Talk:M2 Browning

message: "Ma Deuce" is a bogus nickname.  No one in the US military uses this term.  It is the creation of pompous asshat Peter Kokalis, a hack writer for various gun magazines.
Referring to a .50 caliber Browning as "Ma Deuce" is a certain indication that the speaker is a fake wannabe "veteran"...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.149.233.160 (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the text you are removing cites reliable sources. Your personal take is irrelevant original research. ROG5728 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: R Lee ERMEY called it “Ma Deuce” (with much enthusiasm) in his “Mail Call” series more than once. ¿IS HE a fake veteran? (I tell you what YOU go tell him that, I’ll read about it in the papers the next day- I’m scared even mentioning it, that he’ll read this and let me have it.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The Weekly World News. (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I served a total of 15 years in the Marine Corps.  Post military, I have worked with active duty Soldiers and Marines on numerous programs.  The term "Ma Deuce" has been used frequently by both services.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When I used it 45 years ago, it seemed perfectly logical to us young frenchmen to call a M2 "Ma Deuce", since we spelled it "M' deux" , and was next to "Ma Douce" ('My sweet one"). We called it also "La Nana" (The Chick), which helped us to carry it along, pig-a-back, during some night works... T.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Friends who served in the UK armed forces from the mid-1990s also referred to the BMG as the 'fifty-cal', while calling the L7 a 'jimpy'. These were standard terms. I find it hard to believe the US forces were regularly using the 'Ma Deuce' term, but sources (and internet chinese whispers) are more potent than real-world experience on Wikipedia, because you can cite one and not the other. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:A09B:229B:CF76:530E (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ma Deuce"?

message: Should be noted the operating handle on an M2 only retracts the bolt, similar to an M16. It does not cycle with the bolt and is less of a safety hazard. The recoil spring is very strong, it can take 2 hands to lock and load a Ma Deuce!65.129.181.111 (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operating handle 

message: I have tried to find information on the exact version of M2 used in Brewster B-239s Finland bought during the Winter war, all of the sources I can find call it "Colt MG53-2" but from what I see all search results on Google are about the Finnish "Buffalos" and/or LKk-42, the reverse-engineered copy of M2 that Finland produced during the Continuation war, is "Colt MG53-2" just the manufacturer's own name for the weapon (AN/M2 etc. are US military designations after all)?
Ape89 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Colt MG53-2", the M2 used in Brewster Buffalo? 

message: Hi all guys! First time writing here i have a big question for y'all!
Does someone have a book or a source about the effectiveness of AN/M3 .50 Cal Browning Heavy Machine gun in aircraft use such as mounted on F86 Sabres etc...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.181.1 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony G. Williams is a published expert in the field. He considers the effectiveness issue here: WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS, here: Cannon or Machine Gun, and here: Modern Fighter Gun Effectiveness. His site is a treasure trove. (Hohum @) 00:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP! 

message: So i was going to add a second variant of the M2 Browning that the Swedish have used but i was unable to unmerge the last row of the table. This is needed for the edit as the Swedish variant i was going to add is the AN/M2 and not the M2HB. Does anyone know how to fix this as i would rather not try to edit the wikitable by going through the code as i have basically no experience with working with the code of wikitables?--Blockhaj (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unable to edit the "Users"  wikitable? 

message: :"Features" section of the
 The upgraded M2A1 has a manual trigger block safety.
:but where and in what form is the "Manual Trigger Block Safety" on the M2A1?
::--240fe0730c1 (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the M2A1's manual trigger block safety 

message: How could Pershing before July 1917 request a gun to counter an aircraft that first appeared in August 1917? Clairvoyance, or did Junkers give him a tour of their factory?   Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought first that one writer frustrated with Pershing's omnipotence as at it appears viewed from the source was temptatively led to hint at the fact that the solid point regarding Pershing personal involvement was his 1918 July 18th cable to the Ordnance Department but after a detailed review of that rather complicated subject in source I'm convinced that the expression "U.S. Army Ordnance" like it is used in .50 BMG#History can be rendered perfectly equivalent to "General Pershing wanted", with only very minor style adjustements. So no frustrated writer but the Junkers J.I was introduced in the paragraph erroneously, the July 1918 mainly mediatized circumstance being the failure of 0.30 cal. tracers to disable a G.IV. Remains the paragraph to be reorganized besides, Pershing already wanted a 2,700 feet per second and heavy-caliber armory-piercing projectile in 1917, it seems he increased the spec at 2,750 feet per second in 1918, and specified that 0.50 would stand as an adequate measure. He also rejected Winchester's attempt to mitigating the possible applications of its munition at the same occasion it seems? --Askedonty (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzle 

message: WP has an article about the Browning M1921, which covers its development and the fact that it was the basis for further development resulting in the M2, which has long been well known.
This article opens with a statement that the M2 was designed at the end of WW1? But that was the M1921? And not the actual M2?
I'm very confused by this. Anyone else spot this? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:A09B:229B:CF76:530E (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing