Talk:M2 Browning/Archive 1

Photo
I believe the photo is of a .30 caliber weapon. no it isnt

Bullet casings
the shell casings in the picture are too small to be .50 cal nobody would waste that much ammo if it was a real .50 cal the bullets cost a dollar a piece you can go through a thousand dollard in no time Dudtz 7/23/05 1:22 PM EST

-Trust me, that's a .50. Although I'm not sure whether or not this example is on a military range, it is not uncommon to fire large quanitities of ammo in training. The cost is not great, when you consider than $100,000 Javlin anti-tank missiles are routinely fired in training exercises --Corinthian 16:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * About the javiln anti tank weopn in training u only actuly fire one real round. u just use traing rounds for practice. Eskater11 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esskater11 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

-That is definitely a .50 cal. And the ammo is more like three dollars a pop for standard ball ammo. Add in the tracers, or SLAP ammo, API, APIT's, it costs a LOT of money for a battalion to fire a range. When we fire (I'm a military instructor), we fire 100 rounds per student, whether its with the minimum of 18 students, or the max of 50 (although, I have seen a class that had 80).

Does someone know what's the name of sniper rifle which fire 50 cal. theres actully numerous ones such as the m82

To the list of foreign users and variants:
Finland, manufactured and used (in combat too).

http://www.warbirdforum.com/gun.htm

The Finnish variant is called 12,70 LKk 42.

Similar to AN/M3, high-rate of fire and thin barrel.

Who
Some wierdo made crazy edits on this page!Mezlo 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you like the M2 Browning
You will love the MG 131

Yes, but that was for use in airplanes and had no trigger. King Toast, 11:43 December 30, 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.202.16 (talk)

Foriegn users
First I would like to say that the British manufacture the M2 under license. I am not sure which compnay is responsible for it, but I can find out.

Furthermore, I don't see Yugoslavia or any of the former-Yugoslav Republics listed in the users. Yugoslavia recieved both M2s (mainly for use on Sherman M4s and Patton M47s) and M3s (used in the F-84E/Gs and the F-86E/Fs) in the period of good relations with the United States in the 1950s. I also wonder if that did not produce it under license, as the Yugoslab M-60 APC carried one as its primary weapon and the local SOKO Galebs and Jastrebs carried two and three each respectively. That is a large number of .50's altogether, so it makes sense that they might have produced it under license. Does anyone have any corroborating evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SAWGunner89 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The major point of the foreign user section is to provide a listing of alternate designations (mainly to prevent people from starting a seperate page for every single one). Someone might want to split it into two subsections eventually, one for foreign designations, and one simply for users as is found on other pages. -- Thatguy96 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

K6 HMG Merge Proposal
Support: The K6 is a license produced clone of the M2HBQCB. It is largely redundant to have a seperate article for it. It is mentioned in the appropriate place in this article. -- Thatguy96 05:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that the K6 is a license produced clone? I think that K6 is a clone of the M2HB QCB but not a "licensed" clone. -- Shotgunlee 15:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And if its not a licensed clone this matters how? I disagree that licensed or unlicensed is relevant in this situation, as it is still a clone of the M2 Browning HMG, and therefore it is redundant to have a seperate article for it. -- Thatguy96 20:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Support: I think it should be merged, as there's little content over at the other article and it would make sense to have that information here at the main article. John Smith&#39;s 13:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Support: As per nom. -TabooTikiGod 05:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support based on what thatguy said(ForeverDEAD 19:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Done per Wp:bold  --Work permit 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Different from Browning M2?
Is this weapon unique enough to justify this article? I would seem from the description that its just an M2HBQCB produced under license by a Korean company. I might propose a merge. -- Thatguy96 16:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
Doh! I wonder why it's called talkheader!!!!

Minor Mod to usage table
I've modifed the "manufactured locally under license by " in the Description portion of the International Usage table to be "also manufactured locally under license by " as the Australian Army uses US manufacturewd versions of the M2 as well as locally made versions. IN fact I never saw a locally manufactured version when I was an armour corps soldier (probably the bigest suer tof the M2 in Australian service), though I am aware that ADI does manufacture them and the Aussie services do presumably use them.

Usage table
The UK section of the usage table states that the M2 is used as the ranging rifle in the Chieftan.

I storngly suspect that the Cheiftan used a special ranging rifle (i.e. not an M2). If it did use an M2 then I suggest the ammo would have to be diffferent from standard ammo ranges used int eh M2 as teh ammo would need to be ballistically amtched to eh 120mm main gun.

Any old RAC troopers out there tha can confirm this?

