GDATP XM806: what was so bad about the M2?


PDA






Precision
February 1, 2011, 11:32 PM
http://www.gdatp.com/Products/Gun_Systems/Individual_Crew/XM806.asp

So apparently this .50 is gonna replace Ma Duce.

Who's in favor of this? I like it. I've had no experience with the M2, but from what I've heard it's a great system. This can only be an improvement on almost a century-old design! Neat optic too.

If you enjoyed reading about "GDATP XM806: what was so bad about the M2?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zoogster
February 1, 2011, 11:54 PM
Rate of fire seems kinda low for such a weapon, especially from mounted platforms.
Nearly half of that of the slowest M2 model.
I am more of a fan of controlled bursts in a high rate of fire than a continuous slow rate of fire. If something is an immediate danger that is exposed you want the lead immediately, not a second later.
The rate of fire of this thing is about what someone could do semi-auto.


Durability in real world conditions counts for a lot. The M2 has proven itself for decades to last even when abused or neglected.
We shall see how well such a thing holds up exposed to the elements and neglected similarly.

essayons21
February 1, 2011, 11:57 PM
The new system is less than half the weight of the M2. It allows light infantry to have .50 cal firepower.

I don't think we will see this replacing the M2. If anything it will take the place of M240s on a light infantry units MTOE.

M2s will still be predominant in wheeled and mechanized units, they are being upgraded as the M2E2.

Sam Cade
February 2, 2011, 12:44 AM
Its a contract for development. A very TINY contract. The weapon may or may not ever see the light of day.

medalguy
February 7, 2011, 02:11 AM
Fires from an open bolt to help cool it. Lighter in weight so easier to hump around. High cyclic rate of fire but low effective rate. Overall I think it would be a lightweight weapon for dismounted troops but it would not have the lifetime of the M2. I've seen WWII models still in service. This one would likely be a "throw-away" version. :o Ma deuce is still the best heavy MG ever made.

essayons21
February 7, 2011, 07:45 PM
High cyclic rate of fire but low effective rate.

High cyclic rate of fire? I don't think so.

This thing shoots slower than a Mk19, and half the rate of a Ma Deuce.

The main capabilities that this weapon brings is the range and penetration of the .50 BMG in a man-portable package.

It would be useful when setting up COPs in mountainous terrain, and for airborne and airmobile operations.

Capstick1
June 1, 2011, 09:52 PM
I was in the Air Force for 20 years and am quite familiar with the M2. It's been around a long time and has been manufactured by off the wall companies like International Harvester and others. I've always thought John Browning was a genius but this machinegun does have some problems. One big thing I've never liked is barrel change procedures. When you change out the barrel on the M2 it can be a slow process. You have to wear nomex gloves and physically unscrew the hot barrel from the barrel extension. Next step you grab the cold barrel and screw this in the barrel extension. Immediately afterwards you need to grab your guages and check the chamber, t slot, and headspace. Periodically you also have to adjust the trigger mechanism timing inside the reciever. If you have a bunch of bad guys trying to shoot you while you're doing this you could very well be on the last train west before you can get all this accomplished. Another thing about the M2 I've never liked is assembly and disassembly procedures. This gun is far easier to take apart than it is to put back together. The tolerances inside the reciever are so tight that it can be a pain getting all the parts back inside the reciever without getting the bolt assembly or barrel extension stuck on something. I've been trained on the M60, M249, M16, M870, Mossberg 590, M240, and the M2. Out of all these guns I think the M2 is the biggest PIA as far as disassembly and assembly go. If I could be king and make it happen I'd replace the M2 with the 7.62 mm M240 scaled up to handle the .50 browning cartridges. The M240 is gas operated, uses fixed headspace barrels. The trigger assembly timing is fixed as well and never needs to be adjusted. Barrel changes on the M240 are a breeze. You just tilt the barrel locking lever, the hot barrel is removed, the cold barrel is inserted into the reciever and the barrel locking lever is tilted back. That's it. You don't have to check/adjust the timing or headspace every time the barrels are changed on this machinegun. Just make sure the barrels clear before you start shooting rounds down range. The barrels on the M240 also have a stationary handle so you never physically ever have to touch the barrel directly even during barrel changes. Disassembly and assembly of the M240 is also much easier than the M2 as well.

4thPointOfContact
June 2, 2011, 12:24 AM
The weight reduction allows easy transport by small ground units, expanding the mission flexibility of .50 caliber firepower.

It's right there in the article... "expanding the mission", nothing about replacing the M2 at all. It's expanding the roles available to the .50 cal.

forindooruseonly
June 2, 2011, 06:22 AM
If it is designed to be hauled around by infantry, then the slow rate of fire makes some sort of sense. Ever carried cans of .50 around? That stuff ain't light. Probably designed that way to make the limited amount of ammo available last.

Al Thompson
June 2, 2011, 03:16 PM
I'm thinking fully automatic Barrett as opposed to replacement for the M2. :cool:

I'm also thinking it may be much simpler for non-Combat Arms folks to use.

Agree with Capstick about the M2.

Kevin5098
June 5, 2011, 05:10 PM
Capstick1 said: One big thing I've never liked is barrel change procedures.

http://www.gdatp.com/files/PDF/A062_M2A1.pdf

Capstick1
June 5, 2011, 05:55 PM
Thanks for posting this Kevin. My experience with the M2 was with the old style one with the adjustable headspace barrels. I didn't know that they had come out with an improved version of the M2 that uses fixed headspace quickchange barrels. These barrels even have a decent carrying handle on them now to.

Al Thompson
June 5, 2011, 10:08 PM
I was at Ft. Benning in 2008. As of then, no QCBs were in the pipe line. As far back as the '80's, FN had a fixed headspace system worked out.

zeb777
June 6, 2011, 06:09 AM
I know the M2 weapon system far too well, from being a Tanker in the army(active) for over 4yrs now, and being the unit armor for 1 1/2yrs.

Ive been looking forward to this weapon system for a long time back when I seen in in the army time back in 09.

Dragging a 83lb weapon up and down off my Tank, MRAP & HMMWV gets a little old after a wile, now with a 40lb weapon system, it'll make my job a little easier. Also there wont be anymore Headspace and Timing needed (from level 10 & 20 operators ), because that is my number concern as a NCO, when dealing with a .50cal, was Headspace and Timing, when i got a new private up in the turret, making sure it was done correctly. If its not done properly the primer will be struck before the round is fully seated in the chamber, turning that brass casing into shrapnel, sending it into your face. >Video from armor school (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQep2nWGfBw)<

As Zoogster said about the Durability of the M2. It's legendary. In the Tankers world its customary to keep the TC's .50cal dirty at tank gunnery, "They lover to be dirty." This new one will probably need a little more love and care then the M2.

Kevin5098's post on the fixed H&T. That would be great to have save a lot of time and make operations safer, but as PDf file says "Approved for Public Release 02/2011" by good old General Dynamics. So I don't think my unit will be seeing any of these upgrades to are armory for long wile.

If you enjoyed reading about "GDATP XM806: what was so bad about the M2?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!