle, a short-barrelled version of the SA80 intended for AFV and helo crews. This is certainly short at only about 555 mm overall, but it is heavy and in any case is not available for anyone else to purchase: the last SA80s were made some 20 years ago and the L22s were adapted from existing weapons.
 
As I get older, I find my memory plays tricks. Sometimes I recall things that never happened. But, in any case, here is what I recall.

Around 1982, I visited Milarm in Edmonton and saw an original EM-2. I recall that it was mounted on display and garnered great interest. I also remember that it sold for a remarkably reasonable price, but I do not remember the number. I also do not recall if it was a converted auto or the real deal. Does anyone else remember seeing this, or am I completely nuts?

It is a shame the Yanks sunk the whole EM-2 thing. When events in Vietnam proved the AK-47 and its intermediate cartridge to be a superior tool of war, the Yanks dumped their M-14 in favour of the 16.

The M-16 was certainly better than a pointed stick. But its cartridge was better suited to the business of rodent extermination than warfare. And when history finally proved the 5.56 NATO, in any loading, with any bullet, was not up to the task, then America looked to the 6.8 SPC. God only knows what will be the next wonder gun that Americans will waste money on and foist upon their allies.

How unfortunate it was that nobody listened to the British. Their rifle built decades ago is better than anything currently in NATO service.
 
Pblatzz, thanks for that. At lest ONE person reads my posts!

"Difficulties", "unreliable", "problems" does not tell me a heck of a lot. To me, it's a bit too much like saying "the car doesn't run" and leaving it at that.

I could see the issue with the right-side-only ejection and manipulation coming up when I looked over the prototype X-70 rifle. When I was asked if I had any comments or ideas regarding the gun, this was one of the 3 suggestions I made. Based on our conversations there, Enfield designed and built precisely what I had suggested: a kit, mostly mirror-image replaceable parts or mirror-image cuts, whereby the rifle could be converted to left-hand cocking, left-hand control, leftward ejection from its as-manufactured right-cocking, right-hand control, right-ejection configuration .....OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF. Need a rifle for a right-hand guy to shoot round a right-hand corner of a building? Switch around a couple of parts. Left-handed troopie? Switch parts. Dominant left eye? Switch parts. Done properly, alterations to the rifle could be accomplished in under 1 minute and with ZERO extra parts being added to the Troopie's load.

Enfield built it.

It was tested and it worked.

It was canned because the bean-counters discovered that it cost money.

As to problems in the sand, anyone could see that coming. That Johnson bolt works just fine in a big rifle like an '06 but, when you miniaturise it for a .223 base, it starts becoming too difficult to keep the locking recesses clean. Jammin' Jenny sure showed that, but not enough people looked closely enough. If it had been MY baby, it would have had 4 lugs at most and VERY easy to swab out. I think a Kjellman bolt with VERY generous extra room in the locking-recesses would have been much better: right back to the old EM-2.

But what do I know, anyway?

I'm not an Expert; I'm just a Gun Nut.
 
I believe this is the answer: From forces.military.blog


Difficulties with the SA80 were first reported in the 1991 Gulf War, where British troops fought in the desert heat, but it was not until 1995 that the concerns were confirmed by tests. Original SA80 weapons (both L85 and L86) were plagued with many problems, some being very serious. In general, L85 was quite unreliable and troublesome to handle and maintain, so, finally, in the year 1997, after years of constant complaints from the troops, it had been decided to upgrade most L85 rifles then in service.
The SA80 Assault Rifle family was designed and produced (until 1988) by the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock. In 1988 production of the rifle was transferred to the Royal Ordnance's Nottingham Small Arms Facility (later British Aerospace, Royal Ordnance; now BAE Systems Land Systems Munitions). The upgrade program, committed in years 2000 - 2002, was completed by the famous Heckler&Koch, whichwas then owned by British Royal Ordnance company (German investors bought the HK back in the2002). the SA80 IW also appeared in the shortenedCarbine version, and inthe manually operated L98A1 rifle, which got its gas system removed and a larger cocking handle attached. This weapon is available in two versions, L85A1 Assault Rifle and L85A2,the latter being fitted with additional Picatinny rail on the right side of front grip base.

The current L85A2 Assault Rifle rifles are recognized as reliable and very accurate,especially when using standard issue SUSAT telescope sights. The drawbacks ofthe L85A2 are somewhat poor balance (which can be improved with installation of HK-made 40mm underbarrel grenade launcher), right-side only extraction and rearward placement of the fire mode selector.

