Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Probably the longest serving weapon in the U.S. military arsenal is the Browning .50-caliber M2 machine gun. Often referred to as "ma deuce" for its M2 designation, the weapon entered U.S. service at the end of World War I, being scaled up from the Browning .30-caliber M1917 machine gun. The .50-caliber weapon was initially designated M1921.
Now, after almost 90 years of service, the U.S. Army has moved to replace Browning's remarkable machine gun. The Army recently ordered three prototypes of a lightweight .50-caliber machine gun. Produced by General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, the weapon weighs about one-half of the current .50-caliber M2HB (Heavy Barrel) machine gun, fires with less recoil and is equipped with technology to improve accuracy, according to the company.
Note: Alas, America's enemies have, like the Idaho elk, developed a layer of armor plating so thick that the venerable .50BMG is rendered obsolete. So long, old friend.
Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.
History teaches that it's a small window in which people can fight back before it is too dangerous to fight back.
"The U.S. military will be hard-pressed to find a suitable replacement for this weapon! No other weapon, organic to a grunt platoon, is as versatile, reliable, or provides as devastating firepower. We will regret its loss in the military as we do the M1911 (also a Browning design)."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
Out of all of the arms that I work on over here, I hardly ever have to touch a M2 50 cal. Why?? Because they are the most reliable weapon in the inventory that we have. Last one I had to work on was because a young troop dropped it from the top of a Hmmwv. It bent the receiver just a little where the back plate would not come free. After a few minutes of pounding on it with a rawhide hammer, it worked just fine. They are robust to say the least. I hope we don't get some piece of stuff replacement like the Beretta M9 was to the 1911.
Well, if they sell all the military surplus to us civies, I promise I won't be that upset!!!
Sounds like a solution in need of a problem. From the military guys I know, the first thing is always, always, always reliability, followed by durability, impact, ease of maintainence, etc.
Heavy Machineguns are not supposed to be light. THey are supposed to be able to take a mortar round and keep firing once you've scraped away the nasty bits.
We saw this with Battleships. There are just times and places where Big Heavy Guns are the only thing that will work.
Bad, bad idea. You don't mess with perfection. IIRC one of the great "sniper" books talks about a Marine sniping VC from over a mile with an M2 in single-fire...
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough. מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976 Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
As a former engineer, I can say that 'new' and 'high tech' isn't necessarily a good thing. Here are a few rules:
1. the more components, the greater the chance of failure
2. the tighter the tolerances (at least for stuff that works in a dirty environment) the greater the chance for failure (e.g., compare the AR and AK)
3. if 'lighter' means thinner and more delicate components, then the greater the chance of failure
4. don't retire the old thing if it ain't broke until you have jolly well proved, in spades, that the new one is more reliable
Kirk: An old geezer who loves the smell of freshly turned earth, old cedar rail fences, wood smoke, a crackling fireplace on a snowy evening, pristine wilderness lakes, the scent of
cedars and a magnificent Whitetail buck framed in the semi-buckhorn sights of a 120-year old Winchester. Blog: https://www.kirkdurston.com/
They better keep them in mothballs.......the new ones are not going to be worth a stuff, prolly....let me rephrase, they will shoot wonderful, but be delicate....
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First
Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
Well if they replace it the old girl will be sorely missed . I have fired and worked on quite a few even delt with the electronically fired M3P version (1150 rounds a minute). I hope they dont get rid of it.
Jeremy
GySgt USMC Ret
To err is human, To forgive is devine, Neither of which is Marine Corps policy Semper Fidelis
That is very sad . I haven't see any break that I used. On the M1A1, they used the cheap wire-cable charging handle which would break even if brand new but the older flex, that is a weapon that would last forever.
Of all the things that our military does need, why are they starting with something that doesn't? What about the M4 carbines? Beretta M9?
Just out of curiosity, though, it has to be staggering the number of M2s that would need replaced, considering the number of platforms the old girl is used. (Is there any role the M2 hasn't been successfully used throughout it's history?) They'd never replace them all.
Take the newest jets for example. I've made many parts for the engines for the F22 and F35. The dang things are so expensive with all their high tech gadgets the numbers of them will never come close to matching the numbers of F15, F16 and Harriers they are expected to replace. Pound for pound they might be better, but there are dangerously too few of them. Our military is very high tech, efficient, and capable but sometimes you just need numbers. You'd think the situation we are in in the Middle East with a stretched military due to low numbers of available troops would prove a point; special op troops have their place and fulfill a need, but right now we really need several hundred more thousand regular Army and Marines for the role they are being asked to fulfill. The military's push, Army in particular, for lower overall troop numbers but more special op type trained personnel has been an error and misjudgement regarding the future of warfare.
