Army axes M806 machine gun - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Army axes M806 machine gun (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 7/24/2012 6:15:09 PM EDT

[#1]

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.

This..Army probably just has a hard time mounting them

But really, all of our .50s are on vehicle mounts or tripods on posts...Don't see the big deal with weight reduction, it's not WW2 and were not humping this shit anymore...As for reliability - when properly headspaced and timed, and assembled and lubed they are bulletproof...Not the guns fault if some idiot puts the bolt switch in backwards, it's not hard to learn anyways.... But as for 60 percent reduced recoil, well that's awesome especially with the weight difference..

Posted: 7/24/2012 6:16:36 PM EDT

[#2]

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.

This..Army probably just has a hard time mounting them

But really, all of our .50s are on vehicle mounts or tripods on posts...Don't see the big deal with weight reduction, it's not WW2 and were not humping this shit anymore...As for reliability - when properly headspaced and timed, and assembled and lubed they are bulletproof...Not the guns fault if some idiot puts the bolt switch in backwards, it's not hard to learn anyways.... But as for 60 percent reduced recoil, well that's awesome especially with the weight difference..

Well, the program was 2 years behind schedule... that's never a good sign.

Posted: 7/24/2012 7:00:54 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FN M3 offer a lot better over the M2?

USMC has some in inventory IIRC. I did some of the T&E on it back in 02.

Posted: 7/24/2012 7:09:56 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

This is not correct. M3 fires from open bolt as well as having a different charging system and more advanced mounting system that provides better accuracy and less dispersion

Posted: 7/24/2012 7:20:13 PM EDT

[#5]

I can has surplus??

Posted: 7/24/2012 7:25:20 PM EDT

[#6]

Reminds me if the Commanche.....

"Let's build a really expensive helicopter.....and then ditch it..."

Posted: 7/24/2012 7:26:26 PM EDT

[#7]

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?

The M806 is 40 lbs. lighter and reduces recoil by 60%.

eta: like 50 people have already said...

Posted: 7/24/2012 7:37:02 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

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

I don't think that was a problem.

Posted: 7/24/2012 8:26:22 PM EDT

[#9]

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.

That is unfortunate but it is not possible to plan for every situation. Even if you had the M806, there is no guarantee that he would have been able to push it off of his body.

It's been awhile since I messed with the M2, but is there any cotter pin or locking mechanism to lock the receiver onto whichever mount is being used?

Posted: 7/24/2012 8:51:46 PM EDT

[#10]

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.

That is unfortunate but it is not possible to plan for every situation. Even if you had the M806, there is no guarantee that he would have been able to push it off of his body.

It's been awhile since I messed with the M2, but is there any cotter pin or locking mechanism to lock the receiver onto whichever mount is being used?

We used hitch pins and a T&E

Posted: 8/11/2012 5:21:52 AM EDT

[#11]

Anti-dupe bump

Posted: 8/12/2012 12:00:25 PM EDT

[#12]

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.

next you are recommending a Glock?

Hermann

Posted: 8/12/2012 12:10:09 PM EDT

[#13]

HOLY SHIT! IM THINKING THAT WAS MY SON FIRING!

Posted: 8/12/2012 12:10:27 PM EDT

[#14]

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.

It'd be interesting to see how truly far gone procurement and others costs are when it comes to the military. I'm sure there's a lot of ways to save costs. I recall reading about how the Royal Rhodesian Air Force used to send its jet engines to Rolls Royce to get serviced periodically and it would cost them 14,000 pounds per engine plus the cost of shipping each way. The embargo forced them to come up with solutions and they figured out how to accomplish the same task that cost 14,000 pounds for only 76 pence per engine, with no shipping costs, obviously. I bet there are tons of cases in the U.S. military where things are being done at way higher costs than is necessary, but with nothing to force them to get creative and figure out how to be efficient, nothing gets reformed or done.

Posted: 8/12/2012 12:20:34 PM EDT

[#15]

I never had a negative experience with M2, they were always reliable for us. But I seen a bunch of videos and complaints from Tip of the Speer guys to suggest we really do need a replacement for the M2.

Posted: 8/12/2012 12:20:47 PM EDT

[#16]

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.

Could have gotten more pistols for less money if they had gone with RIA(sticking with 1911s), and they'd have probably lasted longer.Colt hasn't been worth buying since they stopped making real GI 1911s, and maybe hasn't been worth buying since Sam died.

Posted: 8/12/2012 12:21:09 PM EDT

[#17]

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.

Turn the hammer spring in your AR or M4 upside down, reassemble and shoot it, then get back to me.

Posted: 8/12/2012 12:26:41 PM EDT

[#18]

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.

