User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 9:34:17 AM EDT
[#1]
Hey, gotta pay for GLBT Awareness month somehow, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 9:53:51 AM EDT
[#2]
What's wrong with the current 50 cal?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 9:56:22 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
What's wrong with the current 50 cal? Labor intensive. I love the M2 family of Machine guns with a deep and disturbing depth but its time that we stop trying to reinvent the fucking pistol and dump some cash into crew served stuff. Which gets used more? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:00:14 AM EDT
[#4]
so the army nixes a new generation of .50 and the marines buy a complete piece of shit of a hand gun that's actually and older design than the 50s the army is stuck with. we got some real brainiacs working in procurement and budget don't we?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:03:45 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
so the army nixes a new generation of .50 and the marines buy a complete piece of shit of a hand gun that's actually and older design than the 50s the army is stuck with. we got some real brainiacs working in procurement and budget don't we? The Colt 1911 is for MARSOC use, not general issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:04:48 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
so the army nixes a new generation of .50 and the marines buy a complete piece of shit of a hand gun that's actually and older design than the 50s the army is stuck with. we got some real brainiacs working in procurement and budget don't we? The Colt 1911 is for MARSOC use, not general issue. The point remains. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:05:14 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
What's wrong with the current 50 cal? I LOVE the M2, but it is a bit dated. The M2 is heavy, and it takes a certain finesse to make it work well. I knew how to run one very well, but despite my constant teachings, many of my soldiers continued to have problems. We can do better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:07:04 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
so the army nixes a new generation of .50 and the marines buy a complete piece of shit of a hand gun that's actually and older design than the 50s the army is stuck with. we got some real brainiacs working in procurement and budget don't we? The Colt 1911 is for MARSOC use, not general issue. its still a complete piece of shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:07:21 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
so the army nixes a new generation of .50 and the marines buy a complete piece of shit of a hand gun that's actually and older design than the 50s the army is stuck with. we got some real brainiacs working in procurement and budget don't we? The Colt 1911 is for MARSOC use, not general issue. The point remains. And what is your point? What does an Army machine gun have to do with Marine Corps handguns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:08:19 AM EDT
[#10]
The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:09:09 AM EDT
[#11]
Hasn't this thing been in development for ages anyway?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:10:08 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals. Overall weight with tripod and all the bits or just the receiver assembly? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:10:41 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
so the army nixes a new generation of .50 and the marines buy a complete piece of shit of a hand gun that's actually and older design than the 50s the army is stuck with. we got some real brainiacs working in procurement and budget don't we? The Colt 1911 is for MARSOC use, not general issue. its still a complete piece of shit. okay then. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:12:27 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals. Overall weight with tripod and all the bits or just the receiver assembly? I think it's 40 pounds lighter with the entire setup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:13:12 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
so the army nixes a new generation of .50 and the marines buy a complete piece of shit of a hand gun that's actually and older design than the 50s the army is stuck with. we got some real brainiacs working in procurement and budget don't we? The Colt 1911 is for MARSOC use, not general issue. The point remains. And what is your point? What does an Army machine gun have to do with Marine Corps handguns? If you can't see that, the CA water is too polluted. Whatever, mang. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:13:34 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals. Overall weight with tripod and all the bits or just the receiver assembly? Just receiver and barrel is 82 lb vs. 40 lb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:31:39 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
What's wrong with the current 50 cal? Well there have been advancements in things like materials (lighter) and designs (less labor intensive) that could make for a better gun, but nah that couldn't possibly be an improvement on a 100ish year old design right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:32:06 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals. How was the reliability and durability though? I don't know the answer, but if it's not as reliable (function wise) or durable (parts breakage wise) as the current gun, that might be a reason to kill the program. So, anyone have any info on the reliability and durability of the (now cancelled) new system in T&E? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:37:57 AM EDT
[#19]
thats fucking stupid. something they actually NEEDED
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:41:17 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals. How was the reliability and durability though? I don't know the answer, but if it's not as reliable (function wise) or durable (parts breakage wise) as the current gun, that might be a reason to kill the program. So, anyone have any info on the reliability and durability of the (now cancelled) new system in T&E? The M2 is an unreliable POS. Any weapon that can have it's parts installed incorrectly and the gun still go together, but not work, shouldn't be in use. Any weapon that has to have it's own (ideally, not 1 per PLT/Co) HS&T tool next to it to make sure it will fire properly shouldn't be in use. At 80 lbs w/ out tripod, it damn well better be durable. It's too heavy to have a troop hump it up a mountain side in Afghanistan (you know, where medium/heavy MG fire is the work horse) when he's already humping 120+ pounds of gear. As has been said, we can do better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:42:07 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: they cracked frames and slides dureing the 20,000 round test, it's a piece of shit and I love 1911'sQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: so the army nixes a new generation of .50 and the marines buy a complete piece of shit of a hand gun that's actually and older design than the 50s the army is stuck with. we got some real brainiacs working in procurement and budget don't we? The Colt 1911 is for MARSOC use, not general issue. its still a complete piece of shit. okay then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:42:44 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
What's wrong with the current 50 cal? about 40 lbs too heavy and difficult to change the barrel |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:46:26 AM EDT
[#23]
Looks like it has a higher rate of fire too.
