EM-2 rifle: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

19 February 2024

14 January 2024

25 July 2023

18 June 2023

10 June 2023

11 December 2022

1 October 2022

9 August 2022

5 August 2022

17 May 2022

  • curprev 21:2221:22, 17 May 20225.151.132.129 talk 16,936 bytes +13 →‎Intermediate cartridge: changed reference to the unit sight being added for quick acquisition and long range shooting, it wasn't the EM2 had an additional optic not mentioned here at 3.5x power that was supposed to be for long range shooting. Johnathon Ferguson and Dugelby both refer to this as the "sniper" sight or just 3.5x sight. undo
  • curprev 21:1421:14, 17 May 20225.151.132.129 talk 16,923 bytes +65 Changed "Both EM-1 and EM-2 used 20-round magazines with "charger" reloads" to include mention that second pattern EM2 magazines did not include charger guides. Also possible future edit, magazines between EM1s and EM2s are not interchangeable page 223 thornycroft to sa80 undo
  • curprev 21:0421:04, 17 May 20225.151.132.129 talk 16,858 bytes −58 →‎Intermediate cartridge: Removed "as well as meeting the German StG 44 in combat", there is no evidence to suggest that the requirement was created specifically because of the STG44. When the SACP were established in 1945 the goal was not to develop an intermediate cartridge but to "identify ammunition for use up to 800 yards in a self loading rifle and light automatic gun" (page 143 Thorneycroft to SA80) undo
  • curprev 20:4720:47, 17 May 20225.151.132.129 talk 16,916 bytes −240 removed "There is some debate whether "EM" refers to "Experimental Model" or "Enfield Model"" and citation. Citation is out of date and information from page 124 of Thorneycroft to SA80 plainly states that "Enfield model" is incorrect undo Tag: references removed
  • curprev 20:1620:16, 17 May 20225.151.132.129 talk 17,156 bytes +34 →‎NATO standardisation: The existence of numerous 7.62x51 EM2s (as mentioned in the previous paragraph) directly implies that the EM2 could be readily adapted to the round. Unless one of the design team (or similar) specified that it was not practical I can't see how this claim holds water. undo
  • curprev 20:0520:05, 17 May 20225.151.132.129 talk 17,122 bytes −97 Removed "As the EM-2 could not be easily adapted to the longer and more powerful round, it faded from use.", there were multiple EM2s made in 7.62x51 (as well as one in .30-06) as per forgotten weapons, thorneycroft to SA80 and https://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/126455480334/30-06-em2-in-1952-and-1953-with-the-likelihood-of undo

1 April 2022

27 March 2022

12 February 2022

31 December 2021

20 November 2021

12 November 2021

16 October 2021

9 September 2021

30 August 2021

29 August 2021

19 August 2021

14 July 2021

28 June 2021

7 March 2021

6 March 2021

5 March 2021

12 December 2020

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)