And a very common one. I was a range safety for a day and had to teach 20+ year soldiers how to adjust their sights. Field stripping their M16A2? Forget it.

Posted: 8/12/2012 12:47:32 PM EDT

[#19]

And the question nobody is asking is "Why is Fed.Gov paying for small arms weapons development?"

Posted: 8/12/2012 12:53:00 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

And the question nobody is asking is "Why is Fed.Gov paying for small arms weapons development?"

Because there is no other market for a lighter crew-served .50 BMG machinegun that would prompt private sector development of one.

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:10:42 PM EDT

[#21]

Why not just buy the .50 bmg version of the Kord

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:14:36 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

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.

what parts can be installed wrong? you thinking about the 60?

the machine is only unreliable if the person manning it does not know how to work it. Same thing can be said for any machine really. If the maint is there, even at a minumum interval that MG will work all day long. Now put a monkey behind it, or a idiot that is has no clue how to run it, yeah there might be problems.

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:14:50 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

And the question nobody is asking is "Why is Fed.Gov paying for small arms weapons development?"

Because there is no other market for a lighter crew-served .50 BMG machinegun that would prompt private sector development of one.

Because the "nanny state' has created a climate that suppresses private sector small arms weapons development. For our own good.

Hessian-1

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:14:58 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
What's wrong with the current 50 cal?

Nothing that won't be fixed with a service-wide upgrade to the A1 configuration, which this will fund.

The whole "replace the .50 cal" program has been a boondoggle from the start, because it never really started with your question.

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:16:38 PM EDT

[#25]

that presenter is horrible

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:16:54 PM EDT

[#26]

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 program was constantly plagued with such problems, and was on it's second iteration as it was. It was conceived of roughly the same time as the OICW debacle, it just took much longer to kill.

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:17:26 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

And the question nobody is asking is "Why is Fed.Gov paying for small arms weapons development?"

Because there is no other market for a lighter crew-served .50 BMG machinegun that would prompt private sector development of one.

Well if that's the case, I propose that we revoke the NFA, and allow the private sector to get to work. If unhindered by pesky NFA laws imagine what a few good machinists could come up with!

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:19:11 PM EDT

[#28]

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 1911 is a well proven and reliable design.

However Colt is not a good manufacturer of 1911's anymore.

Sig Sauer makes excellent 1911's

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:19:26 PM EDT

[#29]

Were getting 16 of these in October. Seems they have fixed the head space and timing issues with this version.

http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.mil/2011/01/03/m2a1/

Sorry can't make hot on my tablet.

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:19:49 PM EDT

[#30]

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.

Turn the hammer spring in your AR or M4 upside down, reassemble and shoot it, then get back to me.

The hammer spring is not a user-removable component, nor is its removal ever necessary for normal maintenance.

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:24:16 PM EDT

[#31]

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:29:20 PM EDT

[#32]

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?

Except that they don't really work per se. As has been stated several times before, the M2 is a fickle, temperamental, shrewd hag, that will only work within a very tiny area of tolerance. 1/32 of a turn in either direction, or bolt switch that went in wrong because you're being rushed out the door to meet SP time, and it's deadlined. Please tell me how a lighter, easier to maintain, more reliable weapon wouldn't make training soldiers a little easier? That way, less people get fucked because of a gun we've been using since Jesus was a private.

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:34:55 PM EDT

[#33]

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?

Except that they don't really work per se. As has been stated several times before, the M2 is a fickle, temperamental, shrewd hag, that will only work within a very tiny area of tolerance. 1/32 of a turn in either direction, or bolt switch that went in wrong because you're being rushed out the door to meet SP time, and it's deadlined. Please tell me how a lighter, easier to maintain, more reliable weapon wouldn't make training soldiers a little easier? That way, less people get fucked because of a gun we've been using since Jesus was a private.

Of course , this whole line of discussion is wholly irrelevant as the M2 is being replaced / upgraded with a system that will not require HS&T checks.

Canceling this bloated, bullshit program will actually INCREASE the rate at which this happens.

Posted: 8/12/2012 1:46:14 PM EDT

[#34]

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.

Turn the hammer spring in your AR or M4 upside down, reassemble and shoot it, then get back to me.

Pulling the hammer out of the M16 isn't part of field stripping it. Head spacing and timing is part of the m2 as is a whole bunch of other parts an incompetent or stressed person needs to deal with when cleaning the m2

Posted: 8/12/2012 10:30:20 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Why not just buy the .50 bmg version of the Kord

Oh now you dun it!

Posted: 8/12/2012 11:27:36 PM EDT

[#36]

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.

Never found the M2 too difficult to strip down... now the artilleryman who was assigned to a team replacing us did get the feed tray mechanism backwards and tried to charge it...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Army axes M806 machine gun (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us