Going by feel is always a bad idea though it will work. Spin the barrel in and back off two clicks.
A dime and a nickel can be used as field expedient gages.
How many guys here remember how to set the headspace and timing on an M2 Browning .50-caliber machine gun? I had two periods of instruction on it in 1977-78, one in OSUT and the other in OCS. In each case the instructional pitch was, "Gather around and listen up" while an NCO showed how it is done, but in neither case was there actual hands-on for individual students. I wouldn't feel competent at it until until I'd actually done it four or five times to an instructor's satisfaction. Some guys say they can do it by feel without the Go/No-Go Gauge but they're usually people with advanced weapons knowledge.
Last edited by Pete; 03-22-2011 at 12:33 AM.
Going by feel is always a bad idea though it will work. Spin the barrel in and back off two clicks.
A dime and a nickel can be used as field expedient gages.
First time I saw it done was in ROTC, and my recollection is about the same as Pete's- the NCO showed us how, but I didn't get a warm fuzzy on how to do it and I didn't get any hands on (although I know I wasn't complaining at the time, I was freezing my butt off). Later, as a PL, I made my squad leaders teach me how to do it, but I don't recall having to ever do it myself (I had a good track driver who took care of it before the LT could mess it up).
Pete, From way back when and then some
The posts start here.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
You guys still don't have the Fabrique Nationale Herstal quick change set that eliminates the headspace issue?
IIRC four of five such sets were developed decades ago by different companies, even including U.S. companies.
What`s your military budget? Half the world's military spending?
Still suffering from a 1919 machine gun design flaw???
edit:
globalsecurity.org says
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/m2-50cal.htmThe M2E2 Quick Change Barrel (QCB) Kit enhances the M2 with new features and design improvements that make the weapon easier and safer to use. The kit features fixed headspace and timing reduce the time required to change the barrel and eliminate the need to reset headspace. The quick change barrel itself has a removable carrying handle that provides soldiers with a more expedient and safer way of changing barrels. The barrel also has a flash hider that reduces muzzle flash, making the M2 night friendly. The kit was incoprorated into the type standardized M2A1 design, which also featured a modified bolt and trigger block. By Spring 2011, all new production weapon were to be built to the M2A1 standard and older weapons would be retrofitted witht he QCB Kit.
Last edited by Fuchs; 03-22-2011 at 06:43 PM.
Fuchs,
In principle the design seemed to be good and the E2 versions tested at APG, MD puportedly saved 10 minutes on a hot barrel change. But, most of us that trained and regularly qualified with the M2 can perform an HST (or HS&T) in less than a minute. The differences in barrels are ever-so-slight, that a seasoned marksman can be up and firing in less than a minute.
There are a number of issues that Global Security doesn't cover at the link such as Safety of Use Messages (SOUM) 06 and 07 from TACOM (AKO login required).
In short, and much like most SNCOs believe, this seems to be a training deficiency combined with money-hungry companies than a problem with the BMG.
I'd say keep it simple (KISS)
Yep, concur. Then there's this...
And for timing you would then use what?
How many E-1s have a dime and a nickel at the end of the month?
Last edited by Stan; 03-22-2011 at 08:18 PM.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Not to mention if you have a head space and timing gauge in an Inf Bn you're a lucky man. Those are worth their weight in gold in Weapons Co.
Pete
Less than a minute? How much less?
Changing the barrel of a MG 3 takes ten seconds at most (if you keep a minimal target silhouette). That's a 1942 solution and already outdated as quick change barrel concept.
A barrel change of more than 20 sec effectively denies a barrel change in many if not most combat situations.
In the Armor/Cav community a H&S gauge is pretty much found on every vehicle commander and gunner. Big deal if you blow the cover off and didn't check the H&S!
That said, H&S is usually set in the beginning and verified as part of Pre combat checks prior to roll-out.
There's three (sub?) tests - disassembly, reassembly and functions check - that anyone using the M2 should take and pass before being allowed on the range with one.
http://www.armystudyguide.com/conten...intain-a.shtml
Otherwise, you get 'derp' moments like thissun -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXn3AV9vBro
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
Never did it except on the EIB test but I can't remember how to do it now.
I'm not sure where M2s were at in a light unit. Didn't HHC have them to mount on 2.5 ton trucks?
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
Thanks, Neil (never could get your name spelled correctly)
Something about all those fancy (ahem) upgrades to replace HST training (and result in death). Great video of what often means blowing the top cover off.
BTW, you may be the only person colder than I am here
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Jeez, Pete, don't you mean the M35 Deuce and a half? I only know of one other person herein that drove the M548 when Christ was a Corporal (Ken)
With that, a little history...
INTRODUCTION
The author’s introduction to the “fifty-cal” was the opportunity to fire a few rounds for familiarization during infantry training in 1967.
That was after we had been shown the basics of its operation: how to load, cock, fire, and clear it. Such was the extent of our exposure to the legendary “MaDuce,” officially known as “Machine Gun, Caliber .50, Heavy Barrel, M2.”
The instructor explained that the M2 had been in use since 1933. Some of the trainees, including myself, gazed curiously at the guns placed before us, thinking that they didn’t look that old.
Observing a US mechanized rifle company “trim the tree line” with a dozen “fifties” made me appreciate that the receiving end of such fire was a place no-one would want to be.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
In his book Mounted Combat in Vietnam Donn Starry said the Cambodian incursion couldn't have taken place without the M548 hauling cargo but that the vehicle had reliability problems. Based on my experience with them I agree wholeheartedly regarding the maintenance headaches. Ours in 6/9 FA in Germany had ring mounts for the .50 cals.
When I was at Fort Ord we had an Officer Professional Development tour of the FMC Corporation factory up the road in San Jose. FMC was then making the Bradley as well as the M113 family of vehicles, of which the M548 was one. I asked the FMC guy who ran the test track why the M548 had such reliability problems and he said they checked each and every one before it left the factory, so it must have been Army maintenance that was to blame.
Getting a bit off topic here, but it is your thread, so hopefully nobody minds much. I recall thinking mine was a pain in the neck, but I always chalked it up to the fact that the 113s in my platoon drove all over the place. The 548 basically drove from AA to AA and then maybe did a Volcano mission then back to a hide site or the AA. So, anything that was getting ready to go on a 113, you'd find it pretty quick. The 548s tended to sit around more, so problems got a chance to fester. I also remember one of the mechanics saying to me that the 548s were a little harder to get into to work on and that there were easier leak paths for rainwater to get in to corrode things that aren't supposed to corrode. That jives with my vague memory of starter problems with the one in my platoon.
Also, when you change the center of gravity of the vehicle, I'd bet you change how it responds to abuse as well. Plus the thing was loud as heck to ride in, and having the crew compartment so far forward and high up (as compared to the 113) made for a bumpy ride.
On the whole, it was less than reliable, but not a "tremendous maintenance headache" on the order of an AVLB, CEV, or M9 ACE.
Ken,
My comments were actually for our very own Ken White, not you. But, yep, now I know three 548 riders/drivers
I never got to ride in one, but did get to tow one with a 578. Does that count?
Some great pics here albeit a little earlier than 97 .
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Bookmarks