Jump to content

Talk:M2 Browning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Ma Deuce"?

[edit]

"Ma Deuce" is a bogus nickname. No one in the US military uses this term. It is the creation of pompous asshat Peter Kokalis, a hack writer for various gun magazines.

Referring to a .50 caliber Browning as "Ma Deuce" is a certain indication that the speaker is a fake wannabe "veteran"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.149.233.160 (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the text you are removing cites reliable sources. Your personal take is irrelevant original research. ROG5728 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
R Lee ERMEY called it “Ma Deuce” (with much enthusiasm) in his “Mail Call” series more than once. ¿IS HE a fake veteran? (I tell you what YOU go tell him that, I’ll read about it in the papers the next day- I’m scared even mentioning it, that he’ll read this and let me have it.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I served a total of 15 years in the Marine Corps. Post military, I have worked with active duty Soldiers and Marines on numerous programs. The term "Ma Deuce" has been used frequently by both services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I used it 45 years ago, it seemed perfectly logical to us young frenchmen to call a M2 "Ma Deuce", since we spelled it "M' deux" , and was next to "Ma Douce" ('My sweet one"). We called it also "La Nana" (The Chick), which helped us to carry it along, pig-a-back, during some night works... T.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I served in the U.S. Army mos 11B (infantry) from 1967–1973, Vietnam 69–70, I never heard the term "ma deuce" before reading this article. It's a new one on me. This weapon was called, and always will be, a "fifty cal" 174.24.250.45 (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Anthony Gumbrell[reply]

Friends who served in the UK armed forces from the mid-1990s also referred to the BMG as the 'fifty-cal', while calling the L7 a 'jimpy'. These were standard terms. I find it hard to believe the US forces were regularly using the 'Ma Deuce' term, but sources (and internet chinese whispers) are more potent than real-world experience on Wikipedia, because you can cite one and not the other. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:A09B:229B:CF76:530E (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper rifle

[edit]

This whole section is silly. Yes it is capable of long range shooting, most machine guns are, and as one of the larger ones it has one of the longer effective ranges. Yes it has been around long enough for some people to make very long range kills with it. But none of this has anything to do with calling it a "sniper rifle", no sniper pair would ever carry an M2 and tripod into their OP. The section is a misunderstanding of what a sniper is and what he does — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.175.174 (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently at least one sniper used the Browning as a sniper rifle. To be sure, GlobalSecurity.com and Sgt. Grit are not the sources I would prefer to use to bolster a section of a Wikipedia article. --Yaush (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think its use as a sniper rifle is notable because Carlos Hathcock was crazy enough to try it; his article probably has better sources. Glrx (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's remove the Carlos Hathcock legend and put the sniper aspect on firmer ground. Not only was it used by Army units in the Korea War as a sniper weapon with a telescopic sight, the practice was officially adopted and made doctrine in the US Army FM 23-65, dated December 1955, Apendix III. It was again included in the 1972 version of the same manual. The section was only dropped in the 1991 version, when purpose built .50 cal sniper rifles were coming into their own. Hathcock pioneered nothing; he merely read the manual for his assigned weapon (he was trained as a machine gunner). In point of fact, a 15 February 1967 Sea Tiger (the official newpaper of the 1st MarDiv) credited MSGT Reinke, not Hathcock, with reintroducing the practice among the division's snipers - which was a few weeks before Hathcock supposedly first used the weapon in Operation Deckhouse VI. Best to skip the popular fanboy books with dubious foundations and stick to the far more credible official documents.
98.255.89.22 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operating handle

[edit]

Should be noted the operating handle on an M2 only retracts the bolt, similar to an M16. It does not cycle with the bolt and is less of a safety hazard. The recoil spring is very strong, it can take 2 hands to lock and load a Ma Deuce!65.129.181.111 (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Colt MG53-2", the M2 used in Brewster Buffalo?

[edit]

I have tried to find information on the exact version of M2 used in Brewster B-239s Finland bought during the Winter war, all of the sources I can find call it "Colt MG53-2" but from what I see all search results on Google are about the Finnish "Buffalos" and/or LKk-42, the reverse-engineered copy of M2 that Finland produced during the Continuation war, is "Colt MG53-2" just the manufacturer's own name for the weapon (AN/M2 etc. are US military designations after all)? Ape89 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

[edit]

Hi all guys! First time writing here i have a big question for y'all! Does someone have a book or a source about the effectiveness of AN/M3 .50 Cal Browning Heavy Machine gun in aircraft use such as mounted on F86 Sabres etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.181.1 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony G. Williams is a published expert in the field. He considers the effectiveness issue here: WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS, here: Cannon or Machine Gun, and here: Modern Fighter Gun Effectiveness. His site is a treasure trove. (Hohum @) 00:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to edit the "Users" wikitable?

