View Full Version : Whatever Happened to Ma Deuce?
The Reaper
05-08-2004, 12:16
Gents:
What is different with this M-2?
TR
FullGallop
05-08-2004, 12:22
What Tukke said.
The Reaper
05-08-2004, 12:25
Originally posted by Tuukka
Quick change barrel.
Well, DAYUM, that didn't take long!
Tuukka, I am going to have to wait and post when you are not online. :D
Too good. Thanks for playing.
TR
Originally posted by The Reaper
Well, DAYUM, that didn't take long!
Tuukka, I am going to have to wait and post when you are not online. :D
Too good. Thanks for playing.
TR
Well, on weekend leave. Sitting home, drinking a few brewskies waiting to go out on the town...
Ghostrider
05-08-2004, 17:39
Quick Change barrel??? Does that mean headspace is automatically "set" when the barrel is screwed into the barrel extension? OR is the barrel attached at the point where the carrying handle is at?
Surgicalcric
05-08-2004, 18:02
Originally posted by Ghostrider
OR is the barrel attached at the point where the carrying handle is at?
I was under the impression the handle is not designed/intended to be used to carry the weapon but for holding the HOT barrel while changing them out.
I am not suggesting you cant carry it by the handle, but I have already been scuffed for picking up a 240B by it.
Ghostrider
05-08-2004, 18:12
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
I was under the impression the handle is not designed/intended to be used to carry the weapon but for holding the HOT barrel while changing them out.
I am not suggesting you cant carry it by the handle, but I have already been scuffed for picking up a 240B by it.
My bad, on a ma deuce the "carry handle" would definitely not be used for carrying the weapon .....that would take some :lifter . I just called it a carry handle because that's what it appears to be.
Surgicalcric
05-08-2004, 18:17
Originally posted by Ghostrider
My bad, on a ma deuce the "carry handle" would definitely not be used for carrying the weapon .....that would take some :lifter . I just called it a carry handle because that's what it appears to be.
I was not sharpshooting your comments by any stretch. I should have made myself clear on my post.
I was asking more for clarification on the M2 and 240 as well. I would imagine the individual who might pick up the M2 and carry it by the handle would have to be quite stout.
Ghostrider
05-08-2004, 18:29
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
I was not sharpshooting your comments by any stretch. I should have made myself clear on my post.
I was asking more for clarification on the M2 and 240 as well. I would imagine the individual who might pick up the M2 and carry it by the handle would have to be quite stout.
Oh I know, I wasn't very clear on my original question. As for the 240.....well since the 240s on tanks have the ultimate "carrying handle", it's not an issue. The 240B is someone else's lane.;)
The Reaper
05-08-2004, 18:49
Headspace is constant with the barrel changes. No need to re- headspace, but as I understand it, the timing may be off.
It is an FN development, who two years ago, also affforded me the opportunity to fire an M-2 variant they had souped up to 1200 rpm.
That may be what drove the QC barrel invention.
My favorite QC barrel mechanism is on the MG-42/MG-3.
TR
Ghostrider
05-08-2004, 18:59
Originally posted by The Reaper
Headspace is constant with the barrel changes. No need to re- headspace, but as I understand it, the timing may be off.
It is an FN development, who two years ago, also affforded me the opportunity to fire an M-2 variant they had souped up to 1200 rpm.
That may be what drove the QC barrel invention.
TR
Thanks for the info TR.....1200rpm? Yes I think that would drive the need for the QC barrel! :eek:
The Reaper
05-08-2004, 19:23
Originally posted by Ghostrider
Thanks for the info TR.....1200rpm? Yes I think that would drive the need for the QC barrel! :eek:
Didn't sound like an M-2, had a heavy ripping sound more like a Vulcan.
I think it was designed for the Avenger as the AAA gun.
TR
Originally posted by The Reaper
Headspace is constant with the barrel changes. No need to re- headspace, but as I understand it, the timing may be off.
It is an FN development, who two years ago, also affforded me the opportunity to fire an M-2 variant they had souped up to 1200 rpm.
That may be what drove the QC barrel invention.
My favorite QC barrel mechanism is on the MG-42/MG-3.
TR
Dont know when the QCB variant of the M2 was first introduced but i have it on my 86-87 Janes IW edition.
Yep, the MG42/MG3 is a great design..
EchoSixMike
07-29-2005, 21:05
The high rate M2's are actually redesignated M3. Used on Avengers and on USMC helos, probably on a bunch more stuff, but that's all I know for sure. Actually been around since WWII as an aircraft machinegun, it's just that the early guns were essentially disposable, lasting less than 5000rds IIRC. It was an unacceptably low number, at any rate. FN re-engineered the design to make use of better materials and fitted their QC barrel. There was some decidedly brief discussion about going to these(M3) across the board to replace old M2's when they adopted on helos and Avenger. Happily that got all of 30 seconds of consideration when the doubled ammo consumption was brought up. Not that having nice new stuff isn't great, but 1200rpm from a .50cal ground mt for use vs ground targets doesn't seem the proper tool. The QC barrel on the plain M2 would be very nice. At this point, it may simply be better to wait on the XM312 and see where that goes. S/F....Ken M
Rotor Strike
07-31-2005, 11:40
Having been involved with the M3M stuff for a while, I can say that it does have some better features over the original M2 as well as some downsides. First, it fires from an open bolt, preventing cookoffs, a plus. Second, the QD barrel is a nice option as well. But, we wouldn't QD anything in the helo, so it really doesn't matter to me. For us, the increased firing rate allows us a tighter impact pattern, increasing probability of hit. But, the Marines have bought up all the M3M's for the next couple of years so we aren't going to see any operationally for quite some time. I do know that the Marines seem to have been experiencing a higher than acceptable failure rate that has caused some concern. More to follow as details become more available. However, there is real promise in this weapon system.