# Yeah the .50 is coming back



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Feb 2006)

Never should have left.
Hope I can get the course.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Feb 2006)

I'll sell you my qual, I'm not using it


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Feb 2006)

but then I wouldn't get to shoot it.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (5 Feb 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Never should have left.
> Hope I can get the course.



Elaborate? What brought it back, how many are coming, etc etc.

Source? Sounds too good to be true..


----------



## Nfld Sapper (5 Feb 2006)

I thought we still used the 50, as the wpn mounts are still in the 1 meter Cadlilac-GAGE turrets.


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Feb 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Never should have left.
> Hope I can get the course.



You did 7 years regs and never got qualified on the .50?  Isn't that a little unusual?


If you can aquire a .50 I'll be more than happy to run ya through the drills  ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Feb 2006)

Got really sick when they were running it.  Then it eventually got phased out.  It used to be the way but things have changed.  Hell I couldn't tell you the names of the tools in the C6 cleaning kit.  Sad I know but when they don't run the course what am I to do.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Feb 2006)

The .50 never left - we have been trg and using it since I got in - DFS has mounted them in Iltis's (bad idea) and LUVW (good idea).

I think that this was more of an individual unit thing..


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The .50 never left - we have been trg and using it since I got in - DFS has mounted them in Iltis's (bad idea) and LUVW (good idea).
> 
> I think that this was more of an individual unit thing..



Well, reserve units deffinitly lost them, and reserve courses don't include them any more.  Mine was the second last year to have 'em, and that was 98/99.  Is there still a RegF course which qualifies you for the .50?


----------



## GO!!! (5 Feb 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Well, reserve units deffinitly lost them, and reserve courses don't include them any more.  Mine was the second last year to have 'em, and that was 98/99.  Is there still a RegF course which qualifies you for the .50?



Taught at unit level, our DFS platoon uses them mounted and dismounted.


----------



## KevinB (5 Feb 2006)

The Mech Bn's lost them and cut the .50 from the MG course (so it became "advanced" C6).

So when they needed .50 instruction - some of the dinosaur Cpl's got stuck teaching it (Jay4th and I amongst others...)

The Light Battalions where not as stupid as the Mech ones...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Feb 2006)

"The Light Battalions where not as stupid as the Mech ones..."
Thanks Kev.    
The powers that be probabley thought that since they had the 25 they didn't need a .50 anymore.  Either way I'm glad coming back (to my BN).


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Feb 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> The powers that be probabley thought that since they had the 25 they didn't need a .50 anymore.  Either way I'm glad coming back (to my BN).



Heh, actually, that's EXACTLY the rationale that we were given at the time.  "It's too heavy to be man-packed by a light BN, and the mech BN's have the 25, so it's not required any more".

If I remember correctly, our response was about 25 simultaneous snorts of derision.  We were taking bets on how long it would take them to realize they'd made a mistake and bring it back.


----------



## MG34 (5 Feb 2006)

The .50cal never left, at least not in Petawawa,we have been conducting .50cal shoots a few times a year.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Feb 2006)

By your profile MG34 I assume your/were in a Mech BN.  If so I wonder why the West Mech BN's went the other way.


----------



## Tracker 23A (5 Feb 2006)

In DLR’s eyes the HMG is gone, they’re just waiting for the CASW so they won’t leave the light uits hanging. But for now, it is still in service and technically has never been retired, except from those who did not know better and started rumours on assumption.  It was just re-added to the 3A/Small Arms course, complete with new drills (being validated with the 3A course that started on 30 Jan, then the pam goes in for translation). The fight to keep it is still ongoing, however when the CASW eventually does show up, the logistical/operational requirement for the .50cal will most likely be won by the new weapon system.

Whether one wants to admit it or not, the CASW is a more effective and lethal weapon system.  Having both of these systems in a unit is costly and therefore when the decision comes to decide on the fate of these sytems, the CASW will most likely win hands down. 