The L852A1 and L852a2 Assault Rifle With the NATO trials complete, the 5.56x45mm round was selected by the organization as the standard ammunition set. As a result, the L85 was reconfigured to utilize ammunition standard and the SA80/L85A1 system as seen today was born. The bullpup layout allowed for a shortened design without sacrificing much to overall functionality for an assault rifle type. Ammunition capacity is provided through a 30-round curved magazine. An integrated carrying handle is also provided as are iron sights.

The L22A1 Assault Rifle was also developed with a short, 442 mm barrel (the weapon's weight, with the optical sight – 4.42 kg, length – 709 mm). The forward handguard was replaced with a vertical grip. The weapon uses the same SUSAT sight as found on the full size L85. The weapon has been upgraded with a Picatinny rail accessory rail instead of the fixed front grip. These carbine variants are used in small numbers by armoured vehicle crews.

The L22A1 Carbine Assault Rifle to some extent, the M4's problems could be addressed by adopting a much more compact 5.56 mm weapon: which means a bullpup. One already in service is the British Army's L22A2 Bullpup Assault Rifle, a short-barrelled version of the SA80 intended for AFV and helo crews. This is certainly short at only about 555 mm overall, but it is heavy and in any case is not available for anyone else to purchase: the last SA80s were made some 20 years ago and the L22s were adapted from existing weapons.

The problems were identified way before then. I had issued an early A1 in 1987 on ops and it had plenty of issues. The one saving grace was accuracy. We were given/issued a rake of temp fixes none of which should have made it into service let alone service trials with.
 
And you need 12-2 to buy it.

Let's hope it doesn't get deactivated.

Let's hope it does not get deactivated.

You don't necessarily need a 12.2 to buy this outstanding rifle...... Switzers offers a de-activation so ANY ONE can own an EM2! It's just a matter of out bidding everyone else, welding it up, and hanging it over the fireplace and bragging about owning HV1, the most important "Canadian Bullpup" (smellie) :) rifle in this country.

There was an FN EX1 in the collection as well. That apparently went (or will be going very soon) to the Royal Canadian War museum. Let's see if it actually gets there for everyone else to enjoy as a part of Canadian Military history.


 
Let's hope it does not get deactivated.

You don't necessarily need a 12.2 to buy this outstanding rifle...... Switzers offers a de-activation so ANY ONE can own an EM2! It's just a matter of out bidding everyone else, welding it up, and hanging it over the fireplace and bragging about owning HV1, the most important "Canadian Bullpup" (smellie) :) rifle in this country.

There was an FN EX1 in the collection as well. That apparently went (or will be going very soon) to the Royal Canadian War museum. Let's see if it actually gets there for everyone else to enjoy as a part of Canadian Military history.


Ya, to go into storage forever with all the other good stuff. never to be seen by the common man.
 
AHhhhh.... the good old Canadian War Museum. So I ask them why not start mounting the correct crew served weapons (dewats would be just fine in this application) atop the vehicles on display at the gallery and get the "dog hearing a high pitched whistle look" in return.
 
The lower also appears to have had it's pin removed. The one that was added by the military to prevent it from being turned to the full auto position. Perhaps that is why it has a C1 selector.

This does not seem like a good example for the War museum.
 
The War museum has thousand of guns package away and will probaly never see the light on day :( but atleast they will be safe.
 
The War museum has thousand of guns package away and will probaly never see the light on day :( but atleast they will be safe.
safe from what ? safe from our view? the whole National War Museum. is geared to push bus loads of school kids through it each day .not display anything. only the liberal message.
 
As I get older, I find my memory plays tricks. Sometimes I recall things that never happened. But, in any case, here is what I recall.

Around 1982, I visited Milarm in Edmonton and saw an original EM-2. I recall that it was mounted on display and garnered great interest. I also remember that it sold for a remarkably reasonable price, but I do not remember the number. I also do not recall if it was a converted auto or the real deal. Does anyone else remember seeing this, or am I completely nuts?

It is a shame the Yanks sunk the whole EM-2 thing. When events in Vietnam proved the AK-47 and its intermediate cartridge to be a superior tool of war, the Yanks dumped their M-14 in favour of the 16.

The M-16 was certainly better than a pointed stick. But its cartridge was better suited to the business of rodent extermination than warfare. And when history finally proved the 5.56 NATO, in any loading, with any bullet, was not up to the task, then America looked to the 6.8 SPC. God only knows what will be the next wonder gun that Americans will waste money on and foist upon their allies.

How unfortunate it was that nobody listened to the British. Their rifle built decades ago is better than anything currently in NATO service.

Excellent summation.:agree:
 
Back
Top Bottom