Ma Deuce Replacement Stumbles

F-15 Eagle

New Member
Two years ago, field testing of the XM-312, the replacement for the eighty year old, .50 caliber (12.7mm) M-2 ("Ma Deuce") machine-gun, began, in the United States and overseas. Then, nothing. That's because the test results were not encouraging, the biggest shortcoming being the low rate of fire (about 260 rounds per minute). This is about half the rate of the M2, and was believed adequate for the 25mm smart shells the XM312 was originally designed for (as the XM307). But for 12.7mm bullets, it didn't impress the troops. There were some reliability problems, which could be fixed. The rate-of-fire issue, however, has proved to be more difficult. Meanwhile, a new upgrade for the M2 has been fielded, and Ma Deuce still rules the battlefield. The new M2E2 has a quick change barrel, flash hider and lot of small improvements. It is much in demand.
Originally, the M2 replacement was going to be the M-307, which was designed so it could fire either the computer controlled 25mm "smart shell" of the XM-25, or (by changing the barrel and receiver), .50 caliber ammo. But it was felt that a straight replacement for the M-2 was needed quickly. The original plan was for the troops to begin getting the XM312 in 2008, or sooner.
The M-2, nicknamed "Ma Deuce" by the troops, has been around so long because it was very good at what it did. Accurate, reliable, rugged and easy to use, many of the M-2s currently in use are decades old, and finally wearing out. The army doesn't want to build new ones, and wasn't sure it could do without the venerable, and very useful, Ma Deuce. So it ended up going ahead with the plan to build a new .50 caliber machine-gun (the XM312). Actually, the new Ma Deuce is basically the XM307, but without the ability to fire 25mm rounds. The XM312 weighs 36 pounds (compared to 50 for the M-2), even with the addition of the electronic fire control stuff from the XM307.
The fire control system, especially the range finder, makes the XM312 much more accurate with first shot hits, than the M-2. American troops have been testing the XM312 in the United States and Germany, and have also reacted favorably to the lighter weight of the XM-312. The lighter XM312 will be easier for infantry to manhandle into position (along with its tripod mount.) But the lower rate-of-fire on the XM-312 was particularly disappointing to the many troops who had used the M2 in combat recently.


Here is the link

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20078112819.asp
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If they would of stayed with this bad boy we would be sitting good. High rate of fire of over 600 RPM, left or right hand feed. It served me well, all you had to do is mount it and plug in the electrical connection, no head space or timing with a quicker barrel change out.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
If they would of stayed with this bad boy we would be sitting good. High rate of fire of over 600 RPM, left or right hand feed. It served me well, all you had to do is mount it and plug in the electrical connection, no head space or timing with a quicker barrel change out.
That would be the M2 with the 600 round per minute rate of fire, the XM312 has only 260rpm(thats why it did not impress the troops). I doubt that the military will use this weapon, plus they already have the M2E2 that has been upgraded, to include a quick change barrel, flash hider and a few other things. You said it served you well, so were you in the military? I take it you used the M2, I think its a good weapon, accurate, reliable and durable. I'm really glad that the XM312 stumbled.:D
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That would be the M2 with the 600 round per minute rate of fire, the XM312 has only 260rpm(thats why it did not impress the troops). I doubt that the military will use this weapon, plus they already have the M2E2 that has been upgraded, to include a quick change barrel, flash hider and a few other things. You said it served you well, so were you in the military? I take it you used the M2, I think its a good weapon, accurate, reliable and durable. I'm really glad that the XM312 stumbled.:D
A plain jane M2 has a rate of fire of 550 RPM
A M2E2 has a rate of fire of 600 RPM
A M85 which is pictured has a rate of fire of 625 RPM.

Other improvements with the M2E2 is not the requirement for head space and timing and a really cool carrying handle.

Yes - I have used the M2 on all series of M1s that I served on.

I used the M85 on M-60A1 and M60A3 tanks.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
A plain jane M2 has a rate of fire of 550 RPM
A M2E2 has a rate of fire of 600 RPM
A M85 which is pictured has a rate of fire of 625 RPM.

