Article Archive: Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Weapons: Hot And Fast
   Next Article → ATTRITION: We've Got To Get Out Of This Place
July 18, 2010: The U.S. Department of Defense recently ordered modification kits (for $5,700 each) for M2 12.7mm (.50 caliber) machine-guns. These kits upgrade existing weapons to the M2E2 standard and allow for quick barrel changes. Each barrel weighs 10.9 kg/24 pounds. There is also a mounting rail for scopes and a flash suppressor. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense also bought 8,000 more M2 machine-gun barrels (for $850 each). This M2E2 version is the best upgrade delivered for the M2 so far. There are others in the works.

It was two years ago that the U.S. Department of Defense gave General Dynamics $9 million to try and develop a lightweight .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine-gun (to be known as LW50 for the moment) that works. The LW50 is supposed to be ready for field testing next year. Designing and building a lighter and more effective 12.7mm machine-gun has been an elusive goal.

An earlier attempt (the XM312) by General Dynamics did not work out so well. Actually, there are several other competitors for this project, and several failed attempts in the last few decades. The army wants a weapon that weighs about half as much as the current weapon (the 38 kg/84 pound M-2), has fewer parts, less recoil and is easier to maintain. Unfortunately, none of the proposed designs has solved the biggest problem with earlier attempts; low rate of fire (usually about half the M2's 500 rounds a minute).

The first attempt at creating a replacement for the current M2 .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine-gun did not turn out too well. Three years ago, field testing of the XM-312, the proposed replacement for the eighty year old, .50 caliber (12.7mm) M-2 machine-gun, began, in the United States and overseas. Then, nothing. That's because the test results were not encouraging, the biggest shortcoming being the low rate of fire (about 260 rounds per minute). This is about half the rate of the M2, and was believed adequate for the 25mm smart shells the XM312 was originally designed for (as the XM307). But for 12.7mm bullets, it didn't impress the troops. There were some reliability problems, which could be fixed. The rate-of-fire issue, however, has proved to be more difficult. Meanwhile, a new upgrade for the M2 has been fielded, and Ma Deuce still rules the battlefield. The new M2E2 has a quick change barrel, flash hider and a lot of small improvements. It is much in demand.

The M-2, nicknamed "Ma Deuce" by the troops, has been around so long because it was very good at what it does. Accurate, reliable, rugged and easy to use, many of the M-2s currently in use are decades old, and finally wearing out. The army doesn't want to build new ones, and wasn't sure it could do without the venerable, and very useful, M2. So it ended up going ahead with the plan to build a new .50 caliber machine-gun (the XM312). Actually, this Ma Deuce replacement is basically the XM307, but without the ability to fire 25mm rounds. The XM312 weighs 36 pounds (compared to 50 for the M-2), even with the addition of the electronic fire control stuff from the XM307.

The LW50 will ignore the 25mm business, and probably borrow a lot of ideas from superior 12.7mm designs developed in other nations. That's because the LW50 won't be the first lightweight rival for the Ma Deuce replacement market. Buying a superior foreign replacement is difficult politically (although it is done), and there is also the feeling that the superior foreign weapons aren't as superior as they could be.

Actually, there have been many attempts to design a "new and improved" M2, and all have failed, to one degree or another, in one department or another. The basic problem is that the M2 is sturdy, reliable and gets the job done to the satisfaction of the users. The LW50 is apparently going to try and get around this by designing a better recoil system, and use modern electronic sights so that gunners can get more out of fewer bullets. Most combat veterans prefer the current rate of fire (7-8 bullets per second) to the slower (4 per second) one of the LW50. That attitude may change, as troops get to use the LW50 in combat. They may appreciate the ability to get more out of the same ammo supply, and deliver more accurate single shots and short bursts.

What the army is hoping to do with LW50 is not get an M2 replacement, but a "good enough" lightweight 12.7mm machine-gun, for those situations where such a weapon is needed. SOCOM (Special Operations Command), for example, has some lightweight vehicles in the works, that are too light to carry an M2, but could handle a lighter 12.7mm weapon. The army wants to have such a lightweight machine-gun for the troops in about three years. Meanwhile, the army has ordered 40,000 new M2s.

 

 

Next Article → ATTRITION: We've Got To Get Out Of This Place
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Gerry       7/18/2010 10:33:35 PM
Whenever spray and pray are an issue, the higher rate of fire is always prefered. When the location of the enemy is questionable the high rate of fire is spread around to keep enemy heads down. SOCOM may like the lighter M2, but they have more known kinetic targets they have to deal with. For the grunt on the ground being under attack the same ole, same ole, Ma duece is prefered.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       7/19/2010 1:07:00 AM
I think M2HB weighs 50lb without the barrel, which weighs about 12kg.
 
Chinese have some example of light weight heavy machine guns (use Russian 12.7x108mm, of course). Type 77 weighs 28kg, Type 85 weighs 24kg and new QJG-89 weighs only 17.5kg, all without tripods.
 