Merge proposal for GAU-21, XM218, and GAU-16
Support - These are minor subvariants of the M2 Browning Machine Gun family. I don't see there being any reason for separate articles. If they were to be expanded they would either be perpetual stubs or contain duplicate information. -- Thatguy96 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Makes sense. Koalorka (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I would have merged without discussion. Too busy now. Rsduhamel (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This proposal has been expanded to include the GAU-16 article for the same reasons. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done - So I just went and merged the articles. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

History contradiction
This article says that the 50 BMG cartridge was developed in response to the German 13 mm anti-tank gun, but the 50 BMG article says this is a myth. Somebody who has authoritative info on this needs to tell us which is right.--Dwane E Anderson (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

XM296 being replaced by M3P
It looks like the OH-58D's XM296 may be on its way out, to be replaced by M3P from surplus Avengers. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Carriage
¿Why is there no mention of the M93 Mod 4 Carriage used for vehicle-mounted M-2? I wanted to add the information, but I can’t even see where it might fit. A. REDDSON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.70.241 (talk • contribs)

I could get some pictures of it, as well as cite the Army TM for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micahhiggs (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Pre-War Commercial Models
Perhaps we need to mention the pre-WW2 commerical models from Colt and FN. I know the Colts were the MG52 (water-cooled) and MG53 (air-cooled/aircraft). I can't find a designation for the FN models, but they are known to have exported some chambered in 13.2mm Hotchkiss. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

m2 browning machine guns used to eliminated California's wild bear.
North eastern Sierra Nevada Grizzly were so large the browning m2 was used to bring them down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.112.2 (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Added only M2 in North Korean
The gun fitted to the captured USS Pueblo is probably the only M2 in North Korea, so I added the photo of it: File:USS Pueblo 3.JPG --Kristoferb (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

FN and the Browning MG
FN had absolutely nothing to do with the design of the Browning .50 caliber machinegun. It was designed in the US, prototypes were built by Colt and Winchester and can be seen in the Springfield Armory museum. FN did not have anything to do with the .50 BMG until, at the earliest, 1944 when FN did repair work under contract to the US military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.4.139.104 (talk • contribs) 14:05, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

M2 Browning machine gun → M2 Browning — Descriptive enough and shorter. Marcus  Qwertyus   18:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, so long as the current title still redirects to it--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

PureLuckDesign.com video
I deleted the pureluckdesign.com video because it is inaccurate. The accelerator does not latch the barrel extension, so the barrel returns too soon. The breech lock doesn't unlock and the bolt just slides by.

Glrx (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Video of a CG M2 showing the inner workings as it goes through the firing cycle.

The comment is correct. The article fails to point out that the .50 cal uses a form of API, advanced primer ignition (firing takes place before the reciprocating parts are fully forward). On firing the bolt locked to the barrel and barrel extention recoils against spring pressure a short distance and then the bolt is unlocked from the barrel and pushed by the accelerater cams (which take energy from the recoiling barrel & ext.) continues alone all the way to the rear of the receiver striking the buffer then returning under spring pressure. The barrel and barrel extention (into which the barrel is screwed) remain locked a short distance to the rear until the bolt returns forward chambering a round and striking the accelerater cams locking itself to the barrel extention at the same time releasing the barrel and ext. The whole mass, locked together, then continues forward due to momentum and spring pressure. The sear, (when adusted properly with timing guages), releases the firing pin to strike the primer before the reciprocating mass (bolt, barrel ext., and barrel) is fully forward, so that a portion of the recoil is absorbed by counter recoil in fully automatic fire (when friring from the open bolt). That has made this weapon so reliable and effective for such a long time.

How about some real information?
I'm an armor in the US Army, however this is on my personal time, blah blah. Uncle sam did not pay me to type this. How about adding a picture and text about the M3 tipod, mk93 mod 3, headspace and timing gauge, T&E, M175, etc. Add the fact that the marine core did not just recently field a saftey switch, my TM from 2002 has the part numbers in it, as well as all 10 of the ones I maintain in my arms room. Add a ref to FM 3-22.65 (was fm 23.65), TM 9-1005-213-10, TM 9-1005-213-23&P, TM for mounts, as well as the NSN.

Add that they make a semi auto version that is leagal to buy in the US, and that some people have legal full auto (NFA regesterd) Micahhiggs (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

L1A1 Heavy Machine Gun
This is a redirect to this article. Perhaps informed editors would comment as to whether this is a legitimate alternative name at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 9, please? Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response! — m a k o ๛  02:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Could something be added to the page from this ref, please? Though I could do it, I think that it would be better done by an editor with knowledge of the topic. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Browning had died before the M2 came out
The introduction is misleading and should be fixed.

