| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Browning M2: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (20 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Additional Variants= | |||
[[Image:Twin50.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Browning M2HB in M33 twin anti-aircraft mount - .50 BMG]] | |||
[[File:Twin M2 machine guns PBR.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Dual Browning M2HB in PBR - .50 BMG]] | |||
[[File: | [[File:M2HB RCWS mount.jpg|thumb|none|400px|M2HB in a RCWS mount - .50 BMG]] | ||
[[File:Browning M2HB | [[File:Norinco_CS_LM6_MG.jpg|thumb|none|400px|CS/LM6 (Norinco-branded) - .50 BMG. The CS/LM6 is a Chinese clone of the M2HB manufactured by Sichuan Huaqing and exported by Norinco.]] | ||
[[File:Type_10_tank_.50_cal.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Browning M2HB mounted on Type 10 tank - .50 BMG]] | |||
[[File:M2HB with tripod and gun shield.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Browning M2HB on tripod with gun shield and rear anti-aircraft sight - .50 BMG]] | |||
[[File:Twin_M2HB_with_tripod_and_gun_shield.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Browning M2HB Twin mount on tripod with gun shield and rear anti-aircraft sight - .50 BMG]] | |||
=Discussion= | |||
==Movie== | ==Movie== | ||
You know, I'm certain I've seen a movie where they used M2s as futuristic weapons, fitted with those military BFAs that make them look like three-barrel gatling guns. But I can't for the life of me remember what it was. [[User:Vangelis|Vangelis]] 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | You know, I'm certain I've seen a movie where they used M2s as futuristic weapons, fitted with those military BFAs that make them look like three-barrel gatling guns. But I can't for the life of me remember what it was. [[User:Vangelis|Vangelis]] 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 50: | Line 53: | ||
Shouldn't this be moved to the [[Browning M1919]] page as it is variant of the M1919A4, the M2 in the name is unrelated to the Browning M2HB. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 11:37, 15 May 2012 (CDT) | Shouldn't this be moved to the [[Browning M1919]] page as it is variant of the M1919A4, the M2 in the name is unrelated to the Browning M2HB. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 11:37, 15 May 2012 (CDT) | ||
:Apparently it's both, the AN/M2 designation was used for both a version of the M1919 and the gun we call M2 Aircraft. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 15:11, 23 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
== Aircract/HB blank conversion? == | == Aircract/HB blank conversion? == | ||
I was just going through the various M2 Aircraft pages and putting in a pic of the flexible version where appropriate and came across the following on the ''[[The Green Berets]]'' page: "The reason for using the M2 Aircraft version on film was the ease of blank conversion compared to the M2 Heavy Barrel ground gun." I had never thought about the reason why the Aircraft version tend to appears disproportionately often (particularly in older films), but if this is true it would make sense. Why would this be the case though, is it just due to the lighter barrel meaning that less inertia is required to cycle the recoil based action? I had always assumed that a blank fire adapted M2 would not lock the barrel to the breech (like removing the locking mechanism on a blank fire short recoil pistol) meaning that the barrel weight was irrelevent, or is there some reason this isn't done for the M2? | I was just going through the various M2 Aircraft pages and putting in a pic of the flexible version where appropriate and came across the following on the ''[[The Green Berets]]'' page: "The reason for using the M2 Aircraft version on film was the ease of blank conversion compared to the M2 Heavy Barrel ground gun." I had never thought about the reason why the Aircraft version tend to appears disproportionately often (particularly in older films), but if this is true it would make sense. Why would this be the case though, is it just due to the lighter barrel meaning that less inertia is required to cycle the recoil based action? I had always assumed that a blank fire adapted M2 would not lock the barrel to the breech (like removing the locking mechanism on a blank fire short recoil pistol) meaning that the barrel weight was irrelevent, or is there some reason this isn't done for the M2?--[[User:commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:commando552|talk]]) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (EDT) | ||
:I'd say it's because the operating components are lighter. The fact that the US Army Air Forces / Air Force liquidated an absolutely absurd number of M2 Aircraft / AN/M2s postwar and even more when they became obsolete as aircraft armament probably also means they're not very hard to come by. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 05:02, 20 June 2018 (EDT) | |||
::Thinking about this now, I believe it might also be something to do with the barrel jacket being useful for hiding the blank adaptation. With a regular M2, unless you modify it to remove the barrel locking entirely (which could be less safe and reliable, not sure) you have to fit a BFA. Due to an M2 being recoil operated this cannot just be a partial obstruction in the barrel like on a gas operated gun, it has to have some sort of recoil booster type thing that covers the end of the barrel but doesn't move with it (hence the big BFA on military M2s that clamps to the stationary barrel shroud at the rear of the barrel). With an Aircraft variant, as it has the full length barrel shroud it would be easier to hide this muzzle booster at the front end of the shroud. If you look at the gun in ''[[The Green Berets]]'' it appears that the front end of the shroud is a separate part with a different finish. On the original M2 Aircraft the barrel shroud is one piece all the way to the front end (there is a separate barrel bearing at the front but it is inside the shroud so not visible like this) so my guess is that this whole front piece is a fabricated muzzle booster and dummy muzzle (the real end of the barrel would end inside this booster). --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 06:46, 20 June 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Figure I should drop this somewhere here == | |||
[[Image:XM806.jpg|thumb|none|400px|General Dynamics XM806 Lightweight .50 Caliber Machine Gun on XM205 tripod- .50 BMG]] | |||
Failed replacement for the M2, canned in July 2012 because the release-the-barrel-forward-on-firing system it inherited from the [[XM307 & XM312]] (which apparently reduced felt recoil by 60%) resulted in a rate of fire of only 265 rpm, though it did meet XM312's 40-pound weight goal. Kind of surprised it never showed up in any videogames, though looking like a high school metalwork project might have something to do with that. Because of the tendency of US gun programs to develop something other than what they're supposed to be developing, it did lead to the adoption of a refined version of the ''tripod'' as the M205, which is planned to replace the old M3 tripod for the M2 and Mk 19. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 03:47, 30 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:02, 3 October 2023
Additional Variants
Discussion
Movie
You know, I'm certain I've seen a movie where they used M2s as futuristic weapons, fitted with those military BFAs that make them look like three-barrel gatling guns. But I can't for the life of me remember what it was. Vangelis 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
page
- Fixing up the page, will align the film appearances later. --AdAstra2009 20:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Finished reorganizing the page --AdAstra2009 18:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nice work. --MattyDienhoff 10:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Field-Expedient Safety?
I was wondering if someone could explain something to me; I've seen a few instances in videos and photos where a Browning M2HB will have an unfired round positioned so as to block the butterfly trigger at the rear of the weapon, and I was wondering if this was some kind of field-expedient safety or if there was some other reason behind this? Does the M2 even have a safety selector? Orca1 9904 03:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- - No, the M2 has no actual 'safety' - I believe what you're talking about is the bolt latch release it does have. In the center of the thumb trigger is where said latch release is, and when engaged, it locks the bolt to the rear. Hope that explains it. StanTheMan 13:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- So what's the idea behind sticking a round under the trigger? Here's an image showing what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Air_Force_Combat_Controller_SSgt_Zachary_Rhyner.JPG Orca1 9904 01:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess they would have it as a safety to prevent friendly fire because once the Ma Deuce is chambered you either have to use the belt or just leave it a live round in it.ChinaLakeNadeLauncher 06:34 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's a spent casing rather than an unfired round, though, you can see the primer's been struck. And yes, it's to prevent the triggers being depressed accidentally. Evil Tim 07:04, 8 June 2011 (CDT)
Flash hider/BFA
I always remember seeing M2HBs fitted with flash hiders whenever they appeared in Stargate SG-1 (see the Stargate SG-1 - Season 3 page for good pictures of it) but always chalked it up to some idiosyncratic choice on the part of the production team. However, I just saw exactly the same flash hider on the most recent episode of Sanctuary. I know they are both Vancouver made shows (and have production team and cast in common as well) so is possible they have the same armourer and it may even be the same gun, but got me wondering all the same: does anyone know if this is an actual flash hider, or is it some kind of disguised BFA as opposed to the much more intrusive USGI Mk19 one? --commando552 17:12, 7 June 2011 (CDT)
Whoops, didn't really understand the question the first time. From what I can find googling around, yes, there are conical flash hiders for the M2; there's a diagram of a couple of types here: http://www.pt103.com/PT_Boat_Components_Browning_50_Cal_M2_Aircraft.html Evil Tim 07:17, 8 June 2011 (CDT)
- -: The pics from Stargate that you are talking about show the M2 with its most common flash suppressor, and it is real, manufactured along with the weapon itself. It's held on by 4 bolts and is still used to outfit some of the M2's in the Marine Corps crew served teams. When you come across an M2 with a futuristic looking attachment that makes it look like it has rotating barrels, that is actually a BFA (blank firing adapter), and it is also a real world attachment. However, with most movie weapons already configured to fire only blanks, you're not likely to see it in movies as it would serve no function. If you do see it on film, it's probably more for the look than it's actual purpose (which I must admit, makes the gun look twice as c
== ool).