An infantry BN/Pl can only handle so many weapon systems and saying you have something that you may or may not use, depending on the task at hand simply does not make the grade.  In the end the CASW will probably replace the .50 cal since it does the same job and more in one system.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Feb 2006)

By Company Area Suppression Weapon do you mean the 40mm automatic grenade launcher?

Now although the .50 may not have been "retired" in my BN at the very least no courses have been taught on this for years and our BN doesn't hold any that I'm aware of.
That said thank you for clarifing things.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (5 Feb 2006)

Tracker,

Does the CASW have additional capabilities compared to the Mk19?

I conducted a short exchange with a USMC battalion in 1994 on a mountain warfare exercise (Bridgeport CA) that employed both 50 cal HMGs and Mk19 grenade launchers.  I was with the Weapons Company and I spent a lot of time with the "Heavy Guns" Platoon.  They had four 50 cals and four Mk19 grenade launchers in the platoon.

The platoon had HMMVWs, but for this exercise it was all foot borne.  They had pack mules some of the time but for the most part they were man packed.  This platoon gave the battalion some significant integral firepower.  The HMGs and Mk19s were often paired off and chopped out to the rifle companies to give the companies some extra firepower for dispered ops.  US Army "Light Cav" units also employed a pairing of HMGs and Mk 19s as the basic unit.  The HMG and Mk19 have somewhat complimentary effects, and I think that both have a place in an infantry battalion.  Does the CASW change this?


----------



## Tracker 23A (5 Feb 2006)

CFL,

NDHQ had the HMG on the way out the door (this is why some people think it’s gone. They then had it pointed out to them that the HMG was in service with the units tasked in Afghanistan, and removing it removed a capability they could not replace yet. So the HMG got a stay of execution.
Your right, not much has been done WRT trg in the past few years and with that said, the only experience in Bn's these days with the .50 cal are the older guys who actually employed it and recieved "THE" MG Crse, not simply a course designed around the C6.  It was perhaps a bad move, nonetheless one that we all have to live with now.

2Bravo, 

I think what the American's are doing is an excellent use of both systems together, however we have to get out of the habit of comparing ourselves with their military.  We all know it is done daily in the units here in Canada, but to compare our military with that of the US cannot be done in relative terms.  Just because the US does it doesn't make it the correct answer, however I agree with the practicality of employing both weapon systems in order to compliment one another.  If I had my way, we would use both.  However...those who decide these things do so with constraints placed upon them by government and available funds.  

When it comes to the advantages and disadvantages of each weapon system and used in pairs, an entire book could be written on the subject.  The only thing  the CASW does is it gives us the reach of the .50cal with the effects of neutralizing a larger area that is engaged.  Soft skinned vehicles/personnel are neutralized.  Anyone with experience knows the .50cal is absolutely useless against armour and therefore that argument is lost.  

I think what will happen in the end, is because of monies available, the cost of training and limited resources will define the CASW over that of the .50 cal.  However, those that will define the CASW are trying to keep the .50 cal in service with the Bn's.  But we will have to wait and see if "WE" win or not.


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Feb 2006)

I beleive the .50 still has a valid use (take note our brothers to the south still use it very much and the UK Royal Marines have actually added it to their ORBATs about 5 years)..

I remember doing a dismounted deliberate company attack live fire in Shilo (when I was 2 VP) and we humped a couple of 50s plus the ammo for it. It is man portable if you have enough pack mules but man the damage they do on the objective is incredible....

The 25mm is great sytem IF LAV IIIs are around but .50 is much more versatile. You need both IMO. The 50 would make a good D and S weapon at Camps for when times get rough...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (5 Feb 2006)

At the risk of starting "thread drift", it can be useful to look at US practices.  They do operate under financial constraints.  I wouldn't argue for simply copying their organizations, weapons and tactics but they do have experience with AGLs (the USMC battalion still had 60mm mortars at the company level even with the Mk19).  I should admit, however, that I have spent time on exchange with the US military on individual and collective training so I do have some biases.  I'll also admit that many of my collegues are tired of my "US band camp" stories...

