ARMY looking to replace "ma deuce"

[Tibu]

'Ma Deuce' Days May be Numbered

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.

Of all the weapons in current use, this is the one I was least expecting to go up on the chopping block. Discuss.

*BTW I hope this is the right forum for this. I know it's a machinegun and all but I think this would be the most appropriate forum for this.*

 

[nemoaz]

HK wll end up taking a few generals to dinner, then selling us some german crap for ten times the cost.

 

[ISC]

I have a buddy in my N.G. unit that is working on the new gun and he thinks alot of it. If you've ever humped the components of a M2 you'd recognize that it could stand losing some weight. I only hope that whatever they replace the 75 year old browning design with is as reliable.

 

[44 AMP]

After all this time, no one has yet come up with anything better!

And, we are due, aren't we?

M2HB "Ma Deuce" receiver: 84lbs Barrel: 23.3lbs tripod: another 65lbs

a new gun, with reduced weight would be a big advantage, IF it holds up like Ma Deuce. The M85 didn't. And it was way more expensive.

I worked on M2s in the 1970s, supporting both infantry and armored brigades. Know what parts break most on an M2? The charging handle and the rear sight ears. Why? From getting dropped on a hard surface. 90+% of all the M2s that came into our repair shop were for one of those two things. If the Army can find a gun that good, AND lighter, I say buy it!

 

[Darren007]

We should just bringback and adopt the German Mg-42!!!

 

[Arabia]

They already have a working replacement. It is basically a light weight M2, made with lighter materials. At this time they are just working out the design issues. Their was also another more advanced system called XM307, which by changing out the barrel and bolt it could become a 25mm air burst grenade launcher or a 50BMG. The XM307 was canceled two years ago because it had design issues that could not be solved.

Here is a link to info about the new system.
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0508/news/news1505_lw05mg.htm

We should just bringback and adopt the German Mg-42!!!

Yea, Its called the MG-3, its in use by several countries.

 

[Jim Watson]

They tried about 40 years ago with a junker known as the M85.
It was so bad they dropped it and were reduced to buying back spare M2 parts they had surplused to Numrich.

 

[bufordtjustice]

Trying to replace a tried and true weapons system is always going to be a touchy subject. There is just too much nostalgia and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality involved. I, for one, am eager to see new developments but certainly not in favor of replacing a workhorse just for the sake of a new gadget, gizmo or somebody's pet project.

When I was in the 82nd Airborne from 93-96, all of our company's M-2's were stamped "USN 1943". They worked better than everything else to include MK 19's, M-60's, etc. (Of course you can't exactly make a direct comparison).

I say see what is out there and available but make sure you do an honest assessment. If it isn't significantly better, lighter, more accurate, cheaper....or whatever standard you require, keep what you have.

I have a feeling the M-2 will be in service for at least another 30 years because I don't think they will be able to build something that beats it, let alone matches it.

 

[HorseSoldier]

M2's a great weapon, but if we can improve on it, I don't see a problem. It's definitely not suitable for dismounted use, but it would be cool if light infantry types could lug around the same level of firepower in a lighter package, etc.

 

[bigjack59]

The M2 is a miracle of engineering. I know we can build a lighter more accurate gun, but the question will be can it take ham-fisted GI abuse like the M2. Back in the day the talk was replacing it with something that fired all kinds of special ammo, VT fuses, three round saboted packages, etc. Any idea what the new gun shoots?

The M2 is a wicked beast to carry. As the big guy I always got the heaviest crap to carry. The tripod is a real killer. Hope they don;t screw this up, few weapons in the history of warfare are as good as the fifty.

 

[azredhawk44]

It's definitely not suitable for dismounted use, but it would be cool if light infantry types could lug around the same level of firepower in a lighter package, etc.

I've never served, but I fail to see the utility of a infantry-based "light" .50BMG machine gun.

Given 44Amp's data that the original M2 weighed in around 150 pounds total weight, it would be generous to say that a "light" version weighed 75 pounds. Each round has a 700gr projectile, give or take... plus case and powder. I'd say it's generous to say 5 rounds weigh a pound.

What light infantry unit can handle carrying the "light" M2 and, say, 500 rounds for it? Along with other individual gear too.

A machine gun isn't much good without several hundred rounds... otherwise we'd be talking about Barrett rifles and other competitors to his precision .50's.

What machine gun environment would an infantry attempt to tackle that a .30 caliber machine gun that weighed a third as much and allowed for 5x the ammunition wouldn't be better suited?

It's a similar argument to the M16/.223 and M14/.308 debate... I'm just having a hard time seeing how a .50 M2 is ever better on foot in a machine gun package than a .30 M60 or other variant.

And when mounted on a vehicle, the weight of the M2 isn't an issue, I would think.

Someone help me see the need for an infantry .50 machine gun. Maybe a semi-mobile checkpoint like in Baghdad for vehicle interdiction, but then again: you can use a humvee or tank mounted .50 just as easily.

 

[bigjack59]

In my most humble opinion...a .50 would greatly augment the light infantry firepower against hardened or vehicular target, even moderately armored ones. The increased lethality of modern rounds would give them a greater "force multiplier" than the old M2. However 75 pounds without ammo is a damn heavy weapon to walk around with. It would have to break down into two or three man portable (and it probably will) units. It would have to be ready to assemble and fire very quickly.

A .50 will give you an edge against light armored vehicles or in an urban environment, but I wonder if we aren't already dealing with those issues with the new family of man packable rockets?

I think the tactics will call for each platoon to have a MG section of three to four men to lug this stuff around and employ in support of the platoon (or perhaps company sized element), kind of like the current mortar section, but farther forward. Someone who is more current than my old butt please help me, I ran out of skill.

 

[ISC]

Why a .50 should be lighter:

1) If you're in a FOB and have to move it from one position to another quickly in response to a threat.

2) The extra wieght can make a vehicle top heavy and more prone to rollover.

3) The heavier gun requires a heavier mount.

4) You still have to lug it around for cleaning and maintenence, and that weight means it takes longer and is therefore offline longer.

5) Hopefully the new gun will be able to be moved short distances fully assembled instead of requiring disassembly and rechecking headspace and timing

6) If your vehicle gets hit with an IED or breaksdown, a lighter weapon would be easier to use dismounted

7) even broken down into 3 pieces it's heavy as hell and requires way too much manpower to move quickly.

 

[bigjack59]

ISC...dude you hit the nails I didn;t see on the head. Excellent points and all tactically sound. The last point, if it is lighter when it swings around and hits my in my CVC helmet the gash in my head won't be as large.

.50 caliber barrels hurt.

 

[PinkPanther]

IMHO if it ain't broke don't, fix it!!!!

 

[Crosshair]

A .50 will give you an edge against light armored vehicles or in an urban environment, but I wonder if we aren't already dealing with those issues with the new family of man packable rockets?

It would probably be better to simply issue the RPG-7 or bring back recoilless rifles. You have several anti-armor and anti-personnel rockets already developed. Yes you do have the backblast issue, but the 50 cal has the portability and ammo issue as well.

 

[Moloch]

IMHO if it ain't broke don't, fix it!!!!

If that would be the case we all would still be driving Ford Model A's.
There is always room for improvement.

IMO the machine gun of the future should be chambered in 12 gauge. Yes you heard right, in 12 gauge you can load whatever you can imagine. Self-stabilizing sabots, flachette, shot, explosive sabot etc.

 

[50 shooter]

12ga? There ain't a 12ga in the world that could hold a candle to what a .50 BMG could do. Take your best 12ga whatever round and then compare that to a .50 BMG Raufoss or SLAP round.

12ga would bounce off lightly armored vehicles while the Raufoss or SLAP would take them out. It's almost like you're comparing a 500 pound bomb to a nuke.

As far as replacing the M2 goes, they've tried it before and nothing has come of it. Replacing one of JMB's designs is going to be hard and you better bring your "A" game or go home.

 

[Moloch]

I am talking about the chambering, not the load! Please re-read my post. I am not talking about the regular 00 buckshot for you shotgun, Iam talking about flachette and selft-stabilizing sabots which is the future.

 

[50 shooter]

Have you ever shot fletchettes out of a 12ga? Beyond 50 feet they're worthless as they tumble and go where ever they want. Plus they don't carry enough mass beyond that to do anything but piss someone off and then really want to kill you.

Got a link for the sabot round? I still can't see it being anywhere near as powerful as the .50 BMG or able to reach out as far as the .50.