I'm not trying to be too critical, but I think DOD and defense contractors are aiming too high for too risky and too expensive approach. It ends up costing more taxpayer money on things not practical in general cases. SOCOM had better just buy Chinese QJG-89 through foreign allies and send it to local gunsmiths for modification. Plus that 12.7x108mm are just everywhere.
 
For those who may bash Chinese small arms: Polytech M14 maybe crap, but ask those who have Chinese AK, Tokarev, Makarov or any other commie guns, are they the level of Wal Mart crap or on par with Yugo ones?
 
The only good thing that Norico is barred from selling in the US is that they can't compete in the US, so that gun industry here is alive and well. This sort of makes me wonder how much both Republicans and Democrats lied to us about so-called "Free trade." In a nutshell, free trade works well if nations involved have similar regulation and openness on goods, services as well as currency trade. Free trade doesn't work well with dictatorships.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       7/19/2010 2:48:38 AM

Chinese have some example of light weight heavy machine guns (use Russian 12.7x108mm, of course). Type 77 weighs 28kg, Type 85 weighs 24kg and new QJG-89 weighs only 17.5kg, all without tripods.

I'm not trying to be too critical, but I think DOD and defense contractors are aiming too high for too risky and too expensive approach. It ends up costing more taxpayer money on things not practical in general cases. SOCOM had better just buy Chinese QJG-89 through foreign allies and send it to local gunsmiths for modification. Plus that 12.7x108mm are just everywhere.

Reducing the weight is the easy problem.  Controlling the recoil is the big problem.  If you only reduce the weight you will still need supply the sand bags to brace the tripod.  Muzzle breaks can help a little, but the game changer is a fire-out-of-battery design which spreads the peak impulse over a longer period of time.  Unfortunately to do that it must also reduce the rate of fire.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       7/19/2010 2:53:33 AM
Question for those with experience:
 
Which would be better in the field as a support weapon, a 7.62mm medium machine gun with a 500 rpm rate of fire or a 12.7mm machine gun with a 260 rpm rate of fire and a computing sight. 
 
(And NO, you cannot have an M-2 machine gun instead.  So do not bring it up)
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       7/19/2010 3:43:17 AM


Reducing the weight is the easy problem.  Controlling the recoil is the big problem.  If you only reduce the weight you will still need supply the sand bags to brace the tripod.  Muzzle breaks can help a little, but the game changer is a fire-out-of-battery design which spreads the peak impulse over a longer period of time.  Unfortunately to do that it must also reduce the rate of fire.

I beg differ on this one.  M2HB was designed as an anti-aircraft gun from the beginning, and was designed to fire at higher ROF. Ground-use .50 HMG doesn't need that ROF, but can be done with a muzzle device. However, 400-600 RPM is adequate and most M2HBs don't have muzzle device attached. 
 
Russian KORD can be fired from standing position, and there is a YouTube video about this:

http://www.youtube.com/v/jwu3ivAJ68U&hl=en_US&fs=1"> http://www.youtube.com/v/jwu3ivAJ68U&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385">
 
It's not impossible to design a HMG with .50BMG around 20+10kg (gun+tripod) with QCB. The problem is wrong approach due to wrong bureaucratic decision and promise from defense contractors. Modularity and versatility cost money, and I see very little reason to develop an HMG from a GMG. Just copy the damn proven NSV to .50BMG and you have a solution that works at about 1/10 of the cost.
 
Quote    Reply

eodtek    Only the Bureaucracy   7/19/2010 3:45:04 PM
The Ma-Deuce rocks!!!  Just like the government to fix something until it is broken...
 
Quote    Reply

eodtek    Obtuse Question   7/19/2010 3:48:21 PM
Two completely different weapon profiles.  Different effective ranges, stopping power, portability if you know what I mean.
 
If it is to be carried by a single person then I am still partial to the M60 pig.  I don't care much for the M249 (wannabe a real machine gun).
 
Quote    Reply

tanker135    M2 Replacement Cost   7/19/2010 6:19:37 PM
You failed to mention the longest pole in the M2 replacement tent: cost. All the proposed replacements were vastly more expensive than the M2.
 
Quote    Reply

Mike H.       7/19/2010 6:26:56 PM
Quite probably the finest machinegun ever built, something that inspires confidence in its users and cold fear in its opponents...Gee...Let's REPLACE it.. Who ARE these morons? I call them "morons" because they fit that name to a "T"...and the only other reason they'd replace such a fine weapon would be that they're bought and paid for with a promise of a high-paying job when they put in their retirement papers. Only an idiot or a crook would do what these people are doing. Improvements like a new quick-change barrek and an improved flash supressor are fine...and useful. replacing the M2? I got an IDEA!!! Let's REPLACE the people in Procurement who came up with this hairbrained idea, and keep the "MA-Deuce!"
 
Quote    Reply