Other improvements with the M2E2 is not the requirement for head space and timing and a really cool carrying handle.

Yes - I have used the M2 on all series of M1s that I served on.

I used the M85 on M-60A1 and M60A3 tanks.
I thought so, that the M2E2 has a 600rpm and M2 has 550rpm, but I never herd of a M85, is it still used by the U.S. Army or USMC? What was it like using the M2, I bet it was loud.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I thought so, that the M2E2 has a 600rpm and M2 has 550rpm, but I never herd of a M85, is it still used by the U.S. Army or USMC? What was it like using the M2, I bet it was loud.
I think that the U.S Marines still use the M85 on their squad surf riders, but it
pretty much went away when we turned in our M60A3s for M1s.

For a M2 you have to have the head space and timing just right or you would have alot of miss fires, I was lucky and seemed to get newer or well maintained ones for my tanks and the standard head space and timing was pretty much screw the barrel all the way in and then back it off three clicks. For how loud a M68A1 (105mm) or M256 (120mm) fire you really do not notice the sound levels of such a tiny crew served weapon. :D Most likely the reason why the wife is always shouting at me to turn down the television.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
For how loud a M68A1 (105mm) or M256 (120mm) fire you really do not notice the sound levels of such a tiny crew served weapon. :D Most likely the reason why the wife is always shouting at me to turn down the television.
LOL thats a good one!:eek:nfloorl::eek:nfloorl::eek:nfloorl:
 

buglerbilly

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It is a low-recoil version of the M2 12.7mm machine gun that can be operated from helicopters on "door mounts". The USMC use it and the Royal Australian Navy is buying it for the new door gun on their Seahawk helicopters.

Here's a link. Tells you all you'll ever need to know... :)

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_50cal-M3M_MG.htm
A wee correction if I may, the shock absorbers make the M3M low recoil not the gun itself..........it also fires at twice the rate of the M2 which is why its so popular to helo users................
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Why try to make a .5 HMG a 25mm cannon, too?

This world does not need another fancy computerised gizmo that tries to do 2 jobs but is good at neither.

The answer to the M2's replacement had been in service with the Singapore Armed Forces for over 20 years. Lighter, QCB, light recoil, dual ammo feed. What more do you need?

http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg05-e.htm
 
Last edited:

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
Why try to make a .5 HMG a 25mm cannon, too?

This world does not need another fancy computerised gizmo that tries to do 2 jobs but is good at neither.

The answer to the M2's replacement had been in service with the Singapore Armed Forces for over 20 years. Lighter, QCB, light recoil, dual ammo feed. What more do you need?

http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg05-e.htm
Don't worry the XM312 had such a low rate of fire that they are not going to use it anyway(just look at my first post). They have the ME2 so that will remain in service for many years, but I don't know what will replace the M2 now...just glad its not the XM312.:D
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
A wee correction if I may, the shock absorbers make the M3M low recoil not the gun itself..........it also fires at twice the rate of the M2 which is why its so popular to helo users................
That and the internal recoil spring... :D
 

Cutaway

New Member
The german MG 131 would be a good replacement although a WW2 weapon, Its simpler, lighter, and has higher ROF. Would be a nice gun in the .50cal though.

Dont underestimate it becouse its age as its a badass HMG.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
The german MG 131 would be a good replacement although a WW2 weapon, Its simpler, lighter, and has higher ROF. Would be a nice gun in the .50cal though.

Dont underestimate it becouse its age as its a badass HMG.
Hey WWII is not bad just look the M2 is from the 1920s but it is still good, so WWII is not that old when it comes to guns, the M1911 is still used by the USMC even though it entered service in 1911.;):D
 

SuperSLime

New Member
The german MG 131 would be a good replacement although a WW2 weapon, Its simpler, lighter, and has higher ROF. Would be a nice gun in the .50cal though.

Dont underestimate it becouse its age as its a badass HMG.
It was a specialist aircraft weapon and it used electrically primed ammunition. It is therefore impossible to convert to .50BMG. You have really excelled yourself this time.

ps. Does the real Cutaway know that you're using his name??
 
Top