I have a hard time accepting cost as a reason to cut the HMG.  50 cal ammo does cost money, of course, and the system does have further O&M costs such as parts, techs and individual training.  I still figure, however, that the costs for this rather simple and proven system are justified by its capabilities.

For the LAV battalions I recognize that the 25mm cannons make the HMG somewhat superfluous.  It is for our "Light" forces that I want the HMG.  I have seen some "big hand, little map" briefings on the CASW but little that gets into details.  How does it compare with the HMG with respect to effects on fortifications and structures?  For vehicles, how would the CASW compare with the HMG for dealing with car bombs and "technicals"?  How does its accuracy compare?  Please note that I am not arguing against the CASW, just that I would rather see a mixed DFS platoon for the light infantry.

I suppose one could argue for a "DFS" platoon consisting of C6s and CASW.  I would still like to actually see the CASW as opposed to a powerpoint wish list of capabilities.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Gunnerlove (5 Feb 2006)

CASW= 40mm automatic grenade launcher.

I disagree with the "which is better" arguments between the two weapons systems. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.
All I know is I want to be engaged by neither and really don't want both opening up on me. 

By useless against armour you must mean "useless against modern MBTs" as a .50 will chew through APCs and most other armoured vehicles including those used by Canada. If you want to sit in an M113 while someone feeds it a belt from an M2 you are nuts. Punching through 34mm of mild steel at 500m a SLAP round is quite impressive.


----------



## Tracker 23A (5 Feb 2006)

Keep the thinking  of the two systems in simple terms, of course they have their pros an cons.

WRT armour, the .50 cal can chew through light armour, however by the time they make their first hit at range, that enemy armour will most likely engage it with its superior armaments.  And if you consider we don't employ AVGP's with pintel mounted .50's anymore in the infantry and consider the horrible accuracy that was the reality of the mount on the M113, that .50 cal isn't that effective at range against point tgts, unless you consider the beaten zone "maybe hitting something".  
A reality we all must come to terms with is that everything we do in this world is defined by available money and to say that cost isn't a valid argument or it shouldn't be, well it is.

Army Rick,

if you compare the damage of the .50 cal to that of the CASW, there is none.  One round from a .50cal travelling in a line to where it hits as compared to one round of a 40mm grenade exploding over head/on impact and placing fragments in every direction is uncomparible.  The probability of hitting a tgt at range increases with the CASW as with the .50cal because it has more fragments that cover a greater area.  Without getting into the BS of both systems, if you had to pick one, over the other, I would suspect anyone with experience/knowledge of the two systems would pick the CASW.

It does give you a bigger bang for the buck.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (5 Feb 2006)

I do recognize that money is a big "driver" of equipment.  We have infinite wants, and money is indeed one of the big determinants of what we can actually have (reference my signature quotation).  There are other drivers as well, such as available technology and prevailing doctrine.

With respect the HMG, we already have the piece of equipment in question, so it is not like we have the extra costs associated with a "program".  I recognize the O&M costs (I used to manage the ammo budget for a training centre), but I still do not accept that the "costs" of the HMG outweigh its capabilities (cost/benefit).  There are training costs as well (measured mostly in time), but I believe that our soldiers can master multiple weapon systems within the time that we have.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Feb 2006)

given that cost is a factor, I don't see why we are acquiring the CASW as an alternative anyway.

We already have a number of wpn systems that no-one has ever fired, due to monetary restraints. The ERYX comes to mind.

We already own the M2 - why not stay proficient with it? 

We all know that the Mk 19 allotment will be something ridiculously low, like 20rnds/gunner/year, with the stupid chalk round that does not have the ballistics of the HE. 

Both of these systems can be mounted on a LUVW, and neither is very hard to use - more is better!


----------



## bigdog031 (27 Feb 2006)

who out ther does not think the 50 cal MG should not be brought back as a vechile mounted weapon,and if so why


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Feb 2006)

bigdog, slow down; you're posting one-liners that should start with a search to see what discussions have already been done.