EoTech for the M2??
I just stumbled across this:
And was mystified since I didn't know Eotech sites were made this big. Anyone else ever hear of, or see, anything like this? --Charon68 18:01, 6 October 2011 (CDT)
- I've seen EoTechs like that mounted on Miniguns. - Mr. Wolf 18:50, 6 October 2011 (CDT)
- Looks like a Korean made CNO Model DCL120. Soldier is American though, 3rd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division. --commando552 20:03, 6 October 2011 (CDT)
Moving Browning AN/M2
Shouldn't this be moved to the Browning M1919 page as it is variant of the M1919A4, the M2 in the name is unrelated to the Browning M2HB. --commando552 11:37, 15 May 2012 (CDT)
- Apparently it's both, the AN/M2 designation was used for both a version of the M1919 and the gun we call M2 Aircraft. Evil Tim (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
Aircract/HB blank conversion?
I was just going through the various M2 Aircraft pages and putting in a pic of the flexible version where appropriate and came across the following on the The Green Berets page: "The reason for using the M2 Aircraft version on film was the ease of blank conversion compared to the M2 Heavy Barrel ground gun." I had never thought about the reason why the Aircraft version tend to appears disproportionately often (particularly in older films), but if this is true it would make sense. Why would this be the case though, is it just due to the lighter barrel meaning that less inertia is required to cycle the recoil based action? I had always assumed that a blank fire adapted M2 would not lock the barrel to the breech (like removing the locking mechanism on a blank fire short recoil pistol) meaning that the barrel weight was irrelevent, or is there some reason this isn't done for the M2?--commando552 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (EDT)
- I'd say it's because the operating components are lighter. The fact that the US Army Air Forces / Air Force liquidated an absolutely absurd number of M2 Aircraft / AN/M2s postwar and even more when they became obsolete as aircraft armament probably also means they're not very hard to come by. Evil Tim (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2018 (EDT)
- Thinking about this now, I believe it might also be something to do with the barrel jacket being useful for hiding the blank adaptation. With a regular M2, unless you modify it to remove the barrel locking entirely (which could be less safe and reliable, not sure) you have to fit a BFA. Due to an M2 being recoil operated this cannot just be a partial obstruction in the barrel like on a gas operated gun, it has to have some sort of recoil booster type thing that covers the end of the barrel but doesn't move with it (hence the big BFA on military M2s that clamps to the stationary barrel shroud at the rear of the barrel). With an Aircraft variant, as it has the full length barrel shroud it would be easier to hide this muzzle booster at the front end of the shroud. If you look at the gun in The Green Berets it appears that the front end of the shroud is a separate part with a different finish. On the original M2 Aircraft the barrel shroud is one piece all the way to the front end (there is a separate barrel bearing at the front but it is inside the shroud so not visible like this) so my guess is that this whole front piece is a fabricated muzzle booster and dummy muzzle (the real end of the barrel would end inside this booster). --commando552 (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2018 (EDT)
Figure I should drop this somewhere here
Failed replacement for the M2, canned in July 2012 because the release-the-barrel-forward-on-firing system it inherited from the XM307 & XM312 (which apparently reduced felt recoil by 60%) resulted in a rate of fire of only 265 rpm, though it did meet XM312's 40-pound weight goal. Kind of surprised it never showed up in any videogames, though looking like a high school metalwork project might have something to do with that. Because of the tendency of US gun programs to develop something other than what they're supposed to be developing, it did lead to the adoption of a refined version of the tripod as the M205, which is planned to replace the old M3 tripod for the M2 and Mk 19. Evil Tim (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2017 (EDT)