Browning M2 12,70 mm

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#16

Post by Knouterer » 12 Oct 2014, 22:44

The .50 machine gun is one of several weapons designed by John Moses Browning that no one has ever been able to improve on (to a significant degree).
Fabrique Nationale (FN) in Belgium produced many Browning guns under licence from about the year 1897 (.32 auto pistol known as the Model 1900), and they tinkered a lot with the .50 machine gun, increasing the rate of fire, developing all sorts of improved ammunition, a quick change barrel, &c.
In the early 1980s, they decided it was time for a change and offered a 15 mm machine gun (Model FN BRG-15, cartridge based on a necked-down 20 mm Hispano case) but there was not much interest, so they had to drop it and go back to producing the good old .50.
That doesn't mean the new gun was unsatisfactory, it just wasn't enough of an improvement to justify its much higher cost, plus the cost of buying new ammunition and discarding old .50 stocks.
The same thing happened when FN offered more "modern" guns to replace the Browning Auto-5 shotgun which had been in their line for 70 years or so; hunters just weren't interested and they had to bring the old Browning back.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#17

Post by LineDoggie » 13 Oct 2014, 01:54

von thoma wrote:
Based on...???
Based in an excessive caliber for the fight anti-personnel.
I have only seen use it in a pointer of a RCL.
What's excessive?

oh by the way the M8C spotting rifle is .50 Caliber but NOT the same dimension cartridge as the browning.

.50 Browning- 12.7X99mm
.50 M8C spotting round- 12.7X76mm

I do find it amusing you consider the .50 "Junk" because its excessive at killing the enemy
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach


User avatar
Dwight Pruitt
Member
Posts: 448
Joined: 26 Aug 2002, 06:53
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Contact:

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#18

Post by Dwight Pruitt » 13 Oct 2014, 20:01

ChristopherPerrien wrote: The flat trajectory and range of the 50 cal , made it a favorite ranging and spotting MG for heavy anti-weapons , as it mimics them as far as effective range and tragetory is concerned.
It mimicked the trajectory of the 105mm main gun of the M60 series tank so well that it was mounted on the main gun using the Telfare Device for gunnery training out to 1700+ meters using APIT ammunition. The Israelis used a similar setup for MOUT operations to clear buildings. I believe that a similar mounting is being studied for the M1 series.

The U.S. Army does not share the poster's assessment of it as junk- although that could have been applied to its' so-called replacement in armored vehicles, the M85.

It's a damn good piece of equipment, reliable and hard hitting, and probably will be in the inventory until a revolution comes in ammunition design.

User avatar
Poot
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 04:38

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#19

Post by Poot » 13 Oct 2014, 20:15

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of 'excessive killing capacity.'

These are weapons meant for war. War is about violence and winning, period. Restraint, in the way that the OP implies, has no place for anyone who wants to win, and remain free and alive. No one ever came in '2nd Place' in a war that was satisfied with that result.

With that, I see no reason why nations employ CBs, airburst munitions, SABOT rounds, et al. and consider themselves to be on some pedestal of greater humanity because they don't use HP bullets in small arms cartridges. We (the US) would do well by dumping the antiquated Hague Convention and using what we see fit for our war fighters. But that's another discussion...

Pat
He who lives by the sword, should train with it frequently.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#20

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 15 Oct 2014, 19:37

Poot wrote:I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of 'excessive killing capacity.'

These are weapons meant for war. War is about violence and winning, period. Restraint, in the way that the OP implies, has no place for anyone who wants to win, and remain free and alive. No one ever came in '2nd Place' in a war that was satisfied with that result.

With that, I see no reason why nations employ CBs, airburst munitions, SABOT rounds, et al. and consider themselves to be on some pedestal of greater humanity because they don't use HP bullets in small arms cartridges. We (the US) would do well by dumping the antiquated Hague Convention and using what we see fit for our war fighters. But that's another discussion...

Pat
You'd better wander off on this. Regular bullets are bad enough. A 50 cal maybe(prolly is) the baddest bullet of all. But still it is legal,and most :milwink: soldiers would prefer to die or be injured by regular bullets, without the extra damage and pain that, hollow points, or dum-dums, or exploding bullets, create. In real warfare, a wounded soldier instead of a dead soldier, causes a-lot more logistical problems for that side because of the extra resources and personnel required to save a wounded soldier over merely burying a dead one. And a wounded soldier is at much out the battle as a more severely wounded soldier, -which is what would happen with hollow points: Cluster bombs or nuclear bombs or flame throwers or et al, notwithstanding.