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412

You will also find that putting a little time and energy into phrasing clearly worded posts is worth the effort, and attracts good debate.

Regarding the use of "MSN speak" or poor writing versus the employment of prose which is correct in grammar, spelling and punctuation, please see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34015/post-260446.html#msg260446

Grammar and Sentence Structures - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31327.0.html

Re: Grammar and Sentence Structures - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31327/post-340105.html#msg340105


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Feb 2006)

How good is the grenade launcher when you dealing with an enemy under/behind cover? What sort of penetration does it have against light armour?

Never got to see one  as they came in after I left, but I have had the distinct displeasure of being shot at by a .50cal (ft Lewis, US National Guard) I also have seen what they can do to light armour and field fortifications.  

Getting rid of them is just plain dumb. If the Mech units don’t need them because of the 25mm, then move them to the units that don’t have a lot of organic firepower, like the arty, Log and to the reserves. At least then they can come back and grab them when they realize the new “wonder weapon dejour” will not solve everything. I frankly see the mix of a .50 and a grenade launcher as a nice package.

There is a reason why this gun has been around for as long as it has and like the tank it’s the announcement of it’s death is always premature.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Feb 2006)

"but I have had the distinct displeasure of being shot at by a .50cal (ft Lewis, US National Guard)"
Oh this needs elaboration!


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (1 Mar 2006)

As I read the reports of our troops in sunny Afghanistan, I keep running our ambush drills through my head, and asking myself which weapons would yield what result.  There is no question that a .50 HMG lays down a heck of a beaten fire zone, and will turn walls and masonry into shrapnel with no effort.  What strikes me as more important though, is that it is just LOS.  Firing from sangers or slit trenches the .50 may as well be a .223 for all the threat it offers, whereas the grenade launchers lays down a fragmentation pattern that is a threat to anyone without serious overhead protection.  Also, when your ambushers escape and evade down routes planned to be out of sight of the ambush position, the .50 may as well be on the moon for all the good it will do.  Grenade launchers and mortar fire have the potential to turn the enemies line of retreat into a shrapnel alley.  .50 and the grenade launchers would be a great mix, but given the choice of only one, I think the rapid fire grenade launcher would add the most advantage to our troops.  As far as anti-armour goes, neither system is the weapon of choice, we have other tools for tank-killing.


----------



## Dissident (1 Mar 2006)

Hey, maybe the MP Bn that is supposed to be stood up in 07 can use them, since one of our main task is convoy escort. Just a thought.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Mar 2006)

The problem with that is that by having just the grenade option you have the potential for huge collateral damage where as the .50 is more precise comparatively speaking.  I believe the Americans do try to alternate with the aforementioned wpn systems to have a mixed bag.


----------



## KevinB (1 Mar 2006)

WRT the .50 being a LOS direct fire weapon -- you obviously where never a MG student... It is possible to do indirect fire with the .50

WRT to the AGL -- the 40mm Hiv-Vel (as opposed to 40mm M203) HE-DP round has a surprising amount of chemical energy for armour penetration - while it is not about to take a MBT - it will due a nasty job on Light Armoured Vehicles and destroy the perescopes, LRF's, and comms on heavier vehicles.

There needs to be a mix.

  Neither is a replacement for the other.


----------



## DG-41 (1 Mar 2006)

Aren't the mounts interchangeable, ie, a Mk19 will fit an M2 mount and vice versa?

RUMINT has the C&R GWagon Recce Tp mounting a 50% mix of Mk19 and M2.

DG


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Mar 2006)

CRL

Just patrolling along the edge of the impact area when we came over the rise just as a group of NG in M113’s a bit further off the edge of the impact area opened up.

KevinB

The British used to issue indirect firing tables for the Vickers, it was a common practice to use them for denial of dead ground. 

Wouldn’t putting the .50 on top of the G wagon increase the topweight by quite a bit?

I notice the Bison does not use the same turret as the G-wagon, any particular reason?