[edit]

So i was going to add a second variant of the M2 Browning that the Swedish have used but i was unable to unmerge the last row of the table. This is needed for the edit as the Swedish variant i was going to add is the AN/M2 and not the M2HB. Does anyone know how to fix this as i would rather not try to edit the wikitable by going through the code as i have basically no experience with working with the code of wikitables?--Blockhaj (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the M2A1's manual trigger block safety

[edit]
"Features" section of the
The upgraded M2A1 has a manual trigger block safety.
but where and in what form is the "Manual Trigger Block Safety" on the M2A1?
--240fe0730c1 (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle

[edit]

How could Pershing before July 1917 request a gun to counter an aircraft that first appeared in August 1917? Clairvoyance, or did Junkers give him a tour of their factory? Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought first that one writer frustrated with Pershing's omnipotence as at it appears viewed from the source was temptatively led to hint at the fact that the solid point regarding Pershing personal involvement was his 1918 July 18th cable to the Ordnance Department but after a detailed review of that rather complicated subject in source I'm convinced that the expression "U.S. Army Ordnance" like it is used in .50 BMG#History can be rendered perfectly equivalent to "General Pershing wanted", with only very minor style adjustements. So no frustrated writer but the Junkers J.I was introduced in the paragraph erroneously, the July 1918 mainly mediatized circumstance being the failure of 0.30 cal. tracers to disable a G.IV. Remains the paragraph to be reorganized besides, Pershing already wanted a 2,700 feet per second and heavy-caliber armory-piercing projectile in 1917, it seems he increased the spec at 2,750 feet per second in 1918, and specified that 0.50 would stand as an adequate measure. He also rejected Winchester's attempt to mitigating the possible applications of its munition at the same occasion it seems? --Askedonty (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misconception of Geneva Convention prohibition

[edit]

I think this section, while trying to clarify the legal discussion surrounding the usage of the gun, is itself completely missing the issue, thus adding more confusion to an already controversial topic.

First of all, to my knowledge the Geneva Conventions would not be relevant as to whether the M2 can be used on personnel; that would be the Hague Conventions of 1899 or the Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868. The former is also mentioned in one of the sources. While the section is seemingly correct in that the legal problems surrounding the M2 is often wrongly attributed to the Geneva Conventions, the misconception seems to be that the Geneva Conventions is thought to be the sole source of international law in war.

Secondly, the problem is not with the M2 gun in itself or its 12.7 mm caliber, but explosive and/or incendiary components typically found in such munitions. Ex: the Raufoss Mk 211.

I suggest heavily editing the section (including its header) to explain and address the actual legal problems usually held up by opponents, while possibly retaining some of its points to the degree they concern the legality of using non-expanding solid 12.7mm bullets. As to whether using the M2 on soft targets, is in fact illegal, it seems to hinge on lots of technical and legal details such as what weapons classification the M2 belongs in, the damage typically caused in human tissue, whether the relevant treaties have precedent over other laws or legal concepts such as the right to self defense, etc. Is there anyone with more knowledge on such details that can expand on this part?

If nothing else, I suggest simply removing the current section and replacing it with the first two paragraphs from this section concerning the ammunition., which with a slight edit to make it applicable to the gun itself, seems to cover it pretty well.

Also, I'm not at all an expert on law, so it would be great if anyone with more knowledge could verify or correct the points brought up here, before changes are made to the article.

The abelian fox (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Fnlayson: Fair enough. For the Hague conventions, might I suggest the law texts here?[1][2].
Even so, I still struggle to see the relevance of mentioning the Geneva Convention at all. It is 'obviously' not the 'correct treaty' to discuss the legality of different weapons, as it mostly just concerns the rights of combatants, non-combatants and POWs and there are other treaties that does just that. Yes, it is mentioned in your sources, but seemingly only to confirm it's irrelevance. Furthermore, there are certain treaties that are ratified by the wider international community but not the United States, such as the Hague Convention (IV,3) of 1899. It was not clear to me if your source[3] only concerns whether the M2 can legally be used on personel by US tropps, or soldiers of any military. If the former is the case, this should be explained in the article. The abelian fox (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp
  2. ^ https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp
  3. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20160307164434/https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/killing-myth

Confusing

[edit]

WP has an article about the Browning M1921, which covers its development and the fact that it was the basis for further development resulting in the M2, which has long been well known.

This article opens with a statement that the M2 was designed at the end of WW1? But that was the M1921? And not the actual M2?

I'm very confused by this. Anyone else spot this? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:A09B:229B:CF76:530E (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M2_Browning&oldid=1208648095"