ARMY looking to replace "ma deuce"

bigjack59

New member
Excellent post Jimro. If you did a statistical comparision of the french infantry weapon and the prussian weapon during the Franco Prussian War the french came out better as an individual weapon. Unfortunately for the French someone forgot to tell the Prussians yntil the had kicked a lot of French A**.

The previous posts coments on synergistic effects is great. The whole shoot, move and communicate manuevering is all about team work. If the firearms gods gave me a couple of fifties at the company level, I would have loved it.
 

Arabia

New member
People, some of you need to reread the article I posted earlier, it explains that the M2 is not going to be entirely replaced. The M2 and the new LW50 will have different roles. The M2 will remain the heavy MG used in fixed positions, and on most vehicles. The LW50 will be used by light infantry such as paratroopers when they need to carry a heavy MG. Maybe one day it will replace the M2 but that will probably be 25+ years from now. Look the M240 replaced the M60 in the late 1970s, and the M60 is still being used. I except the same with the M2. Anyway, the LW50 will not be fielded until 2012. Don't worry the venerable M2 will still be on the battle field for sometime into the future.
 

Creature

Moderator
Why is that? The M2 is not known for having a problem with cook-offs.

I have seen more than one M2 empty a can all by itself due to a hot-gun situation.

The .50 BMG round is a great caliber, but between constantly having to adjust the head spacing and timing, I would have to agree that Ma Deuce could be made to be far more reliable. The M2 is a finicky beast at best.
 

44 AMP

Staff
M1 Abrams....

I read a book (it's true, I really did once) about the developement of the M1 Abrams tank, and in it was a tidbit of info about the M2 .50cal.

The suit and tie boys designed it without the .50cal. They had it use two .30s (M240s IIRC) on the turret. These are he guys that refer to ammo as "stowed kills" and since the .30cal could have more ammo, therefore it was more effective, and they wanted their new tank to be as effective as they could make it.

They showed the designs to General Abrams. Abrams had been a Col of Armor under Gen George S. Patton, and was one of Patton's go to guys when he wanted things done. Abrams flat out told the "bean counters" to yank the .30 and put the .50 in the T/C's spot. He wanted the .50 because "it is the biggest gun a single man can shoot!", and felt that the psycological advantage to morale of having the .50, combined with the actual effectiveness of the gun and ammo was needed, and useful for our tankers. Time has not proven him wrong.

The M2 has proven itself to be the finest heavy machinegun design fielded by the free world. But it cannot, and should not be all things to all people in all situations. There is no free lunch. If you grunts want an easily man portable MG with the firepower of the .50cal, better start talking to designers to make a gas operated gun with a really, really good muzzle brake. Ma Duece is recoil operated. It is the only recoil operated small arm we still use that is bigger than a handgun! It has to be heavy, it has to be mounted securely and it cannot have a recoil reducing muzzle brake or it will not run.

You might be able to use a muzzle brake, but for reliable operation you would have to redesign the insides of the gun. At that point you might as well design a whole new gun and be better off. Just remember that there's no free lunch. You have to pay for what you get, somehow.

Want a lighter, faster firing .50 cal. ? You get that with the AN-M2 (the AN-M3 aircraft gun fitted with manual trigger, spade grips and charging handle). It is only slightly lighter (20lbs) and has double the rate of fire. The cost? increased recoil, and limited operation before overheating. Aircraft guns are fired in short bursts (3sec or less), have limited ammo capacity (500 rnds or less), have light weight barrels, compared to ground guns, and have all that lovely cold air moving at several hundred miles per hour constantly flowing over them for cooling. These are not the conditions you will find on the ground especially in a desert where we are fighting today.

To, the best solution might be to design a new gun, using the bulk of the M2 design, but with a fixed headspace and a better quick change barrel system. Materials and design can be optimised for modern manufacturing methods, and if done right we could have a gun that is actually a slight improvement over the M2. BUT, the odds of it being done right by a military committee are slim. The odds of a private firm doing it are better from the design standpoint, but worse from the actual creation and testing standpoint a private firm faces an uphill battle making a new machinegun. Legal hassles, no civilian market, and no money until they sell the product are the major ones. If they can get govt funding, that's one thing, but then the govt wants to pull the strings and decide what is in the gun, and we are back to the gun being designed by a govt committee.

The M2 Browning is more than just the finest heavy machinegun fielded, it is a classic piece of Americana, and more than just that it has proven to be an old and trusted friend. Many, many Americans came home from the wars because Ma Duece was there to help them. And they still do today.

It is only a machine for firing bullets, although brilliantly designed and masterfully executed. And while individual guns can be cranky and have flaws, overall, for those of us who have worked with them and around them, they have both a personality and a soul. There is something primal and comforting about Ma Deuce, inspiring confidance in our troops and fear in our enemies. And the fact that it hits like the hammer of the Gods is just icing on the cake!
 

Recon7

New member
The headspace and timing system is outdated by modern quick change barrel standards. it does, however have the benefit of being able to maximize useable barrel life, if the operators understand how to use it. Most don't. This is a training issue, not a design flaw of the gun.

Like I said, one more thing to go wrong. It is a training issue, but it wouldn't be if we had a HMG that didn't need the adjustment.

Why is that? The M2 is not known for having a problem with cook-offs.
yeah, they happen. Open bolt design also it over complicates the feeding and extraction process. Have you ever watched those things cycle, It's amazing they feed as often as they do. The bolt grabs a round, pulls it backwards out of the link, and as the bolt moves forward, the round has to slide straight up the bolt face to get in position to feed. This is where it jams most often.

