ForgottenWeapons
patreon
S.R.E.M.: Britain's Experimental WW2 Bullpup Sniper (Ad-free)
🕑 Added 2025-09-15 12:00:02 +0000 UTCWant to know more about the S.R.E.M. and other British bullpup rifles? Check out Jonathan Ferguson's book on this subject, "Thorneycroft to SA80":
https://www.headstamppublishing.com/bullpup-rifle-book
The Sniper Rifle Experimental Model (S.R.E.M.) was designed by the "Czech Section" of small arms designers who had taken refuge in the UK to escape German occupation of Czechoslovakia. The intention was to develop a scoped sniper rifle that could be fired and cycled without disturbing the shooter's sight picture. The idea that the designers came up with was to use the pistol grip as a moving charging handle, similar to the Czech BESA machine gun already in British service.
In 1944, the Essex Engineering Works in the UK got a contract to make 22 sample S.R.E.M.s, although only 2 were actually made. Really, the whole concept was a bit of a red herring, as the recoil from 8mm Mauser (this was made in 8mm, expected the post-war the UK would be adopting it or another modern rimless round to replace the .303) would disturb the sight picture regardless of the mechanism used to cycle the action. The project was cancelled in 1945, and this example is the only known survivor today.
Many thanks to the Royal Armouries for allowing me to film and disassemble this rifle! The NFC collection there - perhaps the best military small arms collection in Western Europe - is available by appointment to researchers:
https://royalarmouries.org/research/national-firearms-centre/
You can browse the various Armouries collections online here:
https://royalarmouries.org/collection/
Comments
Gun Doctor Bob
As a gunsmith and retired engineer, I am always amazed (and impressed) at the fit and finish of some of these things during wartime or even in preparation thereof. The quality is equivalent to the philosophy of "this thing needs to last forever" when, in fact, virtually all military firearms are expendable - due to the nature of their use and usage. A good example would be the Ingram M10 which is an ugly machine that performs flawlessly for its intended purpose. I've dome materials testing and everything is of significant quality and heat treating. The M10 in .45 and 9mm are big, clunky machines that always seem to work (just don't use the 40 rd mags). Then I get to work on and test an MP5 that would qualify for the cover of a fashion magazine. Reliable, pretty, well-made. So, here's my point; I would have been thrilled to lug around the "brick with a handle" while in Vietnam, especially in spray & pray counter/defensive moments. You could tether that brick to your harness and bang and bump it all over the country side and maintain complete confidence. Of course if they gave me an MP5, as squad leader or point man, I surely wouldn't have complained. Sorry to go on so long but I did want to relate my feelings of "form follows function" (usually ugly) vs. "Hey, we can do that and also make it ergonomic" (Generally cool, and pretty).
Guido Schriewer
goood sights No5 look forend the grip repeating.... yup. nice. very nice. whyyyy 8mm mot 06 at last.
