/k/ - Weapons

http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/Hall_EM-3

http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/147716503264/historicalfirearms-the-hall-rifle-em-3-by

This thing? It never even had a working prototype built.

>>553669

>Owen

>Bad gun

Nani?

>>553669

>made 5 iterations of an SMG worse than the Australian shitpost of an SMG in every way

At least we burgers started to get our "simple+reliable=gud" shit together with the grease gun before the SMG became irrelevant.

Bullpups aren't really that good anyway.

>>553535

>the Hall EM-3 was designed in 1947 when Major Eric Hall moved from Australia to England

>anglo-saxon

Sure you don't mean Sino-Viet

>.303

.303 was shit by that point, lad, the reason everyone loves the EM-2 was because of it's cartridge.

>>553696

>the reason everyone loves the EM-2 was because of it's cartridge.

You clearly haven't read the article.

Question Four: But what about the intermediate cartridge the EM-2 fired? Doesn't that represent a lost opportunity vis a vis the too powerful 7.62 NATO?

Sort of, but not really. The 7mm ammunition the EM-2 fired went through several iterations, becoming increasingly powerful. The earliest versions of the 7mm ammunition had similar ballistics to Soviet 7.62x39mm, while the last versions were only a hair less powerful than 7.62x51mm NATO.

As for the 7mm ammunition having some optimum balance between weight, recoil and trajectory, I'm skeptical. The bullets the 7mm cartridges used were not particularly aerodynamic, so while they enjoyed good sectional density and (in the earlier stages) moderate recoil, it's not like they were getting everything they could have out of the design.

In addition, the .280 ammunition was miserably inaccurate. Check the US rifle tests; the .280 chambered proto-FAL couldn't hit anything either.

.280 Pakibong = TRASH

>>553698

>>553696

>The EM-2 was shockingly inaccurate with the ammunition provided and shot 14 MOA at 100 yards. Seriously, look it up, that's what the test says. There are clapped-out AKs buried for years in the Laotian jungle that shoot better than that.

14 MOA

4

M

O

A

>>553699

>14 MOA at 100 yards

Unreal.

>>553686

>Grease Gun

>Good

>Reliable

Don't pretend it wasn't terrible. That shit made the Vietnam M16 prototypes look amazing.

>>553700

I think the only gun I have ever touched that was that bad was a M6 in 22 Hornet that didn't like anything other than factory ammo.

>>553698

>The earliest versions of the 7mm ammunition had similar ballistics to Soviet 7.62x39mm

You seem to forgot that the EM-2 had a barrel length of 623mm, 50% more than the AK-47's 415mm. It's even more than the RPD's 520mm. Surely, it should have a positive effect on ballistics.

>Check the US rifle tests; the .280 chambered proto-FAL couldn't hit anything either.

You mean the tests where the FAL was built a team that never worked on the rifle before and wasn't allowed to adjust anything on the rifle, even thought they let the very engineers who designed the M14 tweak their rifle? The same tests that concluded the M14 is simply isn't affected by mud? The tests where they cooked all the books to make sure that the M14 wins?

What does it look like down the mini-scope? I've always wondered

>>553699

>everywhere else says around 1/2 MOA

>muh one meme forum post says 14 with no source other than "look it up", so it's true

Thanks lad

>>553698

>muh purposely sabotaged US trials rifle

Great source, lad

Sage for doublepost

Why does everyone seem to be shitting on the EM2 all of the sudden? Is it cool to hate it because it got somewhat mainstream now?

>>554649

>See this test record for exhaustive documentation of the fact that the EM-2 did not work. Points of note:

<Goes on to list key points from the test results.

It's here you subhuman: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/896858.pdf

The undesirable features list starts on page 41. The 14 moa claim is point 7.d.

>>554657

No one particularly cared here until that britbong faggot started shitting up every thread with his EM2 nonsense. The fucking faggot is worse than those retards that go on about how the US should go back to the M1 Garand since the M1 was actually capable of mass production.

>>554671

>>554675

>The Paki is this upset

Kek, not an argument. At least the M14 was capable of mass production.

>>554671

>paki testing

>reliable data

>>554677

>"u-umad?"

Thanks lad

>>554675

Come on, to be entirely fair to the burger testing committee they (and the politicians involved) had all been paid very handsomely for that result.