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> The Mech Bn's lost them and cut the .50 from the MG course (so it became "advanced" C6).
> So when they needed .50 instruction - some of the dinosaur Cpl's got stuck teaching it (Jay4th and I amongst others...)
> The Light Battalions where not as stupid as the Mech ones...


Well, mech/light battalions are just force generators for whatever's needed: mounted or otherwise.  But, given the choice between 138 grams of tungsten going at 1410 metres per second and a ball round going much MUCH slower, well, I'd take the tungsten 

But, in all seriousness, there was no more need for the .50 in a mech company.  With 15 stabilised 25mm Autocannons slaved to a thermal and II sight in a company, there wasn't much use for a .50.  Remember its primary role (if it still is listed as such) to "provide anti APC fire out to 500 (?) metres".  Given that that M242 can do in a BMP, front on, while on the move, at up to 2200 metres, and given that with FAPDS-T it is also highly effective vs Aircraft, and given the HEI-T out to 2400m, it was a matter of "either/or".  And remember that bn's don't really get to pick and choose what weapons they use: it's "the corps" (or some other think tank, probably in Ottawa) that decides who gets what.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> Aren't the mounts interchangeable, ie, a Mk19 will fit an M2 mount and vice versa?
> 
> RUMINT has the C&R GWagon Recce Tp mounting a 50% mix of Mk19 and M2.
> 
> DG


RUMINT SUPPRESSION: the CASW will NOT be the Mk 19


----------



## GO!!! (4 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> The problem with that is that by having just the grenade option you have the potential for huge collateral damage where as the .50 is more precise comparatively speaking.



With a 4000m range, and the ability to punch through several (dozen?) mud walls? 

I would think that the 40mm grenade would cause less CD, because frag and blast can only go so far, while that half inch slug can go a loooong way!


----------



## KevinB (4 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> RUMINT SUPPRESSION: the CASW will NOT be the Mk 19



CASW = German 
is it not?


----------



## Canadian Sig (2 May 2006)

Not to dig up an old thread but I saw a G-wagon drive by with a .50 mounted on it in Wainwright a few days ago. Man that gun looks huge on that truck!


----------



## geo (2 May 2006)

was the gun mounted on one of the new turrets?
Turrets were designed to carry either C6 or 50... and conceivably an AGL


----------



## Canadian Sig (2 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> was the gun mounted on one of the new turrets?
> Turrets were designed to carry either C6 or 50... and conceivably an AGL



Yup..It was. I'll see if I can catch a pic of one this week.


----------



## Fusaki (2 May 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Well, mech/light battalions are just force generators for whatever's needed: mounted or otherwise.  But, given the choice between 138 grams of tungsten going at 1410 metres per second and a ball round going much MUCH slower, well, I'd take the tungsten



Muzzle velocity for APFSDS-T is 1405m/s, not 1410m/s.... now where's my cookie? ;D

FAPDS-T is 1310m/s. I'm on my gunner course.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2006)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Muzzle velocity for APFSDS-T is 1405m/s, not 1410m/s.... now where's my cookie? ;D
> 
> FAPDS-T is 1310m/s. I'm on my gunner course.


What's 5m/sec between friends? 
But you are, of course, correct (though it is +/- a few metres)

Cheers

v Garvin


----------



## Fusaki (2 May 2006)

> What's 5m/sec between friends?



I'll try that line with my Course WO on the next PO check. 

Considering I lost a half mark for answering "main gun battle aiming crosshairs" instead of "main gun battle aiming mark", I don't think I'll get very far though.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 May 2006)

Speaking of .50's I just signed for 4 today for a upcoming course.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2006)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I'll try that line with my Course WO on the next PO check.


Unless you're friends with your Course WO, don't 


			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Considering I lost a half mark for answering "main gun battle aiming crosshairs" instead of "main gun battle aiming mark", I don't think I'll get very far though.


ROFLMAO! :rofl:  Probably not!