You can't watch 3 war vids in a row featuring a M2 without watching some guy struggle to make it work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:47:18 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals. Overall weight with tripod and all the bits or just the receiver assembly? Just receiver and barrel is 82 lb vs. 40 lb. Would the weight savings really that much of an advantage? (other features of the MG aside) At 40 lbs plus ammo, and tripod probably still too heavy to bring out on a patrol so it probably woulda still been stuck as a vehicle mounted weapon or in defensive position and not moved around a lot. Wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the weight savings. IIRC Gen Dynamics came out with a .338 NM machine gun earlier this year that had nearly the same range as the 50 BMG but was only slightly heavier than the lightened M240. Would that have been a better choice if you needed a lighter, long range MG? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 10:56:25 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals. Overall weight with tripod and all the bits or just the receiver assembly? Just receiver and barrel is 82 lb vs. 40 lb. Would the weight savings really that much of an advantage? (other features of the MG aside) At 40 lbs plus ammo, and tripod probably still too heavy to bring out on a patrol so it probably woulda still been stuck as a vehicle mounted weapon or in defensive position and not moved around a lot. Wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the weight savings. IIRC Gen Dynamics came out .338 NM machine gun earlier this year that had nearly the same range as the 50 BMG but was only slightly heavier than the lightened M240. We had a trunk have a partial rollover; the truck was barely balanced and about to tip into a canal. The M2 that was in the turret popped out of the pintle mount, fell on the gunner, and pinned him against the side armor. He was stuck as the weapon was too heavy for him to move. We had to risk more soldiers lives to go back onto the truck help get him out. We might not have had that problem if the weapon was lighter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 11:05:00 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Any weapon that has to have it's own (ideally, not 1 per PLT/Co) HS&T tool next to it to make sure it will fire properly shouldn't be in use. What, you dont have a dime and a nickel in your pocket? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 11:06:24 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any weapon that has to have it's own (ideally, not 1 per PLT/Co) HS&T tool next to it to make sure it will fire properly shouldn't be in use. What, you dont have a dime and a nickel in your pocket? AAFES uses paper coins 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 11:10:54 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any weapon that has to have it's own (ideally, not 1 per PLT/Co) HS&T tool next to it to make sure it will fire properly shouldn't be in use. What, you dont have a dime and a nickel in your pocket? AAFES uses paper coins
ID tags are another improvised method. < Would love to see and use a new 50 cal with fixed H&T, less 30+ pounds of weight, burst only, and disassembly and maintenance similar to the M240B. Design it with push through links on the belt, and left hand feed only. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 11:16:11 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any weapon that has to have it's own (ideally, not 1 per PLT/Co) HS&T tool next to it to make sure it will fire properly shouldn't be in use. What, you dont have a dime and a nickel in your pocket? AAFES uses paper coins
ID tags are another improvised method. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile My point being there shouldn't be any sort of HS&T at all in the field. Whether it's nickel and dime, dog tags, HS&T tool, whatever. It's archaic and unnecessary. Especially when most troops can barely strip a M4 or a SAW. They're kids' puzzles compared to the M2's fucking Erector set. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 2:23:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any weapon that has to have it's own (ideally, not 1 per PLT/Co) HS&T tool next to it to make sure it will fire properly shouldn't be in use. What, you dont have a dime and a nickel in your pocket? AAFES uses paper coins
ID tags are another improvised method. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile My point being there shouldn't be any sort of HS&T at all in the field. Whether it's nickel and dime, dog tags, HS&T tool, whatever. It's archaic and unnecessary. Especially when most troops can barely strip a M4 or a SAW. They're kids' puzzles compared to the M2's fucking Erector set. So...your reasoning is that instead of properly training your soldiers, you want to spend millions of dollars to replace something that actually works? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 2:37:58 PM EDT
[#31]
You guys are aware that they have an M2 with QD barrel, no HS&T gauge required, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 3:18:01 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals. That's small potatoes budget-wise. Blame the Army if you think the program was worth saving. My guess is that it was having problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 3:20:10 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
What's wrong with the current 50 cal? Did you watch the vid? The new gun would save 40# and cut recoil by 60%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 3:26:21 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals. Overall weight with tripod and all the bits or just the receiver assembly? Just receiver and barrel is 82 lb vs. 40 lb. Wow, that sounds like quite the improvement. Now that's something I, as a taxpayer, don't mind paying for - assuming it does everything just as well as the old M2. Just pull money away from the welfare rats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 3:28:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals. That's small potatoes budget-wise. Blame the Army if you think the program was worth saving. My guess is that it was having problems. If it was running like a raped ape then the money would have been found. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 3:31:51 PM EDT