The M2 replacement is just another. It's not being sentimental, but the old girl just works. If they could snipe with them 40 years ago, how much more accurate do they need to be???
The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
- Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, (1788)
raven5, interesting about maybe more is better than higher tech. My brother-in-law worked at Northrup for many years. They sold LESS expensive small jet fighters to third world countries. Those nations worried less about pilot survival than we do, but felt greater numbers of cheaper weapons served them better. Are we missing something?
IIRC the F20 "Tigershark(?)" cost somthing like 1/2 the cost of an F16 but wasn't nearly as prone to malfuncton, the pilot could not fly it past his own personal maximum physical envelope (unlike the "let me black you out" F16) ... yet it got scratched because it wasn't "tech" enough.
At least that's how I read the indutry & testing reports...
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough. מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976 Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
I just skimmed the article, but I saw they said ".50 caliber gun"; are they really trying to replace not only the M2 but the .50 BMG cartridge? Are they that bored/insane? Have they never read a ballistics report?
IMHO, the only pros, if any, would be swept away by a tidal wave of cons. Don't fix what isn't broken.
Qui tacet consentit. (silence implies consent) The Boring Blog
Are they replacing the 50BMG cartridge too? They mention less weight AND less recoil so I'm assuming they would have to reduce the cartridge to reduce the recoil in a lighter gun.
Seems to me that the US military has always walked a fine compromise between the German obsession with hi-tech over engineered warfare, and the Soviet version of keeping stuff going with cigarette foil and trench wire. I'm not sure where we are currently, but I suspect it's somewhere within the extremes of the two.
My son is active Army and was in Iraq until an injury sent him home for a few months. I told him about this story and he went off - saying no finer weapon was ever made than the M2 and it saved lives every day of the conflict. He then walked away muttering something under his breath about "the brass"...
Having used the M2 extensively I can honestly say if they replace her she will be greatly missed. I do have an optimistic view of the replacement. IMO the M240B was a great improvement of the old M60. I just hope the M2s replacement does as well. Fortunately my M2s were always mounted on a vehicle. However, I had an old 1SG that was in Nam that was a grunt that carried his platoons M2. His shoulders were totally screwed up.
For the sake of all our nations future Leg Grunts, lets hope for the best!
“Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”
Having see one of the weapons in trial the replacement is a great weapon but if it will ever actually replace the M-2 I have been using, from 1973 to present, will take years of the "BRASS" fighting about, even if they do decide to do it.
i hope the decision that's made will not be as costly as when 'they' went to the m-16 from the m-14/m1 in terms of soldiers and marines. the battlefield is an unforgiving test ground.
the ma2 was soldiering when my dad went into the cavalry in 1932 and when i went to SE asia in 1962...it continues to soldier.
it would seem to me that our inventory, rear echelon support, arsenal machine works, maintenance programs, availiabilty on every level and most important it's effectiveness as a weapon, etc would be enough for them not to 'mess with' ma2..."if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
perhaps a lighter .50 version/weapon for light infantry to move faster with might be complimentary to the ole girl?
it's understandable that in today's world of hi-tech, they'd be looking for something that's "better", but, the ma2's is still not beaten by anthing yet that i'm aware of.
what would congress do with the ma2 if they are phased out? sell them to venezuela? cuba? no. korea? iran? who knows? i personally don't want to find out what dumb thing they'd do...
if you think you're influencial, try telling someone else's dog what to do---will rogers
donw wrote:i hope the decision that's made will not be as costly as when 'they' went to the m-16 from the m-14/m1 in terms of soldiers and marines. the battlefield is an unforgiving test ground.
what would congress do with the ma2 if they are phased out? sell them to venezuela? cuba? no. korea? iran? who knows? i personally don't want to find out what dumb thing they'd do...
I certainly would not want our soldiers on the receiving end of "lend lease" weapons sold to our so called allies...
That will be a sad day when the old war horse of the infantry is gone.
When I was in the Gulf War we were shooting .50 cal ammo in a M2
with manufacturing dates inside the ammo cans from 1953.
The Gun fired flawless and so did the ammo.
Semper Fi
USMC 1990-1994
God Bless the U.S.A.
Andrew: He is a real gun freak with way too many guns to shoot or clean.
\