----------



## TCBF (4 May 2006)

"Considering I lost a half mark for answering "main gun battle aiming crosshairs" instead of "main gun battle aiming mark", I don't think I'll get very far though."

 ;D

- Gotta love all Gunnery courses.  " Screw retaining, intermediate firing needle withdrawl lever."  WHAT?

- Take all of your deviant personalities and make them Gunnery Instructors, that way you can hate them for a socially acceptable reason!

 Tom


----------



## Trooper Hale (4 May 2006)

Australian army 12.7's (.50's) are still going strong! We've just got some new ones and they hum! Its a thing of beauty hearing one hammer and putting rounds down range, especially on the ground mount. Come down here and we'll put you on the course! Its definately worth it!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 May 2006)

Can anyone tell me if they are still using Gun oil (not CLP) and if so what the NSN or proper name of the Oil is.  Thanks.


----------



## geo (6 May 2006)

When firing?
Definitively not CLP

Hmmmm...... general purpose oil from ESSO?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 May 2006)

You and I both know that but those in charge of POL are having a hard time finding it.


----------



## TCBF (7 May 2006)

The American "Cherry Juice": Lube Oil, Automatic Weapons (LAW) oil - not LSA.

Can we still get it?

MIL-L-14107 Lubricating Oil, Weapons [LAW]

    9150-00-292-9689                         1 qt can

    9150-00-292-9687                         5 gal can


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> The American "Cherry Juice": Lube Oil, Automatic Weapons (LAW) oil - not LSA.
> 
> Can we still get it?



Tom,

We used to stand over the gun and pour that stuff on the thing, by the quart, while it was firing. If it caught fire, you beat it out with a rag!! ;D Failing that, good old 10W30 sufficed. They ran all day like that, and the next, and the one after that, if you were smart enough not to take them apart 

The simple maxim being: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :


----------



## GO!!! (11 May 2006)

The .50 is definitely coming back - I just finished the HMG course.

Doing the AA shoot had to be the most fun I've had shooting in awhile, once we got the stoppages sorted out.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 May 2006)

Now if only I could get on that course.


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2006)

I learned the .50 in a full up machine gun course, and it was indeed the best piece of kit I ever had the pleasure of firing (tripod and AA mount). What always stunned me was the GPMG C-5 (Browning M1919) was such a POS even though you could see the close mechanical relationship when they were stripped and laid out. Various instructors blamed it on mechanical wear (headspacing and timing was quite tricky) or the alterations made to convert the weapon to fire 7.62 X 51 NATO. Lucky for all of us the C-6 finally came into service.

WRT augments about ,50 vs AGL (or whatever acronym of the day we are using), shake your heads. Each weapon has a role and one compliments the other. USMC LVTP 7 "Amtracks" have turrets mounting one of each weapon, with the .50 to chew on point and hard targets and the AGL to suppress or destroy area targets. Common sense would dictate a fire support platoon or company in the light battalion should have a mixture of each, we can always eat the cost somewhere else (Base landscaping and computer replacement come to mind).


----------



## paracowboy (16 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> WRT augments about ,50 vs AGL (or whatever acronym of the day we are using), shake your heads. Each weapon has a role and one compliments the other.


precisely! Unless we're going to design a system to deliver the same basic round more efficiently, Mr. Browning's big toy is still an amazing piece of kit.


----------



## geo (16 May 2006)

The.50 has a talent for getting everyone's attention, at any time.
The 20mm is a bigger gun with a higher rate of fire. Some of the doctrine boys would say that it shoud have replaced the .50 BUT, in the end, the reliability and flexibility of the .50 justifies keeping it around.


----------



## paracowboy (16 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> BUT, in the end, the reliability and flexibility of the .50 justifies keeping it around.


you can never have enough guns!


----------



## geo (16 May 2006)

Hehehe


----------



## Canadian Sig (21 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> was the gun mounted on one of the new turrets?
> Turrets were designed to carry either C6 or 50... and conceivably an AGL



Saw it again and it was just mounted on the usual ring not the armoured turret.