[#36]
Is this the gun that had such a slow rate of fire that it might as well have been a damn semi-automatic? If true, I won't shed too many tears. While I think the M2 needs to be replaced, I'm just not sure the XM806 was the answer. And it might be time to explore options other than the .50 for use in this role.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 3:48:25 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: You guys are aware that they have an M2 with QD barrel, no HS&T gauge required, right? The video specifically mentions using the funding previously allocated for the M806 to upgrade M2's to the M2A1 standard which includes the quick-change barrel with fixed headspace and timing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 3:54:39 PM EDT
[#38]
The M2 is highly effective and an excellent platform. To reduce te weight by 40lbs and decrease recoil by 60% is a huge improvment on the current platform. I believe relibility was improved also and accuracy was to be better as well. Its a shame to see something like this get the axe. But being as the military will be investing in gay uniforms and new shit the boys dont reallly needs it just makes sense to cut the shit that may actually save lives and turn the tide of battle in our favor. God bless the UN
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 5:13:56 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's wrong with the current 50 cal? Did you watch the vid? The new gun would save 40# and cut recoil by 60%. Finally got around to watching it. Reducing weight would be great but recoil? It's not a shoulder fired weapon. The vehicle or tripod will absorb the recoil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 5:16:34 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any weapon that has to have it's own (ideally, not 1 per PLT/Co) HS&T tool next to it to make sure it will fire properly shouldn't be in use. What, you dont have a dime and a nickel in your pocket? AAFES uses paper coins
ID tags are another improvised method. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Especially when most troops can barely strip a M4 or a SAW. If they can't strip their personal weapon, then that is a whole nuther issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 5:17:15 PM EDT
[#41]
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FN M3 offer a lot better over the M2?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 5:29:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FN M3 offer a lot better over the M2? I wondered this, Why spend the money to develop a new 50 Cal. Why not just buy a modern 50 Cal, like the CIS 50 for example ? Seems the way to do it to me, A manufacturer designs and builds the gun, government buys it. If the gun is a failure, no cost to government. if it is a success, then government pays the development cost through buying the guns themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 5:34:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Looks like it has a higher rate of fire too. You can't watch 3 war vids in a row featuring a M2 without watching some guy struggle to make it work. Rambo's calling you out bro! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 5:38:34 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
... Especially when most troops can barely strip a M4 or a SAW. They're kids' puzzles compared to the M2's fucking Erector set. See my edit. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 5:41:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: What's wrong with the current 50 cal? Labor intensive. I love the M2 family of Machine guns with a deep and disturbing depth but its time that we stop trying to reinvent the fucking pistol and dump some cash into crew served stuff. Which gets used more? It's really irritating how every procurement program now seems like it costs way more than it should. Crazy to think they built the SR-71 in 3 years, but they can't do an Amphibious Assault vehicle in less than 10 years. Pathetic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 5:41:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
so the army nixes a new generation of .50 and the marines buy a complete piece of shit of a hand gun that's actually and older design than the 50s the army is stuck with. we got some real brainiacs working in procurement and budget don't we? The Colt 1911 is for MARSOC use, not general issue. its still a complete piece of shit. okay then. Don't mind him, he probably likes girls guns... you know, the Glock. Tupperware that belongs in the kitchen with the women. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 5:44:42 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
I wondered this, Why spend the money to develop a new 50 Cal. Why not just buy a modern 50 Cal, like the CIS 50 for example ? Seems the way to do it to me, A manufacturer designs and builds the gun, government buys it. If the gun is a failure, no cost to government. if it is a success, then government pays the development cost through buying the guns themselves. No gun manufacturer is going to throw $$$$$ into R&D without a decent ROI. If the government doesn't buy them guns, then there is no market and thus no ROI thanks to 922(o). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 5:57:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FN M3 offer a lot better over the M2? I wondered this, Why spend the money to develop a new 50 Cal. Why not just buy a modern 50 Cal, like the CIS 50 for example ? Seems the way to do it to me, A manufacturer designs and builds the gun, government buys it. If the gun is a failure, no cost to government. if it is a success, then government pays the development cost through buying the guns themselves. 922o |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 6:04:08 PM EDT
[#49]
As a M2 gunner, I would have loved to cut the weight in half. I never had problem with the Deuce, cant think of one failure in the 4.5 years I was in. Making it a little less complicated would help though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2012 6:06:59 PM EDT
[#50]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
