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

Norinco?

Any chance?

I'd buy one for sure.

The EM-2 was engineered around the .280 EM-2 round, which later was called the .280/.30. It is an easy cartridge to make up: straight FL size and trim from all that .308 brass that pollutes the landscape.

A modern repro should be chambered for the .280/.20 cartridge. The gun was at its most reliable with this round. The 7mm Second Optimum was, quit literally, the SECOND Optimum round for this rifle. It provided more POWER, which kept the Americans happy, but the RIFLE didn't like it all that much. Later, the rifle was rebuilt as a .308 and, in that form, was somewhat of a disaster.... exactly as predicted by the designers. It was getting to the point of being uncontrollable in automatic fire due to the much greater recoil impetus of the .308 round (just like the M-14 turned out to be)..... and battering was becoming a factor as well. As a .30-06, the rifle was vastly overstressed.

But in the original calibre, you have a rifle which is dead reliable, has little recoil (the designer used to trigger off full mags on automatic with the butt resting on his CHIN) and can be counted upon to HIT the target at three times the distance at which an AK can SCARE it.

Yeah, if Norinco built it, I would have one for sure..... and I suspect that there just might be a VERY large market for such a critter from Police and Military....... especially if Norinco were to build a selective-fire version for which the FA parts DID NOT fit or work in the semi-auto version.

Wonder if Radway Green would be interested in turning out a couple billion rounds.......

The Americans would excrete BRICKS!
 
superbee said:
a 1944 serial # on a 1945 dated receiver,fake rifle, but real scope,mount and case
Click to expand...

Weren't the T's serial blocks reserved? That is to say, as they were building up X amount of snipers, the serials were not sequential with current production but rather the X amount of snipers were all in one serial batch, despite possibly being assembled over the period of months. So it could be possible that the last of the sniper run in that batch went into 1945 and got a new receiver from that year.

Also possible that the receiver had to be replaced at some point, due to something like a chipped bolt head cut. The serial numbering does look a little out of whack for a production LB.....some of the numbers are grouped together a little tight and seem to have been impressed with different weight. Mind you, LB serial numbers were never perfect either.

Of course, the third possibility is that the rifle is a put together to match a scope, mount and case. Looking at the above, I see the word "possible" a few too many times. That word is the one used too often by guys who want to be conned.
 
Given the way the value of these things has gone through the roof, it is a really good idea to be cautious if something is not quite right. There could be legitimate reasons, of course, but caution is in order.
 
smellie said:
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.
Click to expand...


Count me as another that reads your posts, smellie! ( Hey, that makes two! )
The post above is great info, and the post below just rocks. :)



smellie said:
Everything derives from something else, Sunray, unless it is a unique brain-wave of some kind. Usually, those are not wanted, anyway.

So the EM-2 was of British origin, that does not make it Canadian enough or something? It was designed by a Pole and made here, so that should count for something. FN-FAL was developed here to a good degree, although on a Belgian prototype on a British prototype on a Belgian prototype stolen by the Swedes and Russians both. Number 4 was a British design, simply made here..... although we sure made nice ones and a whole potful of them, too. You can slag the Ross because it had an Austrian grandfather and a Scots father. You can slag the entire Lee series because they were developed elsewhere..... although Lee was as Canadian as anyone else at that time and did all his early development work here. Martini was Swiss, Snider was a Dutch-American Jew, wine merchant and an amateur historian, so I guess that disqualifies them, too.

SO WHAT IS CANADIAN ENOUGH FOR YOU?

If we trash everything because it might spring from something else, we are left with the SPEAR as the last Canadian-designed weapons. Oh, just a minute...... the prototype came from Siberia..... so that's out, too.

Remember, Canada is a Free Country: firearms development has never been encouraged here and has only been tolerated for single-shot .22s and break-action shotguns..... unless Very Well Connected politically so as to get enough SUBSIDY money involved. Look at what happened to Cliff Douglas, for example. Oh, that's right: he used a GERMAN-developed cartridge, so that can't be Canadian, either.

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.
Click to expand...
 
wow.....$2,250 !!!... i didnt expect that much interest in one (SVD)...makes me think i should sell mine ..
 
Hi Guys,
Here are some photos I took at yesterday's auction of the EM2 and auction staff......

EM2-1.jpg


EM2-2.jpg


EM2-3.jpg


EM2-4.jpg


Cheers !!!!!

B
 
so what did the 2 DCRA with laminate stocks go for ..the stocks were very interesting ...the .22 as well but that one looked really put together by an armourer or gunsmith..
 
From my notes, the Following were sold for:

7770 - Canadian #4T - Sniper $5500

7771 - British #4T - Sniper $2000

7772 - LB #4 Horizontal Laminate $2300

7773 - LB #4 Vertical Laminate $2700

7774 - LB #4 .22 Vertical Laminate $2700

Cheers,

B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom