Talk:M1919 Browning machine gun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Removed references to "7.62mm" when the cartridge in question is the US M1906 .30 caliber. It was never referred to as such in US usage, while "7.62mm" would indicate the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.202.228.215 (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me all, I came here to see if the M1919 sucked (forgive me for using the technical term). While I understand NPOV and all that, how did this LMG compare to others of the era? Paul, in Saudi 16:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting shot by one sucked about as much as getting shot by an MG42. Or - well, getting shot in general.Michael Dorosh 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True enough ! The M1919 had a much lower rate of fire than the MG42, but so do most machineguns. It was comperable to other belt-fed guns of the era. The ability to link together many metallic belts, as on the MG42 and most modern MGs, is a really nice feature the M1919 lacked with its cloth belts. DMorpheus 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feed system[edit]

In the 'History' section, last sentence, it states: "The weapon originally fired the 30-06 or the M2 rifle cartridge in either woven cloth or disintegrating metallic link belts fed from left to right". The picture at the top of the article clearly shows the weapon feeding from right to left. I assume this means the image is the wrong way round, but I don't know how to correct it.


RASAM 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures showing it feeding from both sides. I know the M2 50 cal, also a Browning design from the same time, can be converted to load from either direction, the M1919 might be the same way


I haven't seen other photos like that - I too thought the lead photo was reversed. DMorpheus 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It is clearly a reversed image.

The M1917 and M1919 guns were lefthand-feed only. Righthand fed capability was not added until the M37 gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.202.228.215 (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The M1919(especially the aircraft variants) has versions that can feed from either side. You can see this by looking at pictures of ball-turret gunners in american bombers because the guns feed from opposite sides in the turrets. Here's one. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRx3UoIAr5-wwpbDxvTAWGJp5ExBBy9APHQQg&usqp=CAU Blamazon (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Variants[edit]

Up to now, The Sweedish Ksp m42 was a totally different variant of the M1919A4. Was there any other foreign variants that were totally different like this one?

User:Jetwave Dave 18:04, 23 March 2007

Similarly, the RAF aircraft gun was 'not' just a Browning chambered for .303 Owing to problems with the cordite propellant in British small arms ammunition, there had to be a lot of changes to it (the first trials aircraft had suffered a cook-off), including the open-bolt lock.
"The same basic weapon was also chambered for the British .303 round, and was used as a basic fighter aircraft gun in fighters such as the Supermarine Spitfire"
is really Just Plain Wrong for an article at this level of detail. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether to either add a fairly large section under Variants, or to start a whole new article as the British .303 Browning? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How large does it need to be? I would think sentence mentioning it would be enough, but if you can make a larger article out of it feel free to. How these things have generally gone, however, has been the creation of perpetual stubs that would be better incorporated back into this article. The Ksp m/42 is a perfect example of it. The user that separated it is now permanently blocked and even if the page were to be expanded the amount of detail available would probably make for a very short article. Be bold. If you can do the thing justice or know that people will split it off, otherwise, just add a relevant amount of detail here, maybe even creation a subsection of the foreign variants. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it was the major Allied weapon of the Battle of Britain, it wouldn't be unreasonable to claim that it was the single most historically influential development of the M1919 (US aircraft largely used .50 cal, and although important to US ground forces it hardly won the Bulge single-handed). That seems like enough notability to justify an article.
Mainly though, I'm just saddened by the British aircraft articles that insist (and revert corrections) that they used ".303/7.7mm" and "M1919 MGs". This is a gross, and widespread, inaccuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The British aircraft gun was actually a licence-built version of the gun made by Fabrique Nationale (who John Browning worked for, for a time) and was then modified in the UK for aircraft use by greatly increasing the rate of fire. The British version fired from an open bolt, as opposed to the original M1919 which fired from a closed bolt.
In contemporary news reports and similar, the guns were often referred-to though, as 'Colt-Brownings', as ISTR, that Britain ordered some to the revised design from Colt in the USA before the US entered the war.
The .303 Browning was fine as an aircraft gun up until the middle part of the Battle of Britain, but by then the Luftwaffe had started adding more armour to its aircraft and the gun started to show the limitations of a rifle-calibre bullet - the Luftwaffe had not needed to do this in the prior Spanish Civil War, as the fighter opposition had proved ineffective. For this likely future possibility the RAF had for some time previously been planning to go over to the Hispano 20mm cannon, although after initial reliability problems with trial installations during the Battle, the RAF specified a 12-gun armament of .303 Brownings as a stop-gap until the cannon could be made to work. This 12-gun .303 armament was specified for the Typhoon IA and the Hurricane IIB, and as a possible armament for the Miles M.20. Fortunately the cannon was made reliable and most Typhoons and Hurricane IIs had the four-gun armament of the 20mm Hispanos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.74.61 (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a short video showing a 1941 UK aircraft .303 Browning recovered from a crashed Spitfire in Ireland being fired on YouTube here; [1] - note the higher rate of fire than other Browning ground-based guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Browning aircraft M1918
With an open top cover
  • British .303 Browning has nothing to do with FN, AFAIK FN wasn't marketing any Browning design on the British Isles just like Colt wasn't marketing any in continental Europe, they had an agreement. The British aircraft MG is a redesigned Colt MG40, the commercial/export version of the .30 AN/M2, which in turn has nothing to do with M1919 (designation "Browning Tank Machine Gun, Model of 1919" clearly indicates it was developed for tanks) but is a pinnacle in the development series which started with the Aircraft Machine Gun, Model of 1918 (see [2] for details), itself a direct derivative of the M1917. I believe AN/M2 clearly warrants a separate article because the external similarity with M1919 is deceitful, they have little if any interchangeable parts. Ain92 (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Some citations would be nice (and indeed, are required for a better classification. The article also really needs expandind. Carom 13:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M1919A2 Question[edit]

I know this variant was used by the US Cavalry in the 1920s, Was it ever used in World War 2/Vietnam War?. Myself, I think it should have been becouse it had a shorter barrel and would be well suited to Infantry units, especially Paratroops and Marines. User:EX STAB, 14:18, 23 March 2007.

No, the M1919A2 was specifically for cavalry units. When the shift from horses to vehicles was made, the M1919A2 soldiered on for a short period between the wars on these vehicles, but by the time WWII had rolled around the M1919A4 had taken the show. It might've been well suited to infantry units, but the structure of US infantry units and their associated tactics to this day are not suited to such a weapon. The M1919A4s were held in a weapon platoon, while M1917s and .50 caliber M2s were held at company level. The possibly mobility afforded by the M1919A2, even at platoon level, is sort of irrelevant as these weapons were supposed to provide supporting fire, not be used as an assault weapon. The BAR provided suppressive fire capability at squad level and during assaults. -- Thatguy96 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hand-Carrying[edit]

In the movie Death Wish 3, Charles Bronson's character is shown carrying and firing a Browning M1919. Is it possible to do this? 158.123.160.2 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, yes, possible to do so comfortably or accurately or for prolonged periods of time, not likely. A modified M1919 with a shoulder sling and side-mounted pistol grip made from a cocking handle was also featured in the movie Terminator 3. -- Thatguy96 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, considering the M1919 was recoil-driven, it may also cause stoppages from failure to feed if the weapon is allowed free movement in the direction of recoil. Deathbunny 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Browning M-1917 or the .50 caliber Browning M2? 24.250.1.196 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention a burned left hand. DMorpheus 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some troops used to carry the M1919 as a 'GPMG' since it was the only belt fed weapon to match the likes of the German MG34/MG42. The M1919A6's were used by the South Vietnamese army as they were rid of in US service since they had the M60. Some troops also thought it was 'macho' to carry the M1919 by hand.

Link Here

There's nothing on that link that suggests that anyone ever fired an M1919 "from the hip" in combat, and while I'm sure it happened in select instances, it was never accepted doctrine. Neither the M1919 or M60 were ever used at squad level in standard infantry units, and the M240 isn't either. You don't see people running around with them, and its not part of tactical doctrine. -- Thatguy96 18:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is possible to do this with the M1919A6, but it has as much effectiveness as hip-firing an MG34 or MG42. Specialized handgrips were made that could be fitted to any M1919 to allow for hip-firing such as the one shown in the show "THE PACIFIC". The M1919 Stinger was designed to be fired from the hip, as well as to be able to quickly change from hip to prone firing. Tony Stein carried a Stinger. Here is picture of a stinger. https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/stinger_replica.jpg Blamazon (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have seen that scene with the Terminator. If you look at it, you can see that that setup is not very good. He had very little control over the weapon. Machine guns(of every kind) work way better when you use two hands.Blamazon (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fielded when?[edit]

I have found that pinning down a date when the M1919 was purchased in bulk and distributed to U.S. units is not as obvious a question as one might think. Does anyone know an authoritative date? A deployment date is conspicously missing from standard references.

Photographic evidence indicates the M1919 was first deployed sometime around 1941 -- M2 combat cars, M2 and M3 light tanks provided to Great Britain are shown with the MG. 1940 photos of the U.S. Army show M1917 water-cooled MGs mounted on vehicles. W. B. Wilson 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what variant. The M1919A4 was likely purchased en-masse around when you're talking about, but the M1919-A3 were definitly purchased before that. Photographic evidence supports this:
[3] -> Picture shows T1 Light Armored Car with what pretty clearly seems to be 2 M1919A2, vehicle first developed 1928
[4] -> Picture even more clearly shows a long barreled M1919, vehicle first developed 1930
[5] -> The hull MG and co-ax MG do not appear to be water-cooled .30 caliber MGs, vehicle first developed 1932
So there are already these examples from one site, and I'm sure I've seen more. I would think it more likely to say that the M1919A4 was introduced between 1940-1941. The adoption of the M1919A4 is generally regarded as when the weapon entered more wide-spread service. Note the M1917 continued to be used in fairly large quantities right through Korea. -- Thatguy96 15:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the Field Manual (FM 23-45) for the M1919A4 ([6]), is dated 1940, and there should have been manuals for the M1919-A3 printed before then. -- Thatguy96 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly (at least for the time being hehe), here are some following introduction dates for vehicles for which the M1919 was a part of the basic armament):
Combat Car M1 (fitted with either the AN/M2 or M1919A4): 1935
Combat Car M1A1/A1E1 (fitted with the M1919A4): 1938
Light Tank M1 (fitted with the M1919?): 1928
Light Tank M2/A1/A2 (fitted with the M1919A4): 1935
Light Tank M2A3 (fitted with the M1919A4): 1938

From AFV Database

From here we can quickly see that the M1919 was definitly introduced before 1941. -- Thatguy96 16:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I recall reading a version used by the cavalry was already in service between the World Wars. I meant the A4, although I didn't specify this. Are you sure about A4's being on those vehicles in 1930's -- I thought the vehicular version was the A5 or some other different version? Cheers W. B. Wilson 17:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were two purpose built vehicle guns, the M1919A4E1 and M1919A5. However, the M1919A4 did have fixed version, which was used interally on vehicles. The M1919A4E1 and A5 were responses to more cramped confines in various newer tanks, which mainly required the fitting of the extended charging handle (common to both variants). I am almost 75% sure of A4s being on those vehicles I mentioned (the AFV Database is relatively well cited and sourced). The pictures from WarWheels.net I have no exact idea what models those are or when. -- Thatguy96 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more note -- the M1917s on vehicles I saw were on halftracks IIRC. Perhaps the cavalry and armor units got the M1919s first, followed by the infantry? Hmm, makes me want to check photos from the Phillipines campaign and Wake Island to see if I can spot any M1919s with the infantry! On M1917s in the KW, my father told me his unit had some 'artists' who fired the M1917s with an indirect trajectory, guided by spotters with radios, to beat down the reverse slopes of hills. Thanks for all the comments. W. B. Wilson 17:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, the USMC on Wake Island might not have had them yet. Photos from the Buna Campaign ought to show them, though. W. B. Wilson 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On quick look at the photographic sources I have, I can find in the Squadron-Signal book on the M2/M3 Halftrack (M3 Halftrack in Action, Armor in Action #34, Squadron Publication #2034) one picture of the T7 armored car (circa 1930s) with what appears to be 2 M1919A2s, as well as, the 1938 T7 half track car prototype fitted with one .50 caliber M2HB, and what appears to be a pre-1919A4 long-barreled gun (barrel jacket is not the same style as that on the A4). However, I've also found pictures from as late as 1945 showing the M1917 being used (even in conjunction with the M1919A4), so when one officially supplanted the other at least in this role is unclear. They definitly continued to soldier on together right through Korea in the infantry, but I'm not sure about vehicular uses. -- Thatguy96 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The M1917A1 was used as a heavy machinegun, which makes sense given its sustained fire rate. Thus it was not truly 'replaced' by the M1919. DMorpheus 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image gone?[edit]

It seems to have disappeared (the infobox image that is) --Tom of north wales 18:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you click on the link to the image location you can read why. -- Thatguy96 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture with girl[edit]

Can we please replace it with something else, it seems silly to have a picture of a machinegun and then ahve a lil girl next to it(ForeverDEAD 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed. This article looks like a scrap-book. Remove redundant photos and expand the technical description if possible. Koalorka (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LMG?[edit]

isnt the m1919 a light machine gun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.23.120 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the M1919A6 was intended to be used as a light machine gun. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The M1919A6 is a GPMG like the MG42 or MG34. LMGs are weapons like the BAR, BREN, FG-42, M1941 Johnson LMG, etc. LMGs are usually lighter, load 20-round magazines, and are much more mobile than GPMGs. I guess you could call it an LMG, but it would be a stretch. Blamazon (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Users[edit]

The 'Users' link in the infobox directs to nowhere. It appears that Berean Hunter removed the section stating that it was unsourced. Most, but not all, were indeed unsourced. One way to fix this is to bring back the section and source and delete as necessary. If not, the infobox needs to be fixed. I would, however, like to see some kind of list of users per the convention in small arms articles. Thoughts on how to handle this? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to delete the one sourced bit and I have restored it. The goal is to have all entries in this section to have citations.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I will do some research and see if we can find some sources for the others. As common as the M1919 is/was, it shouldn't be too difficult. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Good job. You did that quickly.
I have been trying to think of the best approach for raising the bar on Users sections in the firearms articles. In some cases, I have tagged them as needing citations while in others I have removed them if they lack a reference. It seems that these sections in particular are subject to creep without verifications. I believe adding an html comment along the lines of "This section is for cited entries only. Please do not add entries into this list without a citation from a reliable source. All entries without a citation will be removed." may be useful. What do you think? I haven't found anything in particular on this section at either WP:GUN or WP:MILGUN regarding guidelines.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally in agreement concerning the Users sections. It is a very necessary section, but they really need good sources. Otherwise it is just a dumping ground of alleged users. I like your idea regarding the comment. It might be a good idea to post something over at WP:GUN concerning the issue. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will do that and see what others may have to say...Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I noticed someone's looking for Citations for The USA being a user of the 1919, is this strictly necessary? as this article essentially acts as proof that it was in service with the US army. (60.50.253.104 (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

"Stinger"[edit]

I'm not sure why this weapon is mentioned in the "Civilian Use" section. Corporal Tony Stein wasn't a civilian, he was a Marine. It seems that he was a machinist prior to the war, and that he actually invented this unofficial variant, using machine guns he and other Marines stripped out of wrecked aircraft (which is why the field modified weapons are said to have had such a murderous rate of fire - unlike the M1919A6 it may have inspired, aircraft machine guns did not have rate limiters). . I'll dig for suitable sources on that, unless someone beats me to it (which is more than fine by me). If no-one objects, I'd like to move the Stinger from this section to the "variants and derivatives" section, though the parent weapon of the "Stinger" was an ANM2 aircraft machine gun rather than a 1919. I can't imagine this thing was much fun to fire though...Atypicaloracle (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There's an image of Stein's "Stinger" at http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_v6Vx4TUIw6Y/SPSKnsw5_9I/AAAAAAAAAw4/7hmYV4ClgPI/s1600-h/tony+steins+stinger.jpg which is probably an official USMC photo. If an "official" site's version can be found to keep the Wikilawyers happy, it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.176.177 (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Stein did not invent it, come up with the idea, and I'm pretty sure he didn't build any. And I think the M1919A6 came before the Stinger. Only six originals were built and they were created from BAR, Garand, and American aircraft M1919 parts.Blamazon (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who came up with the idea was from a different unit. After he transferred, his new unit liked the idea and developed some of the guns. The guns were distributed very sparsely throughout the unit and Tony Stein was one of the people given one.Blamazon (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"phased out after 1943"?[edit]

I'd like a rewording of the section that states that the .30cal was phased out after 1943. The twin-mount .30 was standard armament in the SB2C Helldiver and SBD-5 Dauntless until the end of the war. The SB2C even had its original single .50cal exchanged for a twin .30cal before it went into production, and it was used like this until the end of the war. The SBD used the .30cal until the end as well, even though it was mostly in second-line duties. And if I recall correctly, the nose gun on the PBY was a .30 throughout the war, but I may be wrong. .45Colt 23:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

Argentine variant?[edit]

Dear wikipedians, I have the strong suspicion that the argentine FM M2-20 7.62mm MG used in the FMA IA 58 Pucara is a variant of the M1919 (M2) manufactured locally; not sure if with any differences compared to the Browning. However, after a couple hours browsing the Web, I was unable to locate a single verifiable reference to support my suspicion... Can anyone please help? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More like it would be a variant of the AN/M2 Browning, either locally-manufactured or modified, as the AN/M2 was lighter and had a higher rate of fire, and was designed for use in aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.104.208 (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Propellar Synchronization?[edit]

This claim: 

"It was essentially the 1930 Pattern belt-fed Colt–Browning machine gun with a few minor modifications for British use, such as firing from an open bolt, hence prohibiting their use for gun synchronization through a spinning propeller."

contradicts the installation on the Gloster gladiator, with two fuselage mounted .303 brownings synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.101.39 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M1919 Browning machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M2 is most certainly NOT a "conversion" of the M1917[edit]

Can someone remove this drivel?

"A similar conversion of the M1917 also produced the larger M2 Machine Gun, using the same basic operating principles and layout but firing the much more powerful .50 caliber (12.7mm) ammunition. The M1919 is distinguished by its smaller size and the use of a pierced cheese-grater-like guard around the barrel used on most versions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.104.142 (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GladlyBlamazon (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just saw something that says that there is more truth to this. Colt took his M1917 to make the .50 MG52-A water-cooled HMG. This was developed into the M2 browning. So it is no that the M2 is a conversion of the M1917, but that the M2 was developed from a .50 water-cooled HMG that was basically a scaled-up version of the M1917. I will add this when I can find all my sources.Blamazon (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M1919 Browning machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asked about dubious information concerning cartridge cook-off.[edit]

The 4th paragraph of the Loading section says, "If the gun was very hot from prolonged firing, the cartridge ready to be fired could be resting in a red-hot barrel, causing the propellant in the cartridge to heat up to the point that it would ignite and fire the cartridge on its own (a cook-off). With each further shot heating the barrel even more, the gun would continue to fire uncontrollably until the ammunition ran out, since depressing the trigger was not what was causing the gun to fire." The Wikipedia article on Cook-off says, "Nitrocellulose, the primary component of modern smokeless powder, has a relatively low autoignition temperature of around 160–170 °C (320–338 °F).[1] Contrary to popular myth, this will not cause the machine gun to "runaway" at cyclic rate of fire (as compared to a slamfire) because each chambered round has to first be brought up to temperature." and the Wikipedia article on Red-short carbon steel says, "Iron or steel, when heated to above 900 °F (460 °C), glows with a red color."

Should the reference to uncontrollable firing be changed in view of the Cook-off article?

Should the reference to a red-hot barrel be changed in view of the Red-short article? (i.e., no barrel is ever going to reach 900°F without a torch being involved.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.59.31.12 (talk)

No. Barrels can glow red hot from firing. Metal cartridges are very conductive, and will quickly transmit enough heat for the propellant to ignite, causing a runaway cook-off. If the barrel was only just at the ignition temperature, you may still get a single round cook-off, but it may take some time to happen. (Hohum @) 13:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that, it still sounds "dubious". The laws of thermodynamics don't allow instant heat transfer, especially not through metal. And if the m1919 is designed the way I think it is, it should be impossible for a cook-off to chamber another round without seriously damaging the gun to the point where it does not work. Open bolt guns might have this problem, but only if they have a fixed firing pin and a lot of ammo. Also, conductive does not mean heat-conductive. Anyone who has worked with metal knows that it is hard to get steel or brass to heat up immediately without electricity. And by the time the powder is hot enough to ignite and cycle the gun, the barrel will have cooled down a little. Eventually it stops firing from cooling off.Blamazon (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That chambering a round in a hot barrel can result in the gun firing is in the Field Manual for the M1919A4 (FM23-45, under section IX). Doesn't say "red-hot". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M1919_Browning_machine_gun&oldid=1208650069"