I've added details in the history section about the M1921 its evolution to the M2. Glrx (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

M50 Dragon
I'm tempted to delete the M2 Browning section as either WP:UNDUE or an advertisement for a CWA product. The only reference is a CWA website advertisement. The section itself states the weapon is not in military service. The text is mostly puffery. Glrx (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does look that way. I shortened the wording and made some wording like ad-like. The Undue issue is still present though. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed it for WP:BRD. No WP:RS as website is not independent. I found one article with google, but it just reported what happened at a trade show. CWA sounds like a small shop. Glrx (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cutting down trees?
'Snipers firing from trees were engaged by the quad gunner at trunk level - the weapon would cut down and destroy the entire tree, and the sniper with it.[40][46]'

This sounds like a myth to me. Mythbusters had an episode a few years back where they tried to cut down a tree with an M61 Vulcan (I think), and it took a long time -- no way people would be trying that in combat with a less powerful weapon. SkipSmith (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mythbusters used a 2,000 RPM 7.62mm M134 minigun, not a 6,000 RPM 20mm M61 vulcan cannon. The M2 fires at around 600 RPM, but it's bullets weigh four times as much as the M134 minigun, giving the M2 a higher weight of fire, and it's rounds are much more penetrating. As a result, I think that the M2 would be more likely to take down a tree, than a minigun. Not that this is evidence either way Hammerfrog (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Strange statement
The article states that "The United States became keenly aware of this problem when Quentin Roosevelt's aircraft was shot down". Roosevelt was shot down at high altitude in air-to-air combat by a conventional machine gun. Clearly the US did not learn anything about armoured ground-attack aircraft from this event. Unless someone can post the original context and demonstrate some sort of direct link between Roosevelt's death and the M2, I suggest removing this passage. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Statement is sourced. Rifle bullets were ineffective against German armored aircraft. An armored German aircraft could use rifle bullets to down an unarmored aircraft such as Roosevelt's. The US needed a weapon to down German armored aircraft. Glrx (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It may be sourced, but its still clearly wrong. Consider...
 * the M2 development effort dates back to 1917's efforts with the French 11mm and 12mm rounds
 * the modification to 50-cal occurred after learning of the 50-cal German T-rifle rounds in early 1918
 * Pershing's request for a 50 cal was sent in April. See this source
 * Roosevelt was shot down in a fight between two unarmored planes at high altitudes, both using rifle caliber guns... in July.
 * So for Chinn's statement to be correct, Pershing would need a time machine and the ability to jump to the wrong conclusions. Neither has been mentioned in any biography I've read! The fact that Chinn said something doesn't mean it isn't wrong, so unless you can find an independent resource that links the two, I'd prefer to remove it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed QR after spending some time looking at German planes.
 * I won't say that Chinn is a great source. Chinn has comments about .50 development scattered about his many volumes. Some of it is not clear and perhaps even contradictory. Chinn is not clear about what was specified at what time. Pershing may have increased an initial 2300 fps requirement to a later 2700 fps (I couldn't view PA11). Clearly Pershing would be interested in defeating ground armor, but Chinn's primary interest is aviation guns. That said, some of Rottman's comments seem to come straight from Chinn.
 * The article already states that Browning was working to increase the caliber of the .30 as early as July 1917; the caliber was not specified. Colt (and presumably Browning) were asked to build a prototype machine gun for the French 11 mm round after the US entered the war. The round was apparently inadequate. (We might compile a table of round velocities and energies.)
 * The influence of the German TuF 13.2 mm (I do not believe Chinn's 12.7 mm is correct) is not clear. Some seem to believe the TuF was the entire inspiration for the .50, but the French rounds were already there. Is there a source that says Pershing saw the German TuF round and then ordered development of a similar round? That seems unlikely. The Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr was around in February 1918, but production didn't start until May 1918. How soon would the weapon be fielded and then noticed or captured?
 * There is agreement that the .50 made a poor showing at its 15 October 1918 trials. The TuF round then became a substantial influence (and the TuF round may be the source of the 2700 fps requirement). The Germans had designed a better round; there is no debate about that. Winchester then cribbed from it. Chinn also has Winchester going for a higher chamber pressure after the trial. Browning had design constaints; the round and the machine gun needed to work together; the design needed both a higher rate of fire and a more powerful cartridge. Browning was probably already pushing the limits of the design. The rate of fire would not be an issue in a bolt action anti-armor rifle.
 * I doubt that Pershing made a request for a .50 in April 1918 and never followed up. Pershing certainly rejected Winchester's rimmed round later. (Winchester was also looking to make a bolt action anti-armor rifle.) Pershing's interests and demands could change with time.
 * The reports of Quentin's demise are not clear. The German story had 12 American planes attacking 7 German planes. Quentin, in a one-on-one duel, was killed by two bullets to the head; the German pilot's plane had 20 bullet holes yet survived the encounter and flew home. The German story hit American newspapers first. I could see the public being mad and a suspicion of inadequate firepower. In a contest with a superior force, the Germans were the only ones to down a plane. In contrast, the American story has 7 Fokker Chasse planes with an altitude and sun advantage attacking 4 American planes (one of which immediately bolted for home). Quentin's plane was attacked by 3 German planes. That story has a different takeaway. However, the military may have realized that rifle bullets were not very effective against the military planes of the day; rifle bullets may not be effective against engine blocks. There could easily be an understanding by the military that a bigger round was needed for any anti-aircraft application.
 * I removed the reference to QR because the German planes don't match up. I don't know if Chinn was referring to the Junkers J.I (someone added that later; J.I intro was 1917) or adding armor to some pursuit planes. The situation seems to be that QR was downed by a Fokker Chasse rather than a Junkers J.I, and I don't know if Fokkers had any armor. Mounting a second gun on the Fokker sunk performance, so adding armor seems unlikely. Chinn may have made the right statement but based it on the wrong facts. Withdrawing it is appropriate because it is doubtful that QR went up against "a heavily armored plane".
 * I added all of Chinn's passage in the footnote, but commented out the part about QR. Here's the whole quotation:
 * The Germans put a heavily armored plane into service during the closing days of World War I. This act made obsolete for all time the rifle-caliber machine gun for aerial use. Some countries were slower to accept the fact than others but nevertheless it cannot be disputed. The United States was among the first to come to this realization. The dramatic incident that caused it was the shooting down by such an aircraft of the young pilot, Quentin Roosevelt.
 * Glrx (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-aircraft
Basic story, light machine guns good at close range (French round better than Springfield due to distance), artillery at long range, but need an intermediate range weapon. Refers to German anti-tank round.