If you wish to argue this point, I suggest you study all veteran accounts of what happened to people who violated the conventions of war in WWI and WWII. I won't. If I had captured an enemy soldier with hollow point/dum-dum when I was in, I would have killed him on the spot and that is the law and that is that, accepted fact among soldiers. :milsmile:

binder001
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 07 Jan 2010, 18:11
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#21

Post by binder001 » 16 Oct 2014, 15:18

I understand the desire to put "limits" on war and especially about the use of weapons that are thought to cause "excessive pain and suffering". Unfortunately real war is about CAUSING pain and suffering. Wars hurt people and break things, the old idea of a "genlemanly war" died out in the Napoleonic era (or should have).

As stated, the original idea of the Browning ,50 caliber (or .5in or 12.7mm) was the need for a long-ranged, heavy-bullet weapon to engage airplanes and the early tanks. When originally deployed on the M3 tripod in the 1930's the M2HB was issued as an "antitank gun". The US had the manufacturing capacity to build and deploy millions of .50 caliber machineguns in several variations (water-cooled, air-cooled heavy barrel, aircraft, etc.). Instead of "useless junk" some could argue that the .50 cal was TOO good. It's performance as an aircraft weapon and in the AA role delayed development and adoption of heavier autocannons for jet fighters and for ground AA use.

Although the .50BMG cartridge is approaching 100 years old it is still widely deployed throughout the world. It has served the US military faithfully and also is in service with "good guys" and "bad guys" on every continent.

User avatar
Poot
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 04:38

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#22

Post by Poot » 16 Oct 2014, 17:52

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Poot wrote:I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of 'excessive killing capacity.'

These are weapons meant for war. War is about violence and winning, period. Restraint, in the way that the OP implies, has no place for anyone who wants to win, and remain free and alive. No one ever came in '2nd Place' in a war that was satisfied with that result.

With that, I see no reason why nations employ CBs, airburst munitions, SABOT rounds, et al. and consider themselves to be on some pedestal of greater humanity because they don't use HP bullets in small arms cartridges. We (the US) would do well by dumping the antiquated Hague Convention and using what we see fit for our war fighters. But that's another discussion...

Pat
You'd better wander off on this. Regular bullets are bad enough. A 50 cal maybe(prolly is) the baddest bullet of all. But still it is legal,and most :milwink: soldiers would prefer to die or be injured by regular bullets, without the extra damage and pain that, hollow points, or dum-dums, or exploding bullets, create. In real warfare, a wounded soldier instead of a dead soldier, causes a-lot more logistical problems for that side because of the extra resources and personnel required to save a wounded soldier over merely burying a dead one. And a wounded soldier is at much out the battle as a more severely wounded soldier, -which is what would happen with hollow points: Cluster bombs or nuclear bombs or flame throwers or et al, notwithstanding.

If you wish to argue this point, I suggest you study all veteran accounts of what happened to people who violated the conventions of war in WWI and WWII. I won't. If I had captured an enemy soldier with hollow point/dum-dum when I was in, I would have killed him on the spot and that is the law and that is that, accepted fact among soldiers. :milsmile:
I won't be wandering off anywhere.

Read Binder's comments after your post to get another perspective. In the meantime, please tell me how you'd explain to the family of your dead squad mates how necessary it was to 'humanely' persuade the other side to cease fighting or simply 'be wounded' instead of neutralized quickly and efficiently as threats. Explain how that was all more important than their fathers/sons/brothers coming home.

Explain to me how an antiquated document will raise the children of a fallen Marine, Soldier, Sailor or Airman better than a living father.

Explain to me how stone age, wife-beating, children murdering terrorists deserve some noble, well intentioned treatment originally meant for European combatants who all hailed from a similar point of reference in terms of morality, ethics, decency and right/wrong.
He who lives by the sword, should train with it frequently.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#23

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 16 Oct 2014, 21:38

Ah well , If you don't like ethical or moral or logistical reasons, perhaps you'll go with a practical reason. With the rise on the use of body armor hollow-point are becoming even less effective, hollowpoints fail even against older frag vests. So you go cranking off your illegal HP bullets ,and 45% of the ones that hit an enemy(torso area) will do nothing, along with maybe half of the head wounds(7.5% of 15% more) since ballistic helmets are common too.

