_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
The M37 machine gun
long_tom
Visit this Community
Illinois, United States
Joined: March 18, 2006
KitMaker: 2,362 posts
Armorama: 2,005 posts
Posted: Friday, August 22, 2008 - 06:53 PM UTC
Having perused the website http://www.browningmgs.com, I read about the M37 machine gun and became curious. Has anyone used both it and the M60, and was the latter an inferior gun? Also, are there models of the M37?
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Friday, August 22, 2008 - 07:23 PM UTC
The Browning .30 cal MGs that sprang from the M1919 design were replaced by the M60 for a few reasons. The main ones were weight, ease of set-up, rate of fire, and ability to easily change barrels. The weight difference was quite a bit. The M37 had to have a heavy tripod to set it up to fire as well, as opposed to the M60s integral bi-pod. The M60 had a faster rate of fire and a quick change barrel. It was also easier to tear-down and maintain. Progress, new weapons come out and replace older designs.

For models, externally the M37 looks the same as an M1919, so yes, there are lots of options in kit form.
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Friday, August 22, 2008 - 08:50 PM UTC

Quoted Text

No Gino, it wouldn't be mounted on a tripod. As the page explains, it was used on tanks as a co-ax, and mounted on helos as a fixed weapon.


I got it Gary. I was refering to the whole M1919 series .30 cals and why they were replaced by the M60 mg. Thats why I said..."The Browning .30 cal MGs that sprang from the M1919..."

For a coax, the M37 was replaced by the M240 7.62mm coax on the M1 series of tanks.

Additionally, the M240 eventually replaced the M60 in helicopter, vehicle mount, and ground use as well.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 01:54 AM UTC

Quoted Text



For a coax, the M37 was replaced by the M240 7.62mm coax on the M1 series of tanks.



Never used the M37, but I do know the M219 coax was used long before the M240 was adopted as the coaxial machine gun for the M60/M1 series.
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 02:29 AM UTC
From my research, the M73/M219 is an upgraded M37, with a chain/bar charging mechanism and no rear grip as the M37 had. Other than that, its basically the same gun.

M37 Coax MG


M73A1/M219 Coax MG
TankSGT
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 02:43 AM UTC
The M73/219 was a piece of junk. I crewed M551s and M48A5s with that as a co-ax and it rarely ever fired reliably. The receiver was shorter then an M1919, probably in an attempt to take up less room. I would have to look up a 1919 internal diagram, but the M73 had parallel operating rods and springs and if the tension was even slightly off would jam. It was a single shot co-ax. It was also used in the Aussi M113 turrets and on the Commando Armored car. I Never saw a ground mount for it. Hope this helps.


Tom
TankSGT
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 02:54 AM UTC

Quoted Text

From my research, the M73/M219 is an upgraded M37, with a chain/bar charging mechanism and no rear grip as the M37 had. Other than that, its basically the same gun.

M37 Coax MG


M73A1/M219 Coax MG


Gino it was not the same gun, after looking at the link I can see that the M73 receiver was several inches shorter then the M37. It also used a chain charging handle. the feed tray was held on by sliding pins on each side not hinged it opened left to right or right to left. I know it well for all the curses flung at it during TT VIII. It was always "stoppage stoppage, gunner cease fire from my position." and blaze away with the M60D.

Tom
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 06:08 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The Browning .30 cal MGs that sprang from the M1919 design were replaced by the M60 for a few reasons. The main ones were weight, ease of set-up, rate of fire, and ability to easily change barrels. The weight difference was quite a bit. The M37 had to have a heavy tripod to set it up to fire as well, as opposed to the M60s integral bi-pod. The M60 had a faster rate of fire and a quick change barrel. It was also easier to tear-down and maintain. Progress, new weapons come out and replace older designs.

For models, externally the M37 looks the same as an M1919, so yes, there are lots of options in kit form.


I personally never liked any machinegun Browning designed! But also wasn't in love with an M60 either (it had some serious faults). The G3 or whatever it's called (an MG42 clone) was a better gun in everyway. But getting back to the old M1919; Special Forces base camps used them all the time in semi permenant setups. They claimed they were more accurate and maybe had a little more range.
gary
long_tom
Visit this Community
Illinois, United States
Joined: March 18, 2006
KitMaker: 2,362 posts
Armorama: 2,005 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 09:15 AM UTC
So presumably whoever wrote the quote below the armory picture was blinded by love of the .30 cal Browning:

http://www.browningmgs.com/M37.htm
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 12:28 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The M73/219 was a piece of junk. I crewed M551s and M48A5s with that as a co-ax and it rarely ever fired reliably. The receiver was shorter then an M1919, probably in an attempt to take up less room. I would have to look up a 1919 internal diagram, but the M73 had parallel operating rods and springs and if the tension was even slightly off would jam. It was a single shot co-ax. It was also used in the Aussi M113 turrets and on the Commando Armored car. I Never saw a ground mount for it. Hope this helps.


Tom
I remember having to have that little cartridge ejector tool handy whenever we fired the M219. Rounds jammed often and you had to grab the end of the jammed round with the tool and yank it out, then reload and recharge the weapon. What a pain that thing was.

Didn't run across the M240 coax until AOBC on M1IPs and my first unit in Germany on M60A3TTS.

Never heard of it called the M37 or M73, just the M219. It's been a while (today is the 25th anniversary of my enlistment), around 21+ years since I last did a gunnery with a 219.
TankSGT
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 01:49 PM UTC
www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M73.html

This link has a good diagram of the M73 its easy to see the differences between the 73 and 37.

Tom
TankSGT
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 02:00 PM UTC
Something I just noticed the M37 web site says its a 30 cal weapon, thats 30-06. The M73-M219 was a 7.62X51 weapon they would not be able to fire the same ammunition. I know some M1919s were rechambered for 7.62X51 like on Centurion MK Vs.

Tom
 _GOTOTOP