----------



## GAP (20 Jul 2006)

Marines Slated to Get Thermal Gun Sights
Stars and Stripes  By Jeff Schogol  July 14, 2006
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,105580,00.html?ESRC=marine-a.nl

WASHINGTON — Marines in Iraq are slated to get thermal sights for .50 caliber machine guns mounted on tanks, said John J. Young Jr., director of Defense Research and Engineering.

As of right now, .50 caliber machine guns on M1A1 tanks have no sights, Young said.

“That’s going to production this month, to buy thermal sights for the Marine Corps tanks, and the Army is also partner in this and has an option to buy systems for their tanks,” Young said.

Young did not say if .50 caliber machine guns on Humvees would also be getting the sights.
More on link


----------



## Red 6 (27 Jul 2006)

Never content to leave well enough alone, the US armed forces is working to replace the Ma Deuce. Check it out:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/xm307-madeuce-replacement-gets-more-investment/index.php

Hopefully, the Canadian Army will stay smart and keep the old reliable.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jul 2006)

I think Infidel was saying something to the effect that the whole X series was kibohed.  That was a while ago.


----------



## Red 6 (27 Jul 2006)

They put the stops to the GL for the time being, but the machine gun is still in development. Now, the OCIW, which was the shoulder weapon, got cancelled.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jul 2006)

seen


----------



## ArmyRick (27 Jul 2006)

I love the old .50 but according to the stats, the new gun GD is working on is better.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jul 2006)

Well the 50 has been around since the end of WW1.  That's quite the rep to beat.


----------



## GO!!! (28 Jul 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Well the 50 has been around since the end of WW1.  That's quite the rep to beat.



Amen.

There is little in the way of enemy anything that can handle a belt of armour piercing incendiary tracer - in dusty, wet or cold conditions.


----------



## mcqueen (28 Jul 2006)

I traded my gal for a fifty-cal. ;D


----------



## Red 6 (28 Jul 2006)

mcqueen said:
			
		

> I traded my gal for a fifty-cal. ;D



 :fifty:


----------



## Jay4th (28 Jul 2006)

I think I saw a recruiting poster in a museum once with that slogan.  I am thinking of chairing a support group for people like us.  
"Friends of the fifty"  It will be run once a week at the "Cpl 4th center for obscure weapons that no-one remembers anymore."
If only I can find one without a QCB that we can worship on an alter.


----------



## KevinB (28 Jul 2006)

Its always nice to teach SNCO's the .50 eh?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jul 2006)

I was just reading in a year old copy of naval proceedings about the how the .50 is replacing 20mm in many application thanks mainly to the new ammo available for it and that the advantages of the 20mm mount is limited in the hand powered form and requires an powered mount to take better advantage of it’s greater range.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Jul 2006)

Seems to me with the USN anyways the 25mm has all but replaced the .50


----------



## 043 (6 Nov 2006)

Hey all, you know where I can find the New .50 Drills?


----------



## paracowboy (6 Nov 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> Hey all, you know where I can find the New .50 Drills?


check your pms.


----------



## geo (6 Nov 2006)

have you checked LFDTS and the electronic library?


----------



## paracowboy (6 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> have you checked LFDTS and the electronic library?


old drills. Same with the brand-new .50 pam.


----------



## PhilB (6 Nov 2006)

So the drills havent changed? I have a copy of the older pam


----------



## paracowboy (6 Nov 2006)

PhilB said:
			
		

> So the drills havent changed? I have a copy of the older pam


the drills HAVE changed, but nobody has bothered to put the new drills down anywhere yet.  :


----------



## Blakey (7 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> the drills HAVE changed, but nobody has bothered to put the new drills down anywhere yet.  :



Took my course in 94, I was informed that the IA has changed, no more "1,2,3,4,5" on the feed tray cover, this true? I have to get onto that gun again.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Nov 2006)

From the Centre of Excellence:
Pen has been put to paper regarding the .50.  Although the Armd School is (as I type this) the C of E for the .50, it is reverting back to its home at the other end of the hall.  As I am not at work on a daily basis right now (home on DL), I don't have visibility on when it will be released/approved.
Having said all that, I also don't have visibility on any amendments/changes to drills.


