Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/24/2012 9:30:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2012 9:31:39 AM EDT by KA3B]
http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/?bctid=1750028924001
About halfway through the video.

Army cuts M806 machine gun.
The Army's $160 million gun program is a casualty of the budget ax.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 9:34:17 AM EDT
Hey, gotta pay for GLBT Awareness month somehow, right?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 9:53:51 AM EDT
What's wrong with the current 50 cal?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 9:56:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
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?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:00:14 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:03:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:04:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:05:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
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.

Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:07:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:07:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MNnaloxone:
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
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?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:08:19 AM EDT
The new .50 was 80 pounds lighter, and 60% less recoil. Thanks liberals.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:09:09 AM EDT
Hasn't this thing been in development for ages anyway?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:10:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TacticalTaco:
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?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:10:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:12:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By TacticalTaco:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:13:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By MNnaloxone:
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:13:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By TacticalTaco:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:31:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
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?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:32:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TacticalTaco:
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?

Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:37:57 AM EDT
thats fucking stupid. something they actually NEEDED
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:41:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2012 10:44:13 AM EDT by Paulie771]
Originally Posted By Trebor:
Originally Posted By TacticalTaco:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:42:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
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.
they cracked frames and slides dureing the 20,000 round test, it's a piece of shit and I love 1911's

Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:42:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
What's wrong with the current 50 cal?


about 40 lbs too heavy and difficult to change the barrel
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:46:26 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:47:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2012 10:50:31 AM EDT by Hamel]

Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By TacticalTaco:
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?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 10:56:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hamel:

Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By TacticalTaco:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 11:05:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Paulie771:
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?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 11:06:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2012 11:06:43 AM EDT by Renegade13B]
Originally Posted By echo6:
Originally Posted By Paulie771:
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

Link Posted: 7/24/2012 11:10:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2012 11:15:37 AM EDT by jchewie1]
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By echo6:
Originally Posted By Paulie771:
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
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 11:16:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2012 11:17:53 AM EDT by Paulie771]
Originally Posted By jchewie1:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By echo6:
Originally Posted By Paulie771:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 2:23:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2012 2:24:22 PM EDT by DaveN]
Originally Posted By Paulie771:
Originally Posted By jchewie1:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By echo6:
Originally Posted By Paulie771:
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?

Link Posted: 7/24/2012 2:37:58 PM EDT
You guys are aware that they have an M2 with QD barrel, no HS&T gauge required, right?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 3:18:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TacticalTaco:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 3:20:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
What's wrong with the current 50 cal?


Did you watch the vid?

The new gun would save 40# and cut recoil by 60%.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 3:26:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By TacticalTaco:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 3:28:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By TacticalTaco:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 3:31:51 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 3:48:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GTLandser:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 3:54:39 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 5:13:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tyman:
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 5:16:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paulie771:
Originally Posted By jchewie1:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By echo6:
Originally Posted By Paulie771:
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.

Link Posted: 7/24/2012 5:17:15 PM EDT
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FN M3 offer a lot better over the M2?
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 5:29:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunnerpalace:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 5:34:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2012 5:35:14 PM EDT by Sweet_Storm10]
Originally Posted By hondaciv:
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!
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 5:38:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paulie771:
...

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
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 5:41:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By USMC6177:
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
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.

Link Posted: 7/24/2012 5:41:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
Originally Posted By E__WOK:
Originally Posted By Howie_Phelterbush:
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 5:44:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2012 5:45:16 PM EDT by Bubbles]
Originally Posted By Young-Kiwi:
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).
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 5:57:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Young-Kiwi:
Originally Posted By Gunnerpalace:
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
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 6:04:08 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 7/24/2012 6:06:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2012 6:07:53 PM EDT by RifleCal30m1n00b]
Originally Posted By Gunnerpalace:
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FN M3 offer a lot better over the M2?


Um, the M3 is basically an M2...with a different trigger mechanism. GAU-21, according to the blurb on FN's website here.

ETA: Wiki Link about the M3 as well.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top