Talk:M1917 Browning machine gun

Untitled
The Browning design is completely different from that of the Maxim. The only thing they have in common is utilization of recoil energy for functioning.

No, the belt feed/water cooling/forward ejection/tripod/tee-slot breech block are almost an exact copy of of Maxim's/Vickers' designs. Even the short recoil system looks exactly the same, until you get to the lock.Ever see a Browning and a Vickers up close? The front of the breechblocks, look very similar. When you cycle the action manually with flaps up, they look alike feeding. Browning's tipping lock  was similar to a lot of his earlier designs. Troops say:"Brownings don't Break"--the best compliment. Make headspace/timing adjustment in the morning, and fire all day.70.176.118.196 (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Browning doesn't use a "tipping lock." The breechblock is locked by a "locking block" that slides vertically in the barrel extension, cammed by the "locking block cam" in the bottom of the receiver.

Nor does it have "forward ejection": the fired cases are pushed out of the T-slot and drop vertically out of the receiver.

I'm pretty sure the Germans impressed Polish Ckm wz.30s into the Wehrmacht during WWII, but I can't remember under what designation. If anyone has that info, add it both to this page under the Ckm wz.30 note, and on the wz.30 page itself.


 * I hate to nitpick, but of course they had many, many features in common. Both water-cooled, tripod-mounted, fabric belt-fed.....pretty standard stuff for heavy MGs of that era. DMorpheus 15:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not Nitpicking--much of this was Very Close copies of Maxim's/Vickers' design. He should have paid royalties! However, the metal link belt Was an American invention,  in 1919. Browning designs could feed either. Now, everyone uses it. WE should get royalties!70.176.118.196 (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hiram Maxim was an American, therefore the Maxim Gun is an American invention and the Vickers is a derivative. You owe us royalties. Pay up. Al Cook USA.

Browning M1917s supplied to the British Home Guard were in .30-06, not .303 caliber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.4.171.144 (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Cradling?"
The M1917/18/19 were issued with an  asbestos glove to "cradle" (hip-fire) it in expedient fire if necessary; i.e; no tripod set up  or immediate use for AA fire. One American G.I. got the medal of honor (forgot whom) for that. He did it bare-handed, got two Zeroes in the Pacific theater. He had no glove and burnt his left hand. This is shown in a movie with Burt Lancaster in the role.70.176.118.196 (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you're thinking of John Basilone, who was awarded the Medal of Honor after repositioning one of these guns on Guadalcanal and receiving serious burns to his arm in the process (and in turn fought off an entire Japanese Army regiment almost single-handedly with it). My understanding is that he did have to fire it from the hip before getting it repositioned.  I don't know of Burt Lancaster ever playing Basilone, but it's certainly possible he did. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Derivatives
Should the M2 be listed as a derivative rather than related? I am under the impression that the actions are almost identical and the M2 is just scaled up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.2.134 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit to M1917A1
A few days ago I added a paragraph to the subject "M1917 Browning Machine Gun" and the paragraph M1917 and M1917A1 Ammunition Chests". Everything worked to include the references that appear in the "Notes". So yesterday I tried to add another paragraph to the same site. That one went in OK but the references of the first paragraph I had entered then was missing and I got a big error message.  So I went back in to edit and tried to correct this and spend a couple hours trying again and again to change it.  The correct information does show up under "show preview" and "show changes" but not on the main page.

I have given up trying to change it and I hope somebody else can fix it. Or better yet just delete the two paragraphs I added and forget the whole thing. I would do this myself but I think I might just make it worse.

The two paragraphs are the second and third paragraphs in the above cite reference beginning with "The wood ammunition box chest was replaced during WWII...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:5C00:5EB:8559:4F1F:6E03:FAA4 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Range
I'm dubious about the claim that the French and British cartridges were longer range. Both of them, the 8mm Lebel in particular, are much less powerful rounds. Even if they did have a longer range, "50% greater range" is a HUGE difference. How could a 8mm Lebel be effective out to 50% greater range than the bruising .30-06? Even the .303 was pretty outdated by comparison to the .30-06...smaller case capacity, weaker case...the 8mm Lebel was even worse. It was already outdated by the start of WWI, yet they claim it was effective to such a vastly longer range? Seems extremely dubious to me. The only cartridge to achieve rough parity to the .30-06 was the German 8mm Mauser round, to the best of my knowledge..45Colt 07:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The statement is sourced. The original .30-06 had lousy aerodynamics. Glrx (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Article image
I believe the image for the article is actually a screenshot from the video game Battlefield 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VH1881 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)