----------



## geo (7 Nov 2006)

Hmmm.... given mods to the weapon like the quick change barrel, the drills must have changed.   Headspacing isn`t an issue anymore.....

Lemmie check with R22R school as to what is currently used - worse case scenario, might consult the US manuals.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Nov 2006)

I can't see the Drills changing to any great degree.  What definitely has changed are the "7 Point Checks" and other maint checks/proceedures.  Gone are the checks and IA's for Headspacing and Timing.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... given mods to the weapon like the quick change barrel, the drills must have changed.   Headspacing isn`t an issue anymore.....
> 
> Lemmie check with R22R school as to what is currently used - worse case scenario, might consult the US manuals.


On my basic MG course in 1989 we had the quick change barrels, so, any changes were done around that time (they were just coming in at that time: we still had to learn "headspace" and "timing".)


----------



## 043 (7 Nov 2006)

Man, you guys are killing me this morning. I am sorry I asked the question. Thanks for the pm's.


----------



## TCBF (8 Nov 2006)

I imagine John Moses Browning is rolling in his grave screaming "What have all these idiots done to  my Machine Gun?"

"CAMT 7-30, Battalion and Company Machine Guns" is a good read.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Nov 2006)

There is the small arms SME at gagetown (A british guy) who has help developed the new drills for the .50


----------



## AmmoTech90 (8 Nov 2006)

Question for you guys, what model of QCB do we use in the CF?  Is it the same as the one the Brits have adopted and do we have the soft mount for it?

D


----------



## c4th (10 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> the drills HAVE changed, but nobody has bothered to put the new drills down anywhere yet.  :



Not true Dude.  The package is complete and was approved by DAT this summer and is somewhere in the publication process.

For you old dogs, the drills have been simplified to be similar to what soldiers have seen with other MG's  Gone is hot barrel unload and some further action drills.  Really, it is not all that mind blowing but you can throw out your old 50 pams.

Para, I will hand deliver you a copy on or around the 14th when I return.  It'll give you some light reading for leave since I know you have no life


----------



## paracowboy (11 Nov 2006)

c4th said:
			
		

> Para, I will hand deliver you a copy on or around the 14th when I return.  It'll give you some light reading for leave since I know you have no life


delivering pams and pubs to my bear-like den is turning into a hobby for you, lately. By the way, how are they treating my guns down there?


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Nov 2006)

Luckily we have better ammo than the Brits... or they have stronger right arms

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/23/nammo23.xml


----------



## geo (28 Nov 2006)

.... Ah - to all those nay sayers who always kept on harping that our DND was always buying things that were Crap...

There is proof that well.... others have it even worse than us   ???


----------



## GO!!! (29 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> .... Ah - to all those nay sayers who always kept on harping that our DND was always buying things that were Crap...
> 
> There is proof that well.... others have it even worse than us   ???



Well, they've definitely got a leg up on us in the wet weather/boots/LB equipment department - but right now those guys are driving around in unarmored land rovers with SA - 80s. So if you survive the ambush - your crappy rifle will jam! 

On the other hand, we have the TV and the prospector boots, so I guess every military has it's strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Trooper Hale (29 Nov 2006)

Nothing wrong with Land Rovers, Aussie blokes who just got decorated for helping out the Canadians in A-Stan were in Landies and they didnt do to bad, granted they were SF land Rovers. And yeah, all militaries have pro's and con's.


----------



## GO!!! (30 Nov 2006)

Hale said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with Land Rovers, Aussie blokes who just got decorated for helping out the Canadians in A-Stan were in Landies and they didnt do to bad, granted they were SF land Rovers. And yeah, all militaries have pro's and con's.



Nothing wrong with Rovers at all - I'd just want one that was armoured.


----------