The push today is for armor piercing bullets , hollow-points by design are actually becoming more obsolete on the battlefield with each improvement in body armor protection.

Actually the added penetration and stability of even regular ball ammo in flight has always been a greater advantage of them compared to hollow-points more severe wounding issue, unless you prefer to fight wars at 50 feet in the open with pistols. People generally hide behind brush, junk,dirt, stuff and also wear armor in real war , the 50 cal and any other "pointy" bullet are of greater utility in this regard.

The conventions do have their points and reasons , and some are well founded. If you really want extra deathly bullet just put poison on a good AP bullet, leave them HP's at the house

:milwink: Have a nice day :)

User avatar
Poot
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 04:38

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#24

Post by Poot » 18 Oct 2014, 01:09

Poison on the bullet. Right.

How many terrorists wear Kevlar? How about ballistic helmets, which on the best of days might be able to stop a pistol round, never a rifle round, except a glancing shot? Conventional western military helmets are for protection against secondary wounding mechanisms (shrapnel, et al.), and as platforms for NODs. Hollow point or not, they both penetrate Kevlar. It comes down to velocity, so if it's fired from a rifle, it's going to penetrate body armor, and likely penetrate currently issued US plates.

"The push today is for armor piercing bullets , hollow-points by design are actually becoming more obsolete on the battlefield with each improvement in body armor protection." The push from whom? Which nation, and for which units? AP has been around for a very long time, so nothing new there. In fact, SS109 was virtually abandoned after 1993 because of over-penetration issues in documented combat situations.

'Ethical and moral...reasons,' like those I listed above that you didn't answer or address, aren't the same for terrorists or criminals as they are against uniformed military personnel of an aggressor nation. Are you ascribing the same legal combatant status to terrorists as is assigned to uniformed enemy personnel? Based on what?

So, while this has been, umm,..entertaining, issues of terminal ballistics are best answered by SMEs, not Axis History enthusiasts.
He who lives by the sword, should train with it frequently.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#25

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 18 Oct 2014, 03:57

Ah well again, I got tired of this "terrorist" view that you continually bring up, and also of the big, GWOT concept, before you were born.

Just be careful about them laws of war,as you might happen to end up needing to know them, particularly what or who, a terrorist is, and who is an enemy combatant, and what is legal and what ain't. An air force can indemscriminately bomb civilians , but land forces can't shoot civilians on the ground, simple as that. Works well when you are working for TPTB, on other instances it does not. Maybe we can debate"ballistics" on some other topic.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#26

Post by Graeme Sydney » 07 Nov 2014, 14:15

The 50 cal mount on the M113 was one of the most effective Area Neutralizing/Support weapons in Vietnam - the Diggers love it and Charlie hated it.

The reason was that .5 went through the bush, trees and embankments, over long distances (200+ meters of jungle) and killed.

A field modified addition of a gun shield changed the M113 from a battlefield taxi into a very effective fire support vehicle. A twin 30 cal turret from a British Saracen APC was also tried but the penetration and hitting power of the 50 cal won favor.

Image

It is a remarkable weapon and if it ain't broke why eff with it?

After Vietnam there were moves to have 4 x 50 cals on tripods incorporated into a HMG pl in the support coy of the inf bn. It didn't come about because role/mission of the Australian Army changed.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#27

Post by OpanaPointer » 07 Nov 2014, 14:46

Twin .50's in a power tub. Good times. Longest recorded kill with Maw Deuce is 5.5 miles insofar as I know.

For your enjoyment: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/MG/
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#28

Post by LWD » 01 Dec 2014, 01:25

Carl Schwamberger wrote: My take from observation on the firing range is much more penetration in sand and compacted soil. Are those 'book' numbers? ...
Published penetration stats usually only account for single bullet impacts. Several rounds impacting in the same area can have substantially greater penetration especially on material that can be broken up or pushed aside.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#29

Post by OpanaPointer » 01 Dec 2014, 02:16

The M2 can kill at four miles accord to a WWII training manual.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Steve Wilcox
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:39
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Browning M2 12,70 mm

#30

Post by Steve Wilcox » 01 Dec 2014, 22:42

OpanaPointer wrote:Longest recorded kill with Maw Deuce is 5.5 miles insofar as I know.
I think the longest recorded kill for a .50 BMG round is around 1.5 miles, not 5.5 miles, if you're talking about a sniper shot, and not blazing away at an area target with an M2HB, which is a different proposition. Might you have a reference for that 5.5 miles figure?

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”