W. N. Dickinson, History of Anti-aircraft Guns, Ordnance Department, Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1920, http://books.google.com/books?id=KIBJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&f=false page 42:


 * There is need, therefore, for an anti-aircraft machine gun to cover this zone between 800 meters and 2,500 meters altitude and under 3,500 meters range, and it is considered that the ideal gun for this work would be one between the .50 and .75 caliber, air cooled, fitted with a stock and pistol grip in positions similar to those held by the same pieces on the Lewis gun; and with an ammunition box bracket fitted to the gun itself and so arranged as to distribute the weight of the ammunition equally on both sides of the barrel. The muzzle velocity of this gun should be as high as possible and preferably in the neighborhood of 3,000 feet per second; the ammunition to be supplied in expendable belts and boxes containing approximately 100 rounds each. It has been suggested that enemy anti-tank ammunition properly adapted represents the type of ammunition which would be most effective. The rate of fire should be between 500 and 700 rounds per minute.

Page 75: 5,500 rounds per plane downed.

Also looking for info on Hotchkiss balloon gun. Most say it fired the 11mm Gras (Lebel Model 1886 rifle); Chinn describes a 12mm balloon gun, but lists an 11mm in another table.

Hotchkiss .472 inch 12mm, p 202-203. 37000 psi chamber, 2020 fps, range 3000 yards (bullet still has 500 fps), 400 to 500 rpm, used against mobile artillery crews. Says Parker sent one to US, but rejected for light bullet and low velocity.

Hotchkiss aircraft 11mm, page 352.

11mm, page 660-661, 1600 fps, 400 rpm

Browning aircraft M1918 11mm, page 343.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VWkYoAkoMHIC&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&hl=en&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&f=false

11mm Gras and Vickers http://books.google.com/books?id=mZLGoagM_1gC&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&hl=en&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&f=false Glrx (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Longest in continuous use?
The article states that the M2 has been "longest in continuous use" of all machine guns. The definition of "in use" is, of course, negotiable, but the Maxim gun, developed in 1884, was still in use in Finnish coastal fortifications in 1980 and was on the roster up to the late 1990's (see, e.g., http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/MG1.htm), which gives it a "use life" of at least 110 years -- something the M2 (in service from 1933, i.e., 80 years) has yet to attain.--Death Bredon (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe "in production" would be a more accurate way of putting it? The M2 has been in production since 1921, so 92 years. If the Maxim entered production in 1889, then it would have to have been in production till 1981 to beat the M2, and it clearly wasn't in production anywhere near that length of time. Hammerfrog (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)