This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
Structure: criterion met
Grammar and style: criterion met
Supporting materials: criterion met
So why didnt this weapon stay in production after WW2?, Being slightly lighter and having a higher ROF, This would probably beat the M2 series
It could have been rebarelled to .50 Caliber
why rough equivalent? it also shot more rounds per minute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The weapon was expressly designed for aircraft use. Accordingly, it fitted a much smaller nieche than the Browning. Talking about it as the Browning's rival is conjecture. Ondundozonananandana (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The aircraft mounted units used electrical priming for higher firing rates, ground ones were modified for standard percussion action with a reduced ROF. The M2 and MG131 basically fulfilled similar niches. Aldis90 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)