Would a Browning 1917 MG be a good machine gun for today?

D

Doug.38PR

Moderator
GA3006_031306F.jpg
 
http://www.tomtownsend-toyland.com/toyland/machine_gun.jpg This is a 1917. Notice the large tube around the barrel. This holds water that keeps the barrel cool. To keep pressure and temperature down in the tube, another plastic tube is usually hooked up to the water reservoir which collects the evaporated water and condenses it into a metal can.

The 1917 would be a horrible machine gun for combat these days. These days warfare doesn't solely rely on numbers of men and volley fire. Soldiers need to be able to move quickly and set up in minutes. The 1917 would be a pain in the arse to lug around along with water to cool it and ammunition and tripod.

They would, however, be fun to play with at the range. The 1919 would be a bit better, but I'd still rather have a M60 or M240.
 
While I was at first a little skeptical of this being a worthwhile thread (going back a little too far in history), learning the difference between the '17 & the '19 is interesting. Watch, now one of us is going to win a bar bet one day drinking somewhere with the history channel on...

"Bah, that's no 1917 browning, it's got no water doohickey around the barrel, now go buy the next round..."
 
Misidentifications aside, it's really not a bad discussion question. Maybe the better way to state the question would be ask if an ANM2 would be a good platform today. Then we'd get into open vs. closed bolt discussion, cost of production, why do we still use the M2HB, etc.

Sam
 
Well, there really has been no good replacement for the .50 HBM2, plus it is almost always vehicle mounted so weight is not a factor.

The M1917 would be impossible in small scale combat, and the M1919 not much better. The M60, had it been reliable and sturdy, could have been a decent gun; unfortunately it was neither, and many M1919's were converted to 7.62 NATO to fill the gap. I don't know enough about the 5.56mm machineguns to comment, but obviously they suffer from the same limitations of the cartridge as the M16/M4.

Jim
 
It would work good for mounted and defencive positions. It may be heavy, but that weight helps with controlability in full auto.
 
My understanding was that 1919 platform fell out of favor b/c of cost of mfg (fewer stamped parts), closed bolt (cookoffs), slower barrel change drill. ANM2 is pretty light, but ROF high - more frequent barrel changes.

M2 perseveres b/c it's used differently, mounted, etc.

Sam
 
again

is it the optimum choice, no. Would it still work, yes.

FYI, the Army did come up with a replacement for the M2. It was the M85, and it was mounted in the cupola of the M60 series tanks. Reciever was shorter and lighter, gun had fixed headspace, and a quick change barrel. Any idea where that gun is today? Seems like it was a one trick pony.
 
The army may not rely on volley fire anymore but numbers are still very important in warfare. That's why National Guard units were sent overseas.

I don't think the M1917 Browning or the Vickers either would be a good weapon anymore because infantry tactics have changed. I'm not so sure the army believes in machine guns that much anymore. But for that matter, not all armies ever saw them the same way anyhow. It all depends what you think a machine gun is for and in the same way, what the infantry should be doing. At the moment they spend a lot of time patrolling in hostile cities hoping a bomb won't go off around the next corner.

Supposedly modern machine guns, beginning with the MG34, had quick change barrels to enable them to take on the role of the heavy, now called medium, machine gun, therefore being an all purpose machine gun. Well, I've never seen a photo of an M240 with a spare barrel. I have seen photos of an M60 with same but some idiot designed the gun so the bipod was attached to the barrel. No personal offence to the designer, you understand. The company I was in had one M60 and it came with one barrel. Are M60's and M240's (and M249's) ever actually fielded accompanied by a spare barrel.

Are machine gunners actually taught to shoot their machine guns single shot?
 
I think everybody needs to remember, that sitting in the back of an Avenger aircraft, at 10,000ft were the outside air temp was probably less than 30 degrees, the ANM2 30cal was the weapon of choice B4 the ANM3 50 cal weapon was available. The ANM weapons were designed for aircraft use only. The 1919 and 1917 were use for ground use only. Also remember that the 1919 had a extremely large barrel ( so you didn't have to change it often). My son has a 1919A4 and I have seen him run 1000 rounds thru it with not problems, But compared to my ANM2, at less than 3000 ft after 200 rounds, my barrel is RED HOT ! Now these weapons will never compare to todays weapons, but they did a good job for what they were designed for.
 
It could still work, but I think only on vehicle mounts. Ground mounting at anything other than ECPs would be a no go. I think a slightly raise rate of fire would be a little better also. I know that was one reason I liked the 3 port gas plug on the M240G better than the single port and hydraulic buffer on the M240B. We were able to raise the rate of fire which made hitting off a moving M1114 a little easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top