How about the whole no manual safety thing. I got pretty nervous when my convoy would pass another and they swept me with their 50's. I know another training issue, but the butterfly trigger has nothing blocking it from the inadvertent snag on a pouch or an unsecured flashlight falling on it or whatever.
 

R1145

New member
Ma Deuce will be around for a while

What happened to the "Dover Devil", another highly vaunted replacement?

I think it would be a mistake to replace the M2HB until the .50 BMG round becomes obsolete. The expense and hassle to develop a new system for the same round is not justified by any functional gains.

WEIGHT: Not a huge issue. HMGs tend to be vehicle mounted. They get dismounted for defensive positions, peremeters, etc., but don't get "humped" much in real life (am I wrong about this?).

The M2 was primary armament on most US WWII planes, and many of the guns in the field are old aircraft weapons (there's a way to tell, but I forget what it is...something on the barrel jacket is different, I think...). Like the previous poster, I doubt any have been newly manufactured since 1945 (at least for the US government). I bet there are still thousands unused in inventory. Like the .45, when Uncle Sugar runs out of guns and has to look at buying new ones, that's when we'll see the new design.

For a ground gun, a lower rate of fire conserves ammo. For close-in AA, a higher rate might be better, but that's not a tactical consideration in the current fight. Engaging light-skinned vehicles and fortified positions, the rate of fire (what, about 550 rpm?) is about right.

I wish we could ask SFC Paul Smith for his opinion of Ma Deuce...
 

MacGille

New member
I don't doubt that the M2 can be improved. The headspace situation could be addressed for instance. However, I don't see a need to replace it. The power of the .50 is so awesome and the effect it has on vehicles or buildings is unreal. As a former tanker, I was always comfortable knowing that I could knock down or destroy just about anything with the .50. If I needed more, there was always the main gun, but the .50 was supreme in keeping things under control and very little portable equipment could resist it.

If one understood the gun and how to use it, there was very little problem with it. A lack of training, or a lack of self control on the trigger could cause problems, but they were deadly and extremely reliable in the hands of a good gunner.:D
 

TNT

New member
when I was In Iraq (2007-08) I asked my gunnner if given the choice what would he prefer the 240 or the M2 of course him being 6ft 220lbs said although the 240 was lighter he wanted something that when it fired it spoke in a authoritative voice and demanded respect he chose the M2 I sided with his decision.

If it aint broke don't fix it.
 

bigjack59

New member
You are right,you can always improve. Just be careful when you expect the "system" to do it. Sometimes you wind up with a Gamma Goat...
 

WeedWacker

New member
M82 Barrett style rifle with iron sights, belt fed semi-auto if you want portable under 50 lbs. If you want a heavy machine gun don't expect light.
 

Recon7

New member
50 shooter that FN looks like it might be the answer.

I like the 600 rounds before reloading. hopefully you can just go to ammo boxes afterwards. Having 600 rounds on the turret also gives you more room inside the truck. The space between the rear seats is a premium, it gets used for ammo, water, CLS or medic's bag, or food/snacks for long missions. The ammo in the back should help balance the turret and reduce binding. I used an old crank turret and the front of the turret wanted to swing downhill on slopes. We had some electric turrets, but I kinda preferred the old crank. back to the .50, I like the open bolt and no timing adjustment. I'm not sure they needed to double the rate of fire, and I would still like to see a shorter barrel option for cities, canyons, and woods. if you have the 3 or 9 o clock field of fire, the barrel really hangs over and sometimes "smacks" trees and other things.
 

thallub

New member
The headspace and timing system is outdated by modern quick change barrel standards. it does, however have the benefit of being able to maximize useable barrel life, if the operators understand how to use it. Most don't. This is a training issue, not a design flaw of the gun


This is true and only recently did the US military see a need for a quick change barrel.

http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2007/01-January/31-Jan-2007/FBO-01221321.htm

For several years I was the senior Saudi firing range advisor. Every year we had a few accidents from failure to set headspace and timing. We had two deaths. A piece of the cartridge case perforated a soldiers femoral artery and he soon bled to death.

The Saudis finally bought the FN Quick Change Barrel modification. They also bought another quick change barrel kit from another company, maybe Chartered Industries of Singapore.

These kits have been around for at least 20 years but the US never bought them: They were not invented by the Picatinney Arsenal june bugs.

http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/products/firearms/model.asp?fid=FNF016&gid=FNG008&mid=FNM0156
 

44 AMP

Staff
A quick look through the history of US military weapons

Will show a number of times when the Army (or other branch) passed on buying "the best" in favor of "cheap" or "made here", or because it did not fit in with current tactical doctrine.

One timeless example is the "Trapdoor" Springfield rifle. There were better rifles available, even as single shots, but since the "Trapdoor" system was designed at an Army arsenal, it didn't cost them anything for the patent rights.

The M1 Garand could have been had with a detatchable box magazine. It wasn't wanted in that configuartion. It didn't fit the "plan".

We could have built a better tank than the M4 Sherman (and at the end of the war we did), but it wasn't the "job" of the tank to fight enemy tanks, that was the job of the tank destroyer. And the Sherman was fine for supporting infantry, which was the proper job of the tank, according to the doctrine of the day.

and then there is the whole M16 thing.

These are just a few examples, there are many, many more.
 
Top