Talk:M2 Browning machine gun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe the photo is of a .30 caliber weapon. no it isnt
Contents |
[edit] 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 DudtzImage:Kardos.jpg 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
[edit] 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.
[edit] Who
Some wierdo made crazy edits on this page!Mezlo 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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'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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] Usage table
The ULK sectionof the usage table states taht the M2 is used as the ragning 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?
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)