So what do you think? Can it be done? Anyone working on it?

Feed mechanism may need beefed up but I think the design can handle it.

Surplus 1919s have sold at one time for as low as $400 or less in quantities on the international market. A nation which would want an upgrade to this level of caliber performance could do conversions for a small fraction of what the new SIG belt fed runs. Of course it wouldnt be a run and gun belt fed but for a mounted or fixed position machinegun I think it would work great.

Thoughts?

(Yes, I own a full auto 1919. Got my first one in 1989.)

Waste of time and money for GOV/MIL.  1919 is a robust design, but The platform itself is obsolete, it does not lend it self to optics, suppressor.  Existing military stocks would be over 70 years old and suffering metal fatigue.

18Z50

I imagine this would be one of the worst decisions you could do.  A belt fed MG intended to lay down a stream of suppressive fire, with any impact at anything short of 1000 yards being highly effective.

Trade off for an ultra high pressure round that will smoke that barrel in half the time, sounds like a mission error to me.  

.30 cal isn't going anywhere.

This whole project is the Concord of ballistics.  A push of the envelope for a performance improvement that has quite significant trade-offs that don't make it worth it for most general purpose usages.   Amd with that, not likely to see broad adoption.

Receiver mount is rock solid for optics - I even had a 3-9x on mine for while for fun. The TNW M230 configuration has a nice barrel should which red dots are easily mounted- I have that configuration as well. Most of the guns offered in the past had low round counts. Too old of a design/obsolete? M2 .50  is still going after 100 years.






I would say use a TNW grip assembly and M249 stock idea they had would be good and leave everything else up front the same.


Again, the scenario would be a country with low funds but wants this caliber for same reasons the USA does. I'm not thinking about converting mine just thought it was an interesting thing to think about.

(FYI: those are not my pics)

I'm disgusted and intrigued at the same time.

LOL!

Well that's good as it must be interesting.

I just don't see it being practical given the age and limitations of the 1917/19 weapon system.

The 277/6.8 is a super high pressure / velocity round.   One of the big limitations with the M1919A4 is the gun is air-cooled but has no provision to swap barrels. (not easily in the field anyway)

The M1919A4 was a further development of the 1917 which was water cooled and as such didn't need barrel swap capability.  The designers got away with going from water to  air cooled without a quick change barrel system by making the barrel on the A4 enormous.  

The end result is the A4 barrel weighs a ton which necessitates a booster to get the gun to cycle.  The end result is that the overall the whole package isn't really a 30 cal man portable GPMG.   The M2HB has lived on as nobody has realistically developed a "man portable" belt fed 50 as the recoil and ammo weight limitations basically eliminate the 50mg ever being a man portable GPMG.    So it doesn't matter how heavy the maduce is as its pretty much always a gun used in a fixed/mounted position.  Even then the M2 has been upgraded to incorporate a quick change barrel system in the M2-QCB/M2A1.

So maybe you go toward the M1919A6 style  which has a lighter barrel in a less than stellar attempt to turn the 1917/19 action into a man portable GPMG.  This brings you back to the fact that a air cooled lightweight barrel running 277/6.8 is going to heat up ridiculously quick and without any quick change provision the gun is going to destroy the quasi-fixed  barrel is short order.

So you would need to come up with proprietary links that will hold 277 fury round up around the neck and allow the rounds to be pulled from the belt from the rear or convert it to the C5A1 system to use M13 links, plus a new barrel, new booster cone, probably a bunch of other feed parts, and realistically a M2A1 style quick change barrel system.  Even if you overcame all these challenges then you still end up with a 30lbs GPMG with a whole host of honestly marginal 100+ year old design features.

I am sure there are some Countries still using the 1919 in a mounted role, but you would have to be pretty far down the Global Country GDP list to still equip your infantry with a 1919A6 style gun as a GPMG.  If you are that desperate to be using an A6 style 1919 in an unmounted role I doubt you have the funds or resources to purchase significant quantities of 277 fury to feed the guns.  You would be better off sticking with 30 cal f you wanted to be in the NATO fold and getting your infantry some used MAGs or MG3s or do what most dirt farmer Countries do and just go commie round spec and get some cheap surplus PK/PKMs.

Brass-cased .277 Fury should be a decent round for the M1919.  Stellite-lined barrels can probably take the duplex case.

Considering its original 30-06 chambering it would probably be just as deadly and efficient as when it came off the factory line.

Still in service in the Greek Navy:

I would think a conversion to 6.5mm Cred would give longer range, and flatter shooting, without any possible issues with the higher pressures of the